# How Kashmir was stolen from Pakistan by Mountbatten



## Pakistanisage

I would like to open this thread to discuss the circumstances how one single incident took Kashmir away from Pakistan because of Mountbatten's Manipulation. As Punjab was being divided up by the Radcliffe Commission, Gurdaspur District which was Muslim Majority District was awarded to Pakistan by Radcliffe commission, initially. Mountbatten kept the Radcliffe partition plan of Punjab secret till two days after Partition ( August 17th, 1947) and changed the status of Gurdaspur District as an area which was awarded to Pakistan to instead being awarded to India. This had a huge implication as two out of the three roads leading to Kashmir went through Gurdaspur district. These two roads were the shortest route to Kashmir. The third road went through leh and was the longest way to Kashmir. 

Had Gurdaspur District been rightfully awarded to Pakistan being a Muslim majority district ( as decided by Radcliffe ), India could never have taken over Kashmir. I want Pakistanis to be aware of this historical manipulation that ended in a loss of Kashmir to Pakistan and we owe it all to the dastardly act of Lord Mountbatten.

Lord Mountbatten had requested both Jinnah and Nehru to let him remain the Governor-General of both India and Pakistan after the Partition. Nehru agreed to Mountbatten's request but Mr. Jinnah declined. Mountbatten never forgot that insult and paid back Pakistan by being biased in the partition matters. 

Please research and give your opinions, respectfully.

Reactions: Like Like:
22


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Kashmir was not stolen from Pakistan, Infact Raja Harisingh was thinking to join Pakistan. but Pakistan Army showed impateince and attacked it. Harisingh did what any king will do for saving his kingdom he approached to Indian government & signed papers of accession in return of security assurance. No body stoled Kashmir its Pakistan's lust & impateince which cost them the loss.

About Gurdaaspur given to India & Why was Mountbatten not made governor of Pakistan you can check following link and find some answers yourself.

https://sites.google.com/site/cabin...en-and-jinnah-negotiations-on-pakistan-april-

Reactions: Like Like:
21


----------



## MUHARIB

Lol seriously?? You really dont know what this is going to lead to?? Or u in troll mode considering the tittle and all?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## KRAIT

MUHARIB said:


> Lol seriously?? You really dont know what this is going to lead to?? Or u in troll mode considering the tittle and all?


Totally agree with you. Instead of healthy discussion it might turn out to be mud slinging contest, a troll attractor.


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Mountbatten ki kya galti ? who asked you to send in your lashkars to grab kashmir by force ? thoda patience dikhaya hota to Raja Hari singh may have joined you only . Pakistan lost Kashmir due to complete lack of soft skills which they haven't learnt even after 65 years of indipendence .

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Khan_patriot

kumarkumar1867 said:


> Kashmir was not stolen from Pakistan, Infact Raja Harisingh was thinking to join Pakistan. but Pakistan Army showed impateince and attacked it. Harisingh did what any king will do for saving his kingdom he approached to Indian government & signed papers of accession in return of security assurance. No body stoled Kashmir its Pakistan's lust & impateince which cost them the loss.
> 
> About Gurdaaspur given to India & Why was Mountbatten not made governor of Pakistan you can check following link and find some answers yourself.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/cabin...en-and-jinnah-negotiations-on-pakistan-april-



in the papers Harisingh signed where the hell did he give the IA to rape, plunder and loot his people in the way the IA is doing right now and has been doing since the dawn of partition, what concerns Pakistanis is not that you took Kashmir but that after taking it looted and plundered the innocent and unarmed civilians as if trying to get the last laugh on the matter, the day you stop this devil fest is the day the ''Kashmir dispute'' end and until then the resistance will continue, the hatred will continue and the resentment will only multiply and till then i say ''Vive la resistance'' Allah ho Akbar

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JanjaWeed

''monkey trap'' still works like a charm!!

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Btw , Pakistan does have 33 % of Kashmir already . you didn't lose everything . But if you are talking about the real kashmir i.e the Kashmir Valley , then yeah you lost that .


----------



## INDIC

Wasn't Gurudaspur given to India for Lahore.


----------



## Supply&Demand

Whenever i read such threads, it reminds me of this song,....


'Tuhje mirchi lagi to main kya karoon'

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## neutral_person

Well going by your logic, Lahore and Karachi were non-Muslim majority cities, so they should have gone to India. Lahore had many Sikhs and also a sizeable number of Hindus, and Karachi was filled with Hindu Sindhi businessmen. You are providing only the half truths of the Radcliffe commision. India lost more in the Radcliffe commision than Pakistan.
*
You guys only got Lahore because otherwise you would not have had a major city in Pakistan. Karachi, your other major city, has been built by the Indian Mohajirs who migrated there post 1947.*



> I nearly gave you Lahore." Lord Cyril Radcliffe, Chairman of the Boundary Commission, told me. "But then I realised that Pakistan would not have any large city. I had already earmarked Calcutta for India."
> 
> Lahore had Hindus and Sikhs in a majority and way up in assets, he said. Yet he had no option because of paucity of big towns in Pakistan. The conversation took place at Radcliffes flat in London towards the later half of 1971. I had gone there to meet Lord Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General. I wanted to know how the boundary lines of India and Pakistan were drawn. Although the Boundary Commission had four more memberstwo from India, Mehar Chand Mahajan and Teja Singh, and two from Pakistan, Din Mohammed and Mohammed Munirthey were all serving judges.



Source: The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

Kashmir is the only state in India who have a large majority of muslims ( also lakshwadeep isles )
It should belong to pakistan just because of that
Kashmir valley belongs to a muslim country, hindus killed so many Kashmiris

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DRaisinHerald

I wish Pakistani members had an option to prevent people flying certain flags from commenting on their threads..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Supply&Demand

Gigawatt said:


> Wasn't Gurudaspur given to India for Lahore.



U might have some small kids who want the share given to their siblings even if they have their share too..that is exactly how Pakistan behave..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

Pakistanisage said:


> Lord Mountbatten had requested both Jinnah and Nehru to let him remain the Governor General of both India and Pakistan after the Partition. Nehru agreed to Mountbatten's request but Mr. Jinnah declined. Mountbatten never forgot that insult and paid back Pakistan by being biased in the partition matters.
> 
> .



So Pakistani leaders were bad negotiators from day 1 it seems...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Supply&Demand

DRaisinHerald said:


> I wish Pakistani members had an option to prevent people flying certain flags from commenting on their threads.



u talk about/accuse Indians..then Indians do have the right defend themselves..that is basic democratic right anywhere..

may be democracy is a new concept to most Pakistanis,,,so it may be tough for u,..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

kumarkumar1867 said:


> Kashmir was not stolen from Pakistan, Infact Raja Harisingh was thinking to join Pakistan. but Pakistan Army showed impateince and attacked it. Harisingh did what any king will do for saving his kingdom he approached to Indian government & signed papers of accession in return of security assurance. No body stoled Kashmir its Pakistan's lust & impateince which cost them the loss.
> 
> About Gurdaaspur given to India & Why was Mountbatten not made governor of Pakistan you can check following link and find some answers yourself.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/cabin...en-and-jinnah-negotiations-on-pakistan-april-



Exactly what i have said multiple times here.. 2 biggest mess ups on Kashmir by Pakistan.. 1st by Jinnah in 1948 and 2nd by Musharraf in 1999


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Kashmir is the only state in India who have a large majority of muslims ( also lakshwadeep isles )
> It should belong to pakistan just because of that
> Kashmir valley belongs to a muslim country, hindus killed so many Kashmiris



They don't wish to join you guys . They want indipendence . check out the latest opinion polls

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## R-DB

Kashmir was never been pakistani territory.Pakis attacked it just to secure their water life line.
Its the jackass indian leaders who couldnt get their territory back ..
Bring modi.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## INDIC

neutral_person said:


> Well going by your logic, Lahore and Karachi were non-Muslim majority cities, so they should have gone to India. Lahore had many Sikhs and also a sizeable number of Hindus, and Karachi was filled with Hindu Sindhi businessmen. You are providing only the half truths of the Radcliffe commision. India lost more in the Radcliffe commision than Pakistan.
> *
> You guys only got Lahore because otherwise you would not have had a major city in Pakistan. Karachi, your other major city, has been built by the Indian Mohajirs who migrated there post 1947.*
> 
> 
> 
> Source: The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum



Four districts of Sindh- Karachi, Tharparkar, Mirpur Khas and Umarkot were Hindu majority cities but was never given to India.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## karan.1970

DRaisinHerald said:


> I wish Pakistani members had an option to prevent people flying certain flags from commenting on their threads..



They dont.. Just like they dont have Kashmir

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Khan_patriot said:


> in the papers Harisingh signed where the hell did he give the IA to rape, plunder and loot his people in the way the IA is doing right now and has been doing since the dawn of partition, what concerns Pakistanis is not that you took Kashmir but that after taking it looted and plundered the innocent and unarmed civilians as if trying to get the last laugh on the matter, the day you stop this devil fest is the day the ''Kashmir dispute'' end and until then the resistance will continue, the hatred will continue and the resentment will only multiply and till then i say ''Vive la resistance'' Allah ho Akbar


 
Neither did it meant Pakistan will support paid militants & killing of Indian minorities in kashmir. Its not hidden that Pakistan brainwashed kashmiri youth ,trained them armed them. 70000 indians have been killed due to pakistan's terrorism plots in kashmir. millions of hindus have been homeless. Kashmir was just a territory before pakistan made it blood shaded symbol of patriotism now no chance they will get it back because every indian is attached to kashmir like nothing else. Pakistan due to its dirty policies lost Kashmir again now there is no peaceful solution possible. Kill us or Die if you a inch of kashmir we have. If you have balls try it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

nick_indian said:


> They don't wish to join you guys . They want indipendence . check out the latest opinion polls


So why don't you let them have a referendum ? 
Kashmiris don't want your india !! Let's do a referendum
But you fear....



R-DB said:


> Kashmir was never been pakistani territory.Pakis attacked it just to secure their water life line.
> Its the jackass indian leaders who couldnt get their territory back ..
> Bring modi.


Why do you say " bring modi " ?
Do you want a war with pakistan ?


----------



## NeutralCitizen

Pakistan would have been better under British rule, I would also incur that pakistani kashmir remove all troops and be replaced with british troops.


----------



## Pakistanisage

MUHARIB said:


> Lol seriously?? You really dont know what this is going to lead to?? Or u in troll mode considering the tittle and all?




My goal is to make everyone aware of the circumstances regarding the status of Gurdaspur District and how it impacted the Kashmir Status later on.


----------



## neutral_person

Panjabi Tiger said:


> *So why don't you let them have a referendum ?
> Kashmiris don't want your india !! Let's do a referendum
> But you fear....
> *
> 
> Why do you say " bring modi " ?
> Do you want a war with pakistan ?



The ones who dont want to be in India are the Pakistani Talibani scum you have trained and sent here. You can keep sending as many terrorists as you want, we will kill them all, but India will never be partitioned off again ever.


----------



## Pakistanisage

KRAIT said:


> Totally agree with you. Instead of healthy discussion it might turn out to be mud slinging contest, a troll attractor.






I am hoping to have a respectful and respectable discussion as Academics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

I find it extremely disturbing that India got no part of sindh . The 4 million sindhis of India lost their native state . Each state that was partitioned - Punjab , Bengal , Jammu & Kashmir has been divided between both Pakistan and india but India got no part of Sindh . India should have got atleast a small part of Sindh .

Reactions: Like Like:

2


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Panjabi Tiger said:


> So why don't you let them have a referendum ?
> Kashmiris don't want your india !! Let's do a referendum
> But you fear....



First remove all your army troops from AK, GB & Pakistan Occupied parts of Kashmir....Let all kashmiri go back to their homes... then referendum thing can be thought of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## neutral_person

Pakistanisage said:


> My goal is to make everyone aware of the circumstances regarding the status of Gurdaspur District and how it impacted the Kashmir Status later on.



If that is your intention, dont you think you should also open informative threads on how Lahore and Karachi were stolen from India by the Radcliffe commission despite being Hindu/Sikh majority areas?

You guys lost Kashmir because you tried invading it, which forced the Maharaja to join India to repel the invasion. Ideally Kashmir always wanted to stay independent nation, the Maharaja had made that clear when asked by the commission in 1946.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

nick_indian said:


> I find it extremely disturbing that India got no part of sindh . The 4 million sindhis of India lost their native state . Each state that was partitioned - Punjab , Bengal , Jammu & Kashmir has been divided between both Pakistan and india but India got no part of Sindh . India should have got atleast a small part of Sindh .


In your dreams lol


----------



## Pakistanisage

nick_indian said:


> Mountbatten ki kya galti ? who asked you to send in your lashkars to grab kashmir by force ? thoda patience dikhaya hota to Raja Hari singh may have joined you only . Pakistan lost Kashmir due to complete lack of soft skills which they haven't learnt even after 65 years of indipendence .





Sir, the manipulations of Mountbatten preceeded the Lashkar attack by at least a year. Infact, had Mountbatten not manipulated the partition results against the unbiased logic and decision of Radcliffe, the Raja of Kashmir would not have gone to India as it would have made it difficult for India to attack. The attack came about because of the Injustice of the situation in 1948, more than a year later than the manipulations of Mountbatten.



neutral_person said:


> Well going by your logic, Lahore and Karachi were non-Muslim majority cities, so they should have gone to India. Lahore had many Sikhs and also a sizeable number of Hindus, and Karachi was filled with Hindu Sindhi businessmen. You are providing only the half truths of the Radcliffe commision. India lost more in the Radcliffe commision than Pakistan.
> *
> You guys only got Lahore because otherwise you would not have had a major city in Pakistan. Karachi, your other major city, has been built by the Indian Mohajirs who migrated there post 1947.*
> 
> 
> 
> Source: The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum





Pakistan got Lahore because this city was predominantly Muslim. Please check your facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zip

It is frightening to think what would have been the condition of kafirs ie pandits,buddists in islamic republic of pakistan if you got all the land .. In india kashmiris are less than 10% of our muslim population .. If more than 90% can live happily then kashmiri muslims should have no probs


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Panjabi Tiger said:


> In your dreams lol


 
Yes just like dreams you have about kashmir. Only difference is we accept having sindh is impossible while you can understand that same goes with possibility of your dream


----------



## Pakistanisage

karan.1970 said:


> So Pakistani leaders were bad negotiators from day 1 it seems...






Let us just say, Pakistani leaders were Gentlemen and not as devious and immoral as the Indian ones.

Everybody knows about the affair Nehru was having with Mrs. Mountbatten ( a married woman).


----------



## INDIC

Pakistanisage said:


> Pakistan got Lahore because this city was predominantly Muslim. Please check your facts.



Lahore was half Muslim-half Hindu-Sikh city and majority of the business in the city was owned by Hindus and Sikhs.


----------



## neutral_person

Pakistanisage said:


> Sir, the manipulations of Mountbatten preceeded the Lashkar attack by at least a year. Infact, had Mountbatten not manipulated the partition results against the unbiased logic and decision of Radcliffe, the Raja of Kashmir would not have gone to India as it would have made it difficult for India to attack. The attack came about because of the Injustice of the situation in 1948, more than a year later than the manipulations of Mountbatten.
> 
> Pakistan got Lahore because this city was predominantly Muslim. *Please check your facts*.



Source? You guys really didnt know that Lahore and Karachi were Hindu/Sikh majority?

I just provided you a source of the Radcliffe commission that says that these cities were given because otherwise you would not have had a major city. The Radcliffe commission was responsible for doing national surveys and finding out which places had what religions, and they made the boundaries accordingly.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lightoftruth

wrong title it was never with Pakistan ,how can it be stolen?


----------



## Pakistanisage

nick_indian said:


> They don't wish to join you guys . They want indipendence . check out the latest opinion polls




Maybe there is a small minority of kashmiris who may be ambivalent about joining Pakistan or may want to become an Independent country, but most want to be with Pakistan. However there is no ambivalence about leaving India amongst Kashmiris. Every Kashmiri who introduces himself/herself says they are from Kashmir. They NEVER introduce themselves as Indians. That should tell you something.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NeutralCitizen

Pakistani Kashmir has actually been worse off now suffering from energy and water problems the best option for pakistan is lease or sell off kashmir to china this is the only option unless they want it to go to India.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## zip

What wonders you would have done to improve lives of kashmiri people if you had all of kashmir ? 
We only saw those mushrooming terrorist camps in your part of kashmir ..or is it only for the land called kashmir ?


----------



## neutral_person

Pakistanisage said:


> The kashmiris are ambivalent about joining Paksitan or becoming an Independent country. However there is no ambivalence about leaving India amongst Kashmiris. Every Kashmiri who introduces himself/herself says they are from Kashmir. They NEVER introduce themselves as Indians. That should tell you something.



You are never getting Kashmir. If you really want it, come get it. We are not giving it up until all 1.2 billion of us Indians are dead. This thread is pretty useless if its the usual thread of Pakistanis crying and whining about Kashmir.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pakistanisage

R-DB said:


> Kashmir was never been pakistani territory.Pakis attacked it just to secure their water life line.
> Its the jackass indian leaders who couldnt get their territory back ..
> Bring modi.




Be careful what you ask for because you might get it....

Modi might make you lose few more states of India..


----------



## NeutralCitizen

zip said:


> What wonders you would have done to improve lives of kashmiri people if you had all of kashmir ?
> We only pay those mushrooming terrorist camps in your part of kashmir ..or is it only for the land called kashmir ?



Kashmir is actually worse off now in pakistani control they suffer from water and energy problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## R-DB

Pakistanisage said:


> Be careful what you ask for because you might get it....
> 
> Modi might make you lose few more states of India..



i guarantee you for this..do u want written agreement? lol


----------



## neutral_person

Pakistanisage said:


> The kashmiris are ambivalent about joining Paksitan or becoming an Independent country. However there is no ambivalence about leaving India amongst Kashmiris. Every Kashmiri who introduces himself/herself says they are from Kashmir. They NEVER introduce themselves as Indians. That should tell you something.



Funny you say that when 69% of Kashmiris voted last election, and most of them selected Omar Abdullah as their CM. Omar Abdullah is very pro-India. Please get your half facts out of here. The only ones who want to separate are the Pakistani Punjabi Taliban scum, who we will kill and eliminate if they dare to break India, Inshallah.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistanisage

Gigawatt said:


> Four districts of Sindh- Karachi, Tharparkar, Mirpur Khas and Umarkot were Hindu majority cities but was never given to India.




Because Sindh was a Muslim Majority State/Province. Punjab was also a Muslim majority State, so it should have come to Pakistan as a whole. The whole division of Punjab and Bengal was unjust as they were both MUSLIM MAJORITY STATES.


----------



## neutral_person

Pakistanisage said:


> Because Sindh was a Muslim Majority State/Province. Punjab was also a Muslim majority State, so it should have come to Pakistan as a whole. The whole division of Punjab and Bengal was unjust as they were both MUSLIM MAJORITY STATES.



Yeah we saw what you did with Muslim Bengalees in 1971. Please take your garbage elsewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BATMAN

neutral_person said:


> Funny you say that when 69% of Kashmiris voted last election, and most of them selected Omar Abdullah as their CM. Omar Abdullah is very pro-India. Please get your half facts out of here. The only ones who want to separate are the Pakistani Punjabi Taliban scum, who we will kill and eliminate if they dare to break India, Inshallah.



It is col. Prohit type scums... who are the sponsors of all terrorism and indian army supply explosives.



neutral_person said:


> Yeah we saw what you did with Muslim Bengalees in 1971. Please take your garbage elsewhere.



It was again Indian army doing all those things and arming the terrorists.


----------



## Armstrong

Pakistanisage said:


> The kashmiris are ambivalent about joining Paksitan or becoming an Independent country. However there is no ambivalence about leaving India amongst Kashmiris. Every Kashmiri who introduces himself/herself says they are from Kashmir. They NEVER introduce themselves as Indians. That should tell you something.



Hello ! I'm an ethnic Kashmiri myself...no way do we want 'Independence' either...! Maybe some guys on the Indian side of Kashmir but here in Pakistan - Proud to be a Pakistani, sir jee ! 

There are a dozen different reasons why we shouldn't be with Pakistan but we followed Jinnah to get 'Our Pakistan', we gave so many sacrifices to have a homeland of our and by God we're not going to give up on it...just yet ! 

P.S Don't pull any surveys, guys ! Around 4 families on my Dad's side were cut down in Jammu and near Srinagar...so nah, we're pretty set calling ourselves Pakistanis ! And so are those of my family who remained on the Indian side...about 3 families left.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NeutralCitizen

Pakistan will never get all of kashmir ever again unless india decides it will which is unlikely, and pakistani kashmir is bad with energy and water problems your best chance is to lease kashmir to china for 10-25 years and you don't have to worry about india taking I'm seen how much development the chinese put into tibet. pak will never get all of kashmir


----------



## BATMAN

Apparently, Indians are clue less and are getting personal.


----------



## karan.1970

Pakistanisage said:


> Let us just say, Pakistani leaders were Gentlemen and not as devious and immoral as the Indian ones.
> 
> Everybody knows about the affair Nehru was having with Mrs. Mountbatten ( a married woman).



Do you really want me to go into the vices of Jinnah ?? I guess not.. So shoo...


----------



## neutral_person

BATMAN said:


> It is col. Prohit type scums... who are the sponsors of all terrorism and indian army supply explosives.



Bottom line is you aint getting an inch of Kashmir. You guys train and send terrorists, and when we kill them you start crying human rights. Its a cowardly ****** game played by the Pakistani Govt and Army, but we are not going to fall for it. Train and send as many terrorists as you want, we will kill them all and not a single inch of Kashmir will be yours. You can keep crying for the human rights of these terrorists, but we wont spare them.


----------



## Pakistanisage

neutral_person said:


> If that is your intention, dont you think you should also open informative threads on how Lahore and Karachi were stolen from India by the Radcliffe commission despite being Hindu/Sikh majority areas?
> 
> You guys lost Kashmir because you tried invading it, which forced the Maharaja to join India to repel the invasion. Ideally Kashmir always wanted to stay independent nation, the Maharaja had made that clear when asked by the commission in 1946.





The rule was that those States with Muslim Majority had to go to Pakistan. All the States of West Pakistan had Muslim majority including Punjab, so according to the guiding principle there should not have been any division of Punjab. Similarly Bengal was a Muslim majority area and there was no Justification of division of Bengal. 

Both East Punjab and West Bengal were stolen by India in contravention to the guiding Priciple of Partition.


----------



## BATMAN

NeutralCitizen said:


> Pakistan will never get all of kashmir ever again unless india decides it will which is unlikely, and pakistani kashmir is bad with energy and water problems your best chance is to lease kashmir to china for 10-25 years and you don't have to worry about india taking I'm seen how much development the chinese put into tibet.



Not an acceptable excuse.

Now for your little education: Pakistan had surplus energy only 4 years ago and future plan of energy was laid out in 2002 power policy of Pakistan.
Apparently, Pakistan's present problems are because of Zardari & Rehmna Malik.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zip

When you people mentally raise above religious boundary you can see the situation without prejudice otherwise you only see your version


----------



## INDIC

karan.1970 said:


> Do you really want me to go into the vices of Jinnah ?? I guess not.. So shoo...



Stanley Wolpert.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lightoftruth

Pakistanisage said:


> Because Sindh was a Muslim Majority State/Province. Punjab was also a Muslim majority State, so it should have come to Pakistan as a whole. The whole division of Punjab and Bengal was unjust as they were both MUSLIM MAJORITY STATES.


 we don't believe in two nation theory. it was seen by rest of the world when Pakistani ppl didn't let a Bengali as pm.and was adamant in making Urdu, national language when majority was of Urdu and Bengali.
the theory was broken by Pakistani's and they still don't know that it doesn't exist.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistanisage

zip said:


> What wonders you would have done to improve lives of kashmiri people if you had all of kashmir ?
> We only saw those mushrooming terrorist camps in your part of kashmir ..or is it only for the land called kashmir ?





I think you are seriously confused. The terrorism started because of the injustices of Kashmir. Please don't put the Cart in front of the horse.


----------



## NeutralCitizen

BATMAN said:


> Not an acceptable excuse.
> 
> Now for your little education: Pakistan had surplus energy only 4 years ago and future plan of energy was laid out in 2002 power policy of Pakistan.
> Apparently, Pakistan's present problems are because of Zardari & Rehmna Malik.



There is no excuse pakistani kashmir is worse off thats why I've suggest it to be gifted to china, they will turn it into a jewel pakistani kashmir is worse off then indian kashmir .


----------



## INDIC

Pakistanisage said:


> Because Sindh was a Muslim Majority State/Province. Punjab was also a Muslim majority State, so it should have come to Pakistan as a whole. The whole division of Punjab and Bengal was unjust as they were both MUSLIM MAJORITY STATES.



So, you got Muslim majority districts from Assam province for your East Bengal province. Tharparkar, Umarkot and Mirpurkhas were all bordering Rajasthan it was to be the part of India.


----------



## BATMAN

neutral_person said:


> Bottom line is you aint getting an inch of Kashmir. You guys train and send terrorists, and when we kill them you start crying human rights. Its a cowardly ****** game played by the Pakistani Govt and Army, but we are not going to fall for it. Train and send as many terrorists as you want, we will kill them all and not a single inch of Kashmir will be yours. You can keep crying for the human rights of these terrorists, but we wont spare them.



No it is Indian army who want to kill Pakistanis and are doing it via their proxies...ie. BLA TTP
Stop lying. Both terrorist organizations are products of RAW and are killing ONLY Pakistani soldiers.





Unfortunately, motherfucker Iftikhar ch. released this terrorist..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armstrong

BATMAN said:


> Not an acceptable excuse.
> 
> Now for your little education: Pakistan had surplus energy only 4 years ago and future plan of energy was laid out in 2002 power policy of Pakistan.
> Apparently, Pakistan's present problems are because of Zardari & Rehmna Malik.



Yeah the funny thing is that our present condition when we're fighting an insurgency in Balochistan, militancy in KP and Zardari in Islamabad, gets extrapolated as reflective of our condition for the 65 years of our existence !  

If countries start falling apart because of power outages then India in the '90s, Bangladesh and Pakistan of the present and even China of the '60s and '70s would have long fragmented. Yes...we've got problems...big problems and yes it begets a lot of resentment from Us - the People, but that resentment is a far-cry from 'Lets create another country...eh ?' !

And besides....we didn't fight for a 'Pakistan' for economic reasons....we fought for it for reasons our friends still don't understand !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## neutral_person

Pakistanisage said:


> The rule was that those States with Muslim Majority had to go to Pakistan. All the States of West Pakistan had Muslim majority including Punjab, so according to the guiding principle there should not have been any division of Punjab. Similarly Bengal was a Miuslim majority area and there was no Justification of division of Bengal.
> 
> Both East Punjab and West Bengal were stolen by India in contravention to the guiding Priciple of Partition.




Firstly the rule was a dumb rule that Muslim league created to maximize how much land they can get, and Congress (more importantly the British Govt in charge) never accepted it. So yeah, it was what the Muslim League wanted so they could mazimize and take over Hindu/Sikh areas in Punjab and Bengal.

You are making a dumb argument now and even you shoudl know it. Hindus like me who have ancestors in present day Pakistan would never want to be a part of an Islamic nation where we are 2nd class citizens. We (Hindu/Sikh Punjabis) would have revolted and joined India later on anyways.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Pakistanisage said:


> Be careful what you ask for because you might get it....
> 
> Modi might make you lose few more states of India..


 
lol we never lost any state in 65 years ...You broked in two pieces in 1971 .We know modi will not get chance but if given chance I bet Modi will solve kashmir issue with in 2 year..and his solution will ensure pakistan breaking into pieces. Imagine if PA gets its hands off kashmir what will conditions in Pakistan??


----------



## Pakistanisage

zip said:


> It is frightening to think what would have been the condition of kafirs ie pandits,buddists in islamic republic of pakistan if you got all the land .. In india kashmiris are less than 10% of our muslim population .. *If more than 90% can live happily then kashmiri muslims should have no probs*




*Really ? The 90% Happy include the 3000+ Gujarati Muslims Massacred on Modi's orders.

So the 3000+ innocent Indian Muslims who were Slaughtered died HAPPY ?

Or the Muslims butchered during the Ayodhya Massacre were dying HAPPILY by the Hindu Fundamentalists.

Are'nt you even Embarrased making such Bogus and BS claims ?

Or are you so brainwashed that you have lost sight of right and wrong ?*


----------



## zip

Life is cruel .. We lost our people , our land but we are still moving on ..so move on rather than dreaming for land which was never yours and never will be ..


----------



## Armstrong

lightoftruth said:


> we don't believe in two nation theory. it was seen by rest of the world when Pakistani ppl didn't let a Bengali as pm.and was adamant in making Urdu, national language when majority was of Urdu and Bengali.
> the theory was broken by Pakistani's and they still don't know that it doesn't exist.



Oh laalay...there have been 4 Bengali PMs, 1 Bengali President and 2 Bengali Governor Generals in Pakistan's history ! And Urdu was chosen as our National Language simply because it was 1) a non-partisan language i.e it wasn't associated with any ethnicity and was a minority language (even now only 9% of Pakistanis speak it as their mother tongue). And 2) it was and remains our lingua-franca....everyone from the deserts of Balochistan to the peaks of Skardu can and could understand it in varying degrees. I blame Pakistani Leadership for a lot of wrongs done to the Bengalis but the Urdu-Bengali controversy is one whose blame lies at their feet not ours !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BATMAN

NeutralCitizen said:


> There is no excuse pakistani kashmir is worse off thats why I've suggest it to be gifted to china, they will turn it into a jewel pakistani kashmir is worse off then indian kashmir .



Problem is you Indian growup with flase history. You are beyond fix.

There are 500k Indian army soldiers posted in Kashmir and you call it better? 

Apparently Indian Kashmir is worst than Syria and is like this since last 60 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## neutral_person

Pakistanisage said:


> Really ?
> 
> So the 3000+ innocent Indian Muslims who were Slaughtered died HAPPY ?
> 
> Or the Muslims butchered during the Ayodhya Massacre were dying HAPPILY by the Hindu Fundamentalists.
> 
> Are'nt you even Embarrased making such Bogus and BS claims ?
> 
> Or are you so brainwashed that you have lost sight of right and wrong ?



Im sorry how many Muslim Bengalees did you guys kill again in 1971? was it 3 million or something if I am not mistaken? 

What about Balochistan, where you guys are killing and raping all the time, that they want to separate?

What about your treatment of Ahmadis? 

What about the targetted Shia killings? 

What abour the ethnic violence in Karachi between Mohajirs and Pathans?


Are you not embarrased at making such BS and bogus claims? Or are you brainwashed whats right and wrong?
Pakistan has killed so many more Muslims than India, that the less you talk the better. Look at yourself first.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pakistanisage

neutral_person said:


> Funny you say that when 69% of Kashmiris voted last election, and most of them selected Omar Abdullah as their CM. Omar Abdullah is very pro-India. Please get your half facts out of here. *The only ones who want to separate are the Pakistani Punjabi Taliban scum, who we will kill and eliminate *if they dare to break India, Inshallah.






The 200,000 Kashmiris you have butchered are not Punjabi Taliban , my friend. They are from Sirinagar valley and are Kashmiris. I think you need to come out of Denial, Son.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## NeutralCitizen

BATMAN said:


> Problem is you Indian growup with flase history. You are beyond fix.
> 
> There are 500k Indian army soldiers posted in Kashmir and you call it better?
> 
> Apparently Indian Kashmir is worst than Syria and is like this since last 60 years.



One I'm not indian what I've stated is proven fact and two syria is better with a baathist then having letting it turn into an islamist country that will fall into decay.


----------



## SamantK

Armstrong said:


> Yeah the funny thing is that our present condition when we're fighting an insurgency in Balochistan, militancy in KP and Zardari in Islamabad, gets extrapolated as reflective of our condition for the 65 years of our existence !
> 
> If countries start falling apart because of power outages then India in the '90s, Bangladesh and Pakistan of the present and even China of the '60s and '70s would have long fragmented. Yes...we've got problems...big problems and yes it begets a lot of resentment from Us - the People, but that resentment is a far-cry from 'Lets create another country...eh ?' !
> 
> And besides....we didn't fight for a 'Pakistan' for economic reasons....we fought for it for reasons our friends still don't understand !


 I agree to the first statement of yours but for your second argument that why you wanted Pakistan, you wanted it and got it. Crying now about Kashmir is immature even for your families who are present in Pakistan..


----------



## PakiRambo

BATMAN said:


> Problem is you Indian growup with flase history. You are beyond fix.
> 
> There are 500k Indian army soldiers posted in Kashmir and you call it better?
> 
> Apparently Indian Kashmir is worst than Syria and is like this since last 60 years.


Why are they throwing rocks at a guy with a* GUN*!


----------



## INDIC

neutral_person said:


> Im sorry how many Muslim Bengalees did you guys kill again in 1971? was it 3 million or something if I am not mistaken?
> 
> What about Balochistan, where you guys are killing and raping all the time, that they want to separate?
> 
> What about your treatment of Ahmadis?
> 
> What about the targetted Shia killings?
> 
> *What abour the ethnic violence in Karachi between Mohajirs and Pathans?*
> 
> 
> Are you not embarrased at making such BS and bogus claims? Or are you brainwashed whats right and wrong?
> Pakistan has killed so many more Muslims than India, that the less you talk the better. Look at yourself first.



1715 killed in ethnic clashes in 2011 and 740 killed in ethnic clashes in first 5 months in Karachi. Muhajirs hadn't still been assimilated properly in Pakistan and Biharis were duped to be ended as people without citizenship. And 250 Shias alone massacred in April month.


----------



## lem34

NeutralCitizen said:


> Pakistan will never get all of kashmir ever again unless india decides it will which is unlikely, and pakistani kashmir is bad with energy and water problems your best chance is to lease kashmir to china for 10-25 years and you don't have to worry about india taking I'm seen how much development the chinese put into tibet. pak will never get all of kashmir



No you are wrong. Indian economy is already going south compared to China. In coming years without routes to oil and gas through Pakistan Indian companies will not be able to compete with Chinese companies globally which will get these transport routes. China is developing an pumping money into its south west to bring prosperity and reduce terrorism etc in that region. China is also assisting in developing infra structure in NE of Pakistan. They are also about to take over the running of Gwador which they financed. This and the NE will be linked. So mate India needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs India. 

The rich Hindu Brahmin's that control the majority of assets and economy in India will do a deal with Pakistan because they like money rather a lot. 

That is the reason that Mushy deal on Kashmir has never been signed. Pakistan High command knows this and is holding out. 




China in one quiet but swift stroke has changed the geopolitical and geostrategic equations in this critical region which borders China, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan. The deployment of Chinese troops in this region even though for the ostensible purposes of infrastructural improvements of the Karakoram Corridor heralds a new phase of China flexing its muscles not only against India but more significantly against United States in the wider global context. 

Chinas Obtrusive Presence in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir: Implications for India and United States


London, Oct 10: After the launch of his new political party, All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), recently, Pakistans former president Pervez Musharraf has said that India and Pakistan were close to a solution on Kashmir some years ago. 
We were as close as drafting a final pact for a solution. Final drafts were exchanged through the back channel and Manmohan Singh agreed with my four-point formula, Musharraf told NDTV in an interview last night, when asked how close India and Pakistan came during his Presidency with regard to Kashmir solution.
Asked if his famous four-point formula for Kashmir was the only pragmatic template within which Kashmir can be resolved, Musharraf said: You said it and let me tell you very proudly, those parameters are mine. I thought of them, because I realised that when I was talking to everyone on Pakistan side, the Indian side, the dispute is the Kashmir dispute. What is the solution? Not one of them ever gave me a solution. So therefore, that set me thinking, and that is where I came into this issue of demilitarisation, maximum self governance, this over-watch and all that, and making the LoC irrelevant. Now you asked me how close we were, we were as close as drafting the final agreement.

India Pakistan were close to Kashmir solution Musharraf Lastupdate:- Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com



*So simply all Pakistan has to do is sit it out to get a deal that it is acceptable to it or Indians will continue not to fulfill their potential and ever feed their large population. You also have to remember that India also has unresolved border issues with other mainly China as well *

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JanjaWeed

BATMAN said:


> Problem is you Indian growup with flase history. You are beyond fix.
> 
> There are 500k Indian army soldiers posted in Kashmir and you call it better?
> 
> Apparently Indian Kashmir is worst than Syria and is like this since last 60 years.





Guess what... Kashmiris would rather live under ''Indian brutality'' than Pakistani hospitality. Don't believe me.?. just check this out... Hot from the oven..



> *Informal Homecoming: 5 More Ex-Militants Return via Nepal *
> 
> Srinagar, June 09: In the fresh exercise of informal homecoming, five former militants, who had crossed over to Pakistan for arms training, have returned toIndia along with their ten family members, sources disclosed on Saturday. These former militants came via Nepal early this week, sources added, and surrendered before the authorities.
> 
> Ashiq Hussain Khawaja of Zirhama, Kupwara has returned with his Pakistani wife Neela Begum and three sons. Showkat Ahmad Itoo of Qazigund too has wife Parveena and two sons with him. Abdul Majeed Lone of Bathipora Naidkhai has wife and three kids while Javed Rather of Pattan has come along with wife Nabla Begum and two toddlers. Muhammad Dilawar Beigh of Warpora Kupwara is the only single person among the fresh arrivals.
> 
> This significant return is being facilitated by authorities in Indias interior ministry under a Rehabilitation Policy that has been initiated by the Kashmirs chief minster Omar Abdullah. The government had sought applications from families of those who had got stuck in Pakistani camps. We have received 1100 applications. Over hundred boys have already returned, more are following, says a top Police official of the Kashmirs Counter Intelligence department. What has surprised authorities is the family liabilities the returning militants bring with them.
> 
> The Kashmir governments rehabilitation policy, which aims at bringing back the Kashmiri boys who had crossed over to Pakistan but chose not to fight, has not been official approved by Pakistani authorities. But the return is being allowed and Pakistani officials have not objected to the Nepal route for the return of those who have been staying put in Pakistan camps for over two decades. Police say at least four thousand Kashmiris are staying in Pakistans different cities. They, according to Police, have eschewed the path of violence and want to come back.
> 
> 
> Informal Homecoming: 5 More Ex-Militants Return via Nepal

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## neutral_person

Pakistanisage said:


> The *200,000 *Kashmiris you have butchered are not Punjabi Taliban , my friend. They are from Sirinagar valley and are Kashmiris. I think you need to come out of Denial, Son.



Your number might be slightly inflated  We will only kill how many you guys send. In my books, any anti-Indian terrorist can go die for all I care. And most of them are from Pakistan, your govt has openly admitted to funding and training the Kashmiri terrorists since 1989. It is a real eye openener, and we will kill every one of them.


----------



## SamantK

PakiRambo said:


> Why are they throwing rocks at a guy with a* GUN*!


 Yes and see that even with a gun he is only covering himself against the onslaught..


----------



## PakiRambo

zip said:


> Life is cruel .. We lost our people , our land but we are still moving on ..so move on rather than dreaming for land which was never yours and never will be ..


if your moving on, then leave Kashmir!  We will take care of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

Balochistan, FATA, Pakhtunkhwa aur Karachi sambhala nahi jaata, chalein hain Kashmir lene.


----------



## Pakistanisage

Armstrong said:


> Hello !* I'm an ethnic Kashmiri myself...no way do we want 'Independence' either...! Maybe some guys on the Indian side of Kashmir but here in Pakistan - Proud to be a Pakistani, sir jee *!
> 
> There are a dozen different reasons why we shouldn't be with Pakistan but we followed Jinnah to get 'Our Pakistan', we gave so many sacrifices to have a homeland of our and by God we're not going to give up on it...just yet !
> 
> P.S Don't pull any surveys, guys ! Around 4 families on my Dad's side were cut down in Jammu and near Srinagar...so nah, we're pretty set calling ourselves Pakistanis ! And so are those of my family who remained on the Indian side...about 3 families left.





Sorry, that is precisely what I was trying to say but picked the wrong choice of words. I have modified my statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## neutral_person

PakiRambo said:


> if your moving on, then leave Kashmir!  We will take care of it.



No chance. You have a better chance of defeating USA than taking Kashmir from us.


----------



## PakiRambo

samantk said:


> Yes and see that even with a gun he is only covering himself against the onslaught..


i would think twice then throwing stuff at a guy with a gun though :/ never know what could happen

but hats off to the guy for staying calm !


----------



## Pakistanisage

Pakistanisage said:


> Maybe there is a small minority of kashmiris who may be ambivalent about joining Pakistan or may want to become an Independent country, but most want to be with Pakistan. However there is no ambivalence about leaving India amongst Kashmiris. Every Kashmiri who introduces himself/herself says they are from Kashmir. They NEVER introduce themselves as Indians. That should tell you something.




here we go...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

samantk said:


> I agree to the first statement of yours but for your second argument that why you wanted Pakistan, you wanted it and got it. Crying now about Kashmir is immature even for your families who are present in Pakistan..



No one is crying about 'Kashmir' we're asking for a closure and for that to happen its going to involve a solution to the issue that is acceptable to all 3 parties but most of all to the Kashmiris themselves...!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

@Aryan your assumption that cheaper oil will force India to give a favorable deal to Pakistan is utterly nonsense.. please argue better..


----------



## PakiRambo

look at India getting broken up   Insha'Allah it will break up more soon! 

Videographic: India, Pakistan and Kashmir - YouTube

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## neutral_person

PakiRambo said:


> look at India getting broken up   Insha'Allah it will break up more soon!
> 
> Videographic: India, Pakistan and Kashmir - YouTube



The only thing that has broken in the last 65 years is a nation called Pakistan. But I guess everyone has wet dreams


----------



## Armstrong

JanjaWeed said:


> Guess what... Kashmiris would rather live under ''Indian brutality'' than Pakistani hospitality. Don't believe me.?. just check this out... Hot from the oven..



Oh hello jeee ! Aryan and Myself are Kashmiris; at least on my part, I've got family in Srinagar, tou bhai kuch tou hammein bhi pataaa ho ga na ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

samantk said:


> @Aryan your assumption that cheaper oil will force India to give a favorable deal to Pakistan is utterly nonsense.. please argue better..



Its not an argument. It is an assessment that I believe is accurate. And you are really missing the point if you think its just about oil


----------



## SamantK

Armstrong said:


> No one is crying about 'Kashmir' we're asking for a closure and for that to happen its going to involve a solution to the issue that is acceptable to all 3 parties but most of all to the Kashmiris themselves...!


 You can see most of your compatriots convincing others to accept a twisted history. India was not so developed back then that it had many options to allay the concerns of Kashmir. Now with a good economy going India will see to it that the insurgency drops by checking the borders and developing the region and restoring normal law and order, so that people can be happy..


----------



## PakiRambo

neutral_person said:


> The only thing that has broken in the last 65 years is a nation called Pakistan. But I guess everyone has wet dreams


Khalistan will be born soon 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpihL0aC88U


----------



## JanjaWeed

Armstrong said:


> Oh hello jeee ! Aryan and Myself are Kashmiris; at least on my part, I've got family in Srinagar, tou bhai kuch tou hammein bhi pataaa ho ga na ?



yaara.. yeh log toh tumhare tarah udar pale bade huve nahin na? idarse ek sapna leke gaye teh.. jihad seekhne ka.. pata laga hoga ke jihad maim kuch rakha nahin, aur toh kuch karne ke lie hain nahin. Tabi toh ghar ki yaad aaya hoga na mere bhai?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

neutral_person said:


> No chance. You have a better chance of defeating USA than taking Kashmir from us.



Did you read or do you read what people post or do you just make statements as they come into your head? I would like to do lots of things but Mrs B would not allow me to do at least 3 things I would like to lol


----------



## SamantK

Aryan_B said:


> Its not an argument. It is an assessment that I believe is accurate. And you are really are missing the point if you think its just about oil


 Again your analysis is based on China and the resources it has.. which in my opinion are not enough.


----------



## lem34

So none of you Indians could come up with anything to rebut what I stated below? 



Aryan_B said:


> No you are wrong. Indian economy is already going south compared to China. In coming years without routes to oil and gas through Pakistan Indian companies will not be able to compete with Chinese companies globally which will get these transport routes. China is developing an pumping money into its south west to bring prosperity and reduce terrorism etc in that region. China is also assisting in developing infra structure in NE of Pakistan. They are also about to take over the running of Gwador which they financed. This and the NE will be linked. So mate India needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs India.
> 
> The rich Hindu Brahmin's that control the majority of assets and economy in India will do a deal with Pakistan because they like money rather a lot.
> 
> That is the reason that Mushy deal on Kashmir has never been signed. Pakistan High command knows this and is holding out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China in one quiet but swift stroke has changed the geopolitical and geostrategic equations in this critical region which borders China, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan. The deployment of Chinese troops in this region even though for the ostensible purposes of infrastructural improvements of the Karakoram Corridor heralds a new phase of China flexing its muscles not only against India but more significantly against United States in the wider global context.
> 
> Chinas Obtrusive Presence in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir: Implications for India and United States
> 
> 
> London, Oct 10: After the launch of his new political party, All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), recently, Pakistans former president Pervez Musharraf has said that India and Pakistan were close to a solution on Kashmir some years ago.
> We were as close as drafting a final pact for a solution. Final drafts were exchanged through the back channel and Manmohan Singh agreed with my four-point formula, Musharraf told NDTV in an interview last night, when asked how close India and Pakistan came during his Presidency with regard to Kashmir solution.
> Asked if his famous four-point formula for Kashmir was the only pragmatic template within which Kashmir can be resolved, Musharraf said: You said it and let me tell you very proudly, those parameters are mine. I thought of them, because I realised that when I was talking to everyone on Pakistan side, the Indian side, the dispute is the Kashmir dispute. What is the solution? Not one of them ever gave me a solution. So therefore, that set me thinking, and that is where I came into this issue of demilitarisation, maximum self governance, this over-watch and all that, and making the LoC irrelevant. Now you asked me how close we were, we were as close as drafting the final agreement.
> 
> India Pakistan were close to Kashmir solution Musharraf Lastupdate:- Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com
> 
> 
> 
> *So simply all Pakistan has to do is sit it out to get a deal that it is acceptable to it or Indians will continue not to fulfill their potential and ever feed their large population. You also have to remember that India also has unresolved border issues with other mainly China as well *


----------



## Armstrong

samantk said:


> You can see most of your compatriots convincing others to accept a twisted history. India was not so developed back then that it had many options to allay the concerns of Kashmir. Now with a good economy going India will see to it that the insurgency drops by checking the borders and developing the region and restoring normal law and order, so that people can be happy..



Whatever the Kashmir People ! If closure means being a part of India...fine ! However, like I said, I've got family over there and so I have, how should I say this, a more human view of what goes on ! 

And mate, it was never about 'economic opportunities' alone otherwise Pakistan would not have seceded...! Our reasoning had a profound ideological dimension to it aswell ! Perhaps thats valid for Kashmir to.


----------



## INDIC

Armstrong said:


> Oh hello jeee ! Aryan and Myself are Kashmiris; at least on my part, I've got family in Srinagar, tou bhai kuch tou hammein bhi pataaa ho ga na ?



Is he Mirpuri, I read that Mangla Dam was a jackpot for them.


----------



## kumarkumar1867

PakiRambo said:


> Khalistan will be born soon
> 
> Hindu terrorism murdabad KHALISTAN ZINDABAD - YouTube


 
Khalistan se itna pyaar hai tou Pakistan ke andar banaa do ek aur khush ho jaao...waise bhi Lahore iss proposed capital of khalistan...India mei its not possible till qayamat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

Gigawatt said:


> Is he Mirpuri, I read that Mangla Dam was a jackpot for them.



You could ask me mate. No am not from Mirpur.


----------



## Skull and Bones

PakiRambo said:


> Khalistan will be born soon
> 
> Hindu terrorism murdabad KHALISTAN ZINDABAD - YouTube



Yes, in Canada.


----------



## Pakistanisage

Gigawatt said:


> Is he Mirpuri, I read that Mangla Dam was a jackpot for them.





Can you kindly stay on topic and resist the urge to TROLL. I know it can be challenging for you to stay focused.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

JanjaWeed said:


> yaara.. yeh log toh tumhare tarah udar pale bade huve nahin na? idarse ek sapna leke gaye teh.. jihad seekhne ka.. pata laga hoga ke jihad maim kuch rakha nahin, aur toh kuch karne ke lie hain nahin. Tabi toh ghar ki yaad aaya hoga na mere bhai?


 
I don't know why they came back ? A combination of homesickness, dillydallying of Pakistan (Zardari) and the lure of a Non-Violent alternative to the struggle, might have lured them back ! I dunno but what I do know is that the Kashmir conflict hasn't had a closure for the Kashmiri People now...not a closure by a long-shot !


----------



## pk_baloch

ap balochistan and fata aur karachi ki fikar chore den ....takr care about ur india now!!! ur economy is declinning and soon the war is coming .....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

Armstrong said:


> Whatever the Kashmir People ! If closure means being a part of India...fine ! However, like I said, I've got family over there and so I have, how should I say this, a more human view of what goes on !
> 
> And mate, it was never about 'economic opportunities' alone otherwise Pakistan would not have seceded...! Our reasoning had a profound ideological dimension to it aswell ! Perhaps thats valid for Kashmir to.


That profound reasoning then applies to UP, Bihar and Hyderabad too, so what? 

It is simple, Pakistan was sliced from India and you wanted something, compromises were inevitable. India is working through all the setbacks to make Muslims in India as equal as any other citizen, we have problems too but to say that your ideological dimension is more overpowering than ours, it is something you need to think profoundly of.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

samantk said:


> Again your analysis is based on China and the resources it has.. which in my opinion are not enough.



No it not. Its more to do with are you guys gonna start concentrating on feeding your people one day or are you going to cling on to land?? I do not believe that force will be necessary to take Kashmir from India at all. Its all about money or some would say economy. You lot on the internet and 99.99% of your population will have no say say in it.


----------



## pk_baloch

indians ko zyada balochistan ki pari hei..jab 10 saal mein americans and indians kuch naee kar paee ab kiya kar lenge ....apne paer par kulhaari marenge ab.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ramu

Mountbatten's views
=======================

The only chance, and I am saying this now on the spur of the moment, it was the only chance we had of keeping some form of unified India, because he was the only, I repeat the only, stumbling block. The others were not so obdurate. I am sure the Congress would have found some compromise with them.

Q. With the Muslim League as well?

A.You see, I liked the Muslim League people-they were mostly the people from the officer class of the Indian Army-much more than the Hindus. We came around to the Hindus more after I got out to India than before. I wasn't pro-anybody, but I really did like the Muslims. I had so many friends. Don't forget the history of India is basically one of conquest. When the Moghuls came along they in fact, conquered India and ran India and people like the Nizam were the viceroys of the Moghuls in the south. The Hindus were completely militarily beaten and treated as an occupied people by the occupying power.

But they were good brains, much better brains than the Muslims. I'm generalizing; Hindus were good shopkeepers, good business people, good clerks, good civil servants, and were employed by the British and they fitted in very well. They enjoyed serving the British-they preferred to serve the British, don't forget, than to serve the Muslims who were prepared to be gracious as hosts and go hunting and that sort of thing, but did not like the idea of toeing the line to the British at all. They were prepared to enter the army and so forth, but in fact the Hindus got into the whole machinery; they got into it because the Muslims weren't prepared to work in that sort of way with us.

I think you'll find this one of the things that's not completely understood. The British out there were naturally more easily friends with Muslims because they played polo, they went out shooting, they mixed freely, they didn't have any sort of inhibitions. The Hindus didn't get on so well with the British. Frankly, no Muslim ever took part in any plotting against the British. They wanted the British to remain, it secured their position.

The last thing Jinnah wanted was that we should go. He said first he didn't want a separate Pakistan, just wanted us to stay and hold the reins for them. But the Hindus wanted us to go because they had gone to British universities, they were all terribly imbued with sort of Fabian ideas and they just thought it was wrong that the British should be ruling India. I mentioned that we ruled with the consent, with the affection, of the vast masses. No doubt of that. But the intelligent, educated people didn't like it. So that this is one of the things one was up against.

So how could we meet the Congress Party's desire without transferring power? We couldn't. We were obliged to the transfer of power. Nobody, particularly me, wished to have any partition in India. It was a ghastly thought. And it wasn't going to work. It wasn't really going to work because, you see, if you look at the distribution of the Muslim population in India, it's all over India. I don't suppose that we were able to separate more than half the Muslims and make them into East and West Pakistan. The rest of them were all over India. Most were perfectly happy to stay.

Now, I suppose my wife and I were about the first people to show genuine affection for Indians, irrespective of their creed. Don't forget you had Parsees and Jains also. The last Jain king lost his throne because as he was marching out to meet his enemy, the rains came and he cancelled the march, for fear of the tremendous loss of insect life his troops would cause marching across the marshes when the insects were coming out.

And there were the Christians also. The south of India became Christian about the first century A D under St. Thomas. So you will never understand the problem of India unless you realize it is not a country. Its called a subcontinent because it's attached to the continent of Asia, but it is, in fact, a continent. It's comparable to Europe in almost every way. The dimensions are not very far apart. The number of races, of languages, of dialects, of religions, is pretty near as great. And what the English did is produce a common market, run by them as sort of overlords 200 years ago. It's a very remarkable piece of social work which mustn't be minimized. So it is tragic that we should have had to divide it on leaving.

Q. Would you say you were pre-disposed in any way, before you reached India?

A. It is very difficult to say for certain what the state of my mind was on arrival. I was a great believer in a unified India. I thought the greatest single legacy we could leave the Indians was a unified country. It's a hell of an achievement to have a unified India. I realized I still had to unify the states with the rest of India.That, I thought was going to be the greatest difficulty and indeed it was an absolute miracle that we managed to get that straightened out.

I thought we should try everything we could to keep India united and I really was very keen that we should find a solution.

Q. What did the Hindu leaders think of partition?

A. Nehru was horrified by the idea of partition. He was an extraordinarily intelligent man. He saw the point on everything. He almost got himself in serious trouble when he saw the point on the Indian National Army court martials which no one else could see. He saw everything I was trying to do. I was completely in step with him. He would have given me any help he could to try and keep India unified if Jinnah had shown any sort of advance at all. Nehru was a first class chap.

Gandhi had no key at all. The key to the whole thing obviously was Jinnah. Not only that, but I believe there was confusion all the way through. Most people thought it was Gandhi. If they didn't think it was Gandhi they thought it was Nehru. But it wasn't Gandhi, it wasn't Nehru, it was Jinnah and Patel. They were the two people.

If Mr. Jinnah had died of this illness about two years earlier, I think we would have kept the country unified. He was the one man who really made it impossible. I didn't realize how impossible it was going to be until I actually met Jinnah.

I have the most enormous conceit in my ability to persuade people to do the right and intelligent thing, not because I am persuasive, so much, as because I have the knack of being able to present the facts in their most favourable light. I didn't realize there was nothing at all you could do about Jinnah. He had completely made up his mind. Nothing would move him.

Q. There was an impasse?
A. All I could do was just to negotiate. For instance, he wanted to have the whole of the Punjab, the whole of Bengal, and I told him this was not on. And then of course there followed that amusing and rather tragic game of around and around the mulberry bush which I shall describe.

When I told Jinnah I don't want you to have a partitioned India, I gave him all my reasons, and he said, "Well, I am afraid we must. We can't trust them. Look what they did to us in 1938-39. When you go, we'll permanently be at the mercy of the elected Hindu majority and we shall have no place, we shall be oppressed and it will be quite terrible."

I told him I was quite certain that people like Nehru, and there were many of his colleagues like him, had no intention whatever of oppressing them.

He said, "Well, that's what you say, but Nehru was still the most important figure when they did, in fact, oppress us in 1938-1939. And he failed to stop it. But," he said, "you must give me a viable Pakistan. You must give me the whole of Punjab as well as Sindh and NWFP and Bengal and Assam, and I shall want a corridor to unite them."

I said, "Look, Mr. Jinnah, you have said that you won't agree to having a minority population ruled by a majority population."
"Absolutely."

"Alright, I happen to know that in the Punjab and Bengal there are wide areas where the opposite community is in the majority. It happens also that they just about divide east and west. So I'm afraid that if you want Pakistan, I shall have to arrange for the partitioning of both the Punjab and Bengal. You cannot take into Pakistan the Hindus of Punjab and Bengal."

"Your Excellency doesn't understand that the Punjab is a nation. Bengal is a nation. A man is a Punjabi or a Bengali first before he is a Hindu or a Muslim. If you give us those provinces you must, under no condition, partition them. You will destroy their viability and cause endless bloodshed and trouble. "

"Mr. Jinnah, I entirely agree."
"Oh, you do."
"Yes, of course. A man is not only a Punjabi or a Bengali before he is a Muslim or Hindu, but he is an Indian before all else. What you're saying is the perfect, absolute answer I've been looking for. You've presented me the arguments to keep India united."

"Oh, you don't understand. If you do that..." and so we'd start all over again.
"Look, Mr.Jinnah, it is a fact you want partition?"
"Yes, of course."
"Well, if you want partition then you must have partition of Punjab and Bengal."

You know, not only did this go on for hours, it went over several discussions. He simply was caught in his own trap. He finally gave up and said, "So you insist on giving me a moth-eaten Pakistan."
I said,"You call it a moth-eaten Pakistan. I don't even want you to take it at all if it's as moth-eaten as that. I'd really like you to leave India unified."

But he was absolutely set on his great cry of no-he was the de Gaulle of his day-and when after about three or four of these sessions I realized the man was quite unshakeably immovable and quite impervious to any quarrel or logical argument and not even prepared to look at any safeguards which I might be able to devise, I told him, "Mr. Jinnah, if only you would believe me, if only you would accept some organization like the Cabinet Mission Plan you would find that you could have great autonomy, the Punjab and Bengal could rule themselves, it would be even more autonomous than the USA. It would be quite independent. What is more, you could have the great pleasure of oppressing the minorities in any way you wanted to, because you'd be able to prevent the centre from interfering. Doesn't that appeal to you?"
"No, I don't want to be part of India. I'd sooner lose everything than be under a Hindu raj."

He went on and on. Very early I realized what I was up against. I never would have believed, I had never visualized that an intelligent man, well-educated, trained in England, was capable of closing his mind-it wasn't that he didn't see it-he closed his mind. A kind of shutter came down. Then I realized that while he was alive, nothing could be done. The others could be persuaded, but not Jinnah. He was a one-man band, and the one man did it like that.

Mind you, Jinnah is now forgotten. He was the man who did it. Bangladesh and all that misery which I forecast. Twenty-five years ago Rajagopalachari and I said it would last 25 years. It had to. . . It couldn't go on. All this misery and trouble was caused by Jinnah and no one else. And he hasn't had one word said against him. He was the evil genius in this whole thing. He presented a peaceful solution. He wouldn't play along at all. He was perfectly friendly and courteous and polite, at the end, emotionally pleased when I took him around and prevented him from being blown up[in Karachi, post-independence-blogger]. But with him there, you couldn't move him. You could move all the others. When Jinnah came to see me, he always sat there(relaxes, sits back easily), Ali Khan, when he came in with Jinnah sat right on the edge of his chair. He'd keep saying, "Yes, Qaidi." He would not even sit back.

The only difference between the scheme I was prepared to give Jinnah and that which he would have go under the Cabinet Mission Plan was that under the Cabinet Mission Plan he was obliged to accept a small, weak centre at Delhi controlling the defence, communications and external affairs. The three might really be lumped together under the general heading of defence.

That speech was absolutely the last plea for a united India. Please remember, every one of these interviews lasted one hour. They were reduced in my note to three or four pages. They represented, each page, 15 minutes of talking. Therefore, one-eighth of what was said was compressed into this.

I then realized that he had this faculty of closing his mind to the thing-he could see points, he was an able debater, he had a well-trained mind, he was a lawyer, but he gave me the impression of having closed his mind, closed his ears; he didn't want to be persuaded, he didn't want to hear. I mean whatever one said, it passed him absolutely by. In the case of partitioning Punjab and Bengal, he didn't even seem to have been listening to the previous thing at all.

His great strength. . . he got all this by closing his mind and saying, "No".And how anybody could fail to see Jinnah held the whole key to the situation, to the continent, in his hand, I fail to understand. I saw that dear old Gandhi held nothing at all in his hands.

I can remember when Jinnah had got his Pakistan. When the British Government was prepared to let me put forward the plan of June 3, when even the Sikhs had swallowed it, and the Congress. That is what he'd been playing for, and he'd got it. And he said, "No."

Actually what he said was, "I shall have to put it to the Muslim League Council."
I said, "I can give you until midnight. Or 8 a.m."
He said, "I can't get them here before a week."

I said, "Mr. Jinnah, if you think I can hold the position for a week you must be crazy. You know this has been drawn up to boiling point. A miracle has been achieved in that the Congress Party, for the first time, is prepared to accept this sacrifice of partition. But they are not going to be shown up. Having to wait for you to get your Muslim League to accept it tonight or tomorrow morning, it's out for good. And this is going to make a terrible mess and we aren't going to start again. You'll never again get the Congress Party to respond."

And we went on and on. And he said, "No, no, I must do this thing the logical, legal way, as is properly constituted. I am not the Muslim League."

I said, "Now, now Mr.Jinnah, come on. Don't tell me that. You can try and tell the world that. But please don't try to kid yourself that I don't know who's who and what's what in the Muslim League."

And then he said, "I must do this thing absolutely legally."

I said, "I'm going to tell you something. I can't allow you to throw away the solution you worked so hard to get. It's absolutely idiotic to refuse to say yes. The Congress has said yes. The Sikhs have said yes. Tomorrow at the meeting, I shall say I have received assurance from the Congress Party, with a few reservations, that I am sure I can satisfy and they have accepted. The Sikhs have accepted. And I had a very long, very friendly conversation with Mr. Jinnah last night, we went through every point and Mr. Jinnah feels this is an absolutely acceptable solution. Now, at this moment, I will turn to you and you will nod your head in agreement, and if you shake your head(to indicate disagreement) you will have lost the thing for good, and as far as I am concerned, you can go to hell."

I didn't know whether he was going to shake his head or nod his head the next morning. 
I said, "Finally, Mr. Jinnah has given me his personal assurance that he is in agreement with this plan," and turned to him and he went like that.* [*Mountbatten nodded his head imperceptably-Authors]

Now I can tell you that if he had shaken his head, the whole thing would have been in the bumble pot. To think that I had to say yes for this clot to get his own plan through, it shows you what one was up against. This was probably the most hair-raising moment of my entire life. I've never forgotten that moment, waiting to see if that clot was going to nod or shake his head. He had no expression on his face. He couldn't have made a smaller gesture and still accepted.

The funny part is that the others, I knew, guessed that Jinnah was being difficult. And I think they realized the only hope for them to get a transfer of power quickly was to agree, and I think they allowed me to get away with it. They could have absolutely had me by questioning Jinnah, but they didn't. They knew pretty well what was going on.

You can't make too much of that, that dramatic moment when this great clot was about to throw everything away and I don't even know why. I can't imagine. He was the Muslim League and what he said, they did. He knew he'd got the last dreg. He knew as far as I was concerned, "You're out whether I shall stay or not, you're out. No one's going to deal with you if you reject this. You'll just have to fight for it."

But isn't it fascinating that the whole thing should have depended on which way he was going to shake his head.

Q. Was there a sense of relief among the others?

A. I, in fact, realized that none of them had the faintest conception of the administrative consequences of the decision they were taking. I'd given Ismay the special task with a high priority to work out all that had to be done. God knows, 30, 40, 50 major things. He produced this admirable paper on the administrative consequence of partition and transfer of power. That was brought down like an exam paper being issued by myself and that marvellous fellow Erskine Crum, and put around, and they couldn't resist looking at it and it destroyed the euphoria. I mean I'm nothing if not a stage manager. This was really stage managed. The result was that their whole attention was distracted by this. They came down to this. Even Jinnah was shaken. Then I did a thing that was very unpopular. To this day a lot of Indians hate it, even friends of mine like Mrs. Pandit. I had a calendar made, which showed how many days were left to the transfer of power.

They disliked it because they thought it was a trick of mine. I knew it was unpopular but I couldn't care less. It was unpopular because they felt they were being put under pressure and they were. The reason they were put under pressure was that if I'd let up on them the whole thing would have blown up under my feet.

I have no worry about Jinnah being shown up for the bastard he was. You know he really was. I actually got on with him, because I can get on with anybody. He made not a single effort at all. The worst thing he did to me was that he kept saying I mustn't go, that I must stay, that if I didn't stay they wouldn't get their assets transferred so that after the transfer of power I must stay out in over all charge. 

When this was analyzed by my staff and myself, we realized that we couldn't have two governors-general with a viceroy over them after independence. Quite clearly the only way we could do the thing was if I was Governor-General of both provinces just for the transfer, and that was accepted tacitly as the solution. My staff talked about it with his staff. And indeed we know that this came about because of the Indian side which first suggested I should stay with them-and when they suggested that, which staggered me, that they were prepared to do it, then I said that I thought the solution would be if Jinnah wanted me to stay, then I must also stay as Governor-General of Pakistan.

It would have been absolute hell, living in two houses, it would be almost untenable, but I was prepared to try it. But he led us up the garden path. At the last moment this man-who obviously wanted to run Pakistan- instead of running it as a chief executive, i.e., the prime minister, decided to be the constitutional head of state who had no authority whatsoever under the Constitution.

When I discussed it with him I said, "You realize you've chosen the wrong thing. The man you want to be is the Prime Minister, he runs the country."

"Not in my Pakistan." he said, "there the Prime Minister will do what the Governor-General tells him."

So I said, "That's the whole reverse of the whole British concept of democracy."
"Nevertheless, that's the way I'm going to run Pakistan."

Then he said, "I'll accept you as Chairman of the Defence Council, a very important thing" - and he did until it finally broke down after the troubles. And he said, "I'll also accept the fact that you shouldn't feel that you can't accept the Indian invitation to be Governor-General of India. Please feel it would help us if you would, because the only way to retain my influence with them is by remaining as Governor-General. After all they've got everything and we've got nothing. We've got to get it out of them. Being Governor-General of Pakistan won't help you because we've got nothing to give, to transfer."

Q. What were your own feelings about this exchange with Jinnah?

A. You see, I found it very difficult to believe that an educated man, a man of apparently goodwill, with great affection and admiration for the British, a man who'd shown me consideration, although of a rather cold sort, I found it rather difficult to believe that he would accept India becoming a second class power, and destroy everything, and produce what he himself had said would be an unviable Pakistan. I had hoped that he would say, "If you give me absolute and complete autonomy, if you limit the centre's interference to inter-dominion committees which will sit and elaborate a common defence policy, I might go along with keeping India together."

Do you realize what he has done instead? He absolutely ensured the complete break-up of Pakistan because, you see, the wealth and population resided in East Bengal and they had loathed, they had learned to hate the others, and they've broken up completely. They're now making friends with India. And the little tribes up in the north will split up; if it wasn't for the Americans giving the others enormous aid, they couldn't continue to exist. They're finished the day America withdraws her aid. I don't see how they can survive. Even with an army, an air force, they'll be completely at the mercy of India. All this I tried to explain to Jinnah. I went on and on, and I am fairly glib, and I was very clued up.

I don't think people realized what a one man band this was. I don't believe people realize that nobody ever did any negotiating for me with anybody. Sometimes I'd try to get Ismay to go back to Jinnah to butter him up. He liked Ismay, but this was entirely a one-man band. Whereas before it was a negotiation by a sort of a committee, by sitting around a table and thrashing things out. 

If you, in fact, are doing it yourself on the other hand, if you know that what you say goes and you can tell London what you've done, you don't have to ask their permission. If you're a complete negotiator like that, then you can get things very easily.

So it isn't surprising that it was a one-man band, that I knew all the answers. It had to be a one-man band. Even a stenographer sitting in the room would have absolutely killed the effect.They never in their lives had been faced with a Viceroy all by himself. They'd never in their lives had to deal with day to day conversations and continuing dialogue that went on day after day after day. They were used to round table conferences, to endless great discussions. This was something none of them had ever come across before.

It produced quite a different result. People saw points and moved and spoke in a way they'd never done before. I will at once confess that I failed with Jinnah. But let me tell you this, nobody else would have been any more successful. I don't believe there was any more you could do with Jinnah. I must take the responsibility myself. And it was done at very high speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## SamantK

Aryan_B said:


> No it not. Its more to do with are you guys gonna start concentrating on feeding your people one day or are you going to cling on to land?? I do not believe that force will be necessary to take Kashmir from India at all. Its all about money or some would say economy. You lot on the internet and 99.99% of your population will have no say say in it.


 We have been getting better at feeding our poor, please show me a decline in HDI from the time of independence and I will agree. Again your analysis is as bad as US economy crashing and China taking over as the Superpower..


----------



## JanjaWeed

Armstrong said:


> I don't know why they came back ? A combination of homesickness, dillydallying of Pakistan (Zardari) and the lure of a Non-Violent alternative to the struggle, might have lured them back ! I dunno but what I do know is that the Kashmir conflict hasn't had a closure for the Kashmiri People now...not a closure by a long-shot !



My friend.. I'm not claiming that the struggle by few misguided souls from the valley is over either. But when you have one of your comrades coming out with a file photo of yesteryear to say that nothing is good in Indian part... I had to confront him with the current happenings. I know ''all is not well''.. still better than being ''nothing is well''..


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Aryan_B said:


> So none of you Indians could come up with anything to rebut what I stated below?


 
Because Boss You really dont have idea what kashmir means to Indian. Your Economy, Cheap oil theory is a joke when you think its gonna effect our Kashmir stance.
Economy gayi tel lene.... Kashmir will be with India forever no matter what happens.

And Stop expecting much from China....China is your friend just because of strategic routes you have...you are not worth of having nuclear war threat to it....You had USA in your side for 65 years ...U had taliban under ur belts for decade ...kya ukhaad liya kashmir mei??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

mastbalochi said:


> ap balochistan and fata aur karachi ki fikar chore den ....takr care about ur india now!!! ur economy is declinning and soon the war is coming .....


 
That's not my words but words of Pakistani journalist who is worried about the future of Pakistan.


----------



## ramu

This piece more or less sums up the bitter feelings between Jinnah and Mountbatten



> I have no worry about Jinnah being shown up for the bastard he was. You know he really was. I actually got on with him, because I can get on with anybody. He made not a single effort at all. The worst thing he did to me was that he kept saying I mustn't go, that I must stay, that if I didn't stay they wouldn't get their assets transferred so that after the transfer of power I must stay out in over all charge.
> 
> When this was analyzed by my staff and myself, we realized that we couldn't have two governors-general with a viceroy over them after independence. Quite clearly the only way we could do the thing was if I was Governor-General of both provinces just for the transfer, and that was accepted tacitly as the solution. My staff talked about it with his staff. And indeed we know that this came about because of the Indian side which first suggested I should stay with them-and when they suggested that, which staggered me, that they were prepared to do it, then I said that I thought the solution would be if Jinnah wanted me to stay, then I must also stay as Governor-General of Pakistan.
> 
> It would have been absolute hell, living in two houses, it would be almost untenable, but I was prepared to try it. But he led us up the garden path. At the last moment this man-who obviously wanted to run Pakistan- instead of running it as a chief executive, i.e., the prime minister, decided to be the constitutional head of state who had no authority whatsoever under the Constitution.


----------



## Armstrong

samantk said:


> That profound reasoning then applies to UP, Bihar and Hyderabad too, so what?
> 
> It is simple, Pakistan was sliced from India and you wanted something, compromises were inevitable. India is working through all the setbacks to make Muslims in India as equal as any other citizen, we have problems too but to say that your ideological dimension is more overpowering than ours, it is something you need to think profoundly of.



Overpowering...no ! 'Different - Yes' and thats the essence of the Two Nation Theory ! If you guys can accommodate Kashmiris who'd want some form of 'Islamic Polity' in the Union of India and believe me most of us Muslims do want that, then there would be no reason for them to demand a separate homeland just as there would have been no reason for us - Pakistanis - to demand that in the years leading up to '47.



JanjaWeed said:


> My friend.. I'm not claiming that the struggle by few misguided souls from the valley is over either. But when you have one of your comrades coming out with a file photo of yesteryear to say that nothing is good in Indian part... I had to confront him with the current happenings. I know ''all is not well''.. still better than being ''nothing is well''..



Mate, had I thought that it was just a struggle by a few misguided souls...I would have supported 'cementing the status quo' as it is but as it so happens...I don't think that thats entirely reflective of the situation on the ground ! I do hope that it gets resolved but I think both of us need to take 'patriotic blinders' off our eyes and realize - Not all in Indian Kashmir want to join with Pakistan, for me, and not most in Indian Kashmir want to remain with India, for you !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lem34

kumarkumar1867 said:


> Because Boss You really dont have idea what kashmir means to Indian. Your Economy, Cheap oil theory is a joke when you think its gonna effect our Kashmir stance.
> Economy gayi tel lene.... Kashmir will be with India forever no matter what happens.



Yea right, as I said 99.99 dare I say 99.99999999 of you will not even know what hit you. But then the ones whoa are going to do the deal will use the press that they own in India to brainwash the masses


----------



## Armstrong

@ *ramu *: Yaar aab paar kei bhii sunnna dei ! Itnaa lambaaa novel mein kaisee parooon ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

kumarkumar1867 said:


> Because Boss You really dont have idea what kashmir means to Indian. Your Economy, Cheap oil theory is a joke when you think its gonna effect our Kashmir stance.
> Economy gayi tel lene.... Kashmir will be with India forever no matter what happens.
> 
> And Stop expecting much from China....China is your friend just because of strategic routes you have...you are not worth of having nuclear war threat to it....You had USA in your side for 65 years ...U had taliban under ur belts for decade ...kya ukhaad liya kashmir mei??



I was going to answer the second part of your post mate but why waste bandwidth. Sorry to have to say your intellect and education prevent meaningful discussion

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zip

@pakistanisage
tell us what is your proposed solution ? UN resolution is out of question when you have given a part to china and killed or vacated all kashmiri pandits through terrorists .. Its a bilateral issues now ..
And last but not the least you are so concerned about indias minority and according to you they are leading miserable life whats your plan for them ? Have you given any thought about situation of your minority (if they are still there) before questioning our credentials ? 
you are blinded and prejudiced by your religious sentiment ..hence your argument does not count much


----------



## SamantK

Armstrong said:


> Overpowering...no ! 'Different - Yes' and thats the essence of the Two Nation Theory ! If you guys can accommodate Kashmiris who'd want some form of 'Islamic Polity' in the Union of India and believe me most of us Muslims do want that, then there would be no reason for them to demand a separate homeland just as there would have been no reason for us - Pakistanis - to demand that in the years leading up to '47.


 Most of the muslims wanted partition because they feared of being second class citizens, they feared so many things because British using their famous divide and rule policy created a chasm of hatred between hindus and muslims who were living peacefully for decades, they could not believe that we could live together, which incidentally has been proven incorrect, the example is there in front of you and then again TNT is demolished in that context.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

Armstrong said:


> Overpowering...no ! 'Different - Yes' and thats the essence of the Two Nation Theory ! If you guys can accommodate Kashmiris who'd want some form of 'Islamic Polity' in the Union of India and believe me most of us Muslims do want that, then there would be no reason for them to demand a separate homeland just as there would have been no reason for us - Pakistanis - to demand that in the years leading up to '47.


there is no compromise on India's secular statues. every body will be treated equally regardless of religion.


----------



## zip

@pakistanisage 
what is your solution to the conflict ?


----------



## lem34

For those Indians who are not jingoistic I appologise if I offend you.

For those of you Indians that are jingoistic. Those that insist all of Kashmir is written in blood as part of India and that in 60 years plus we are this and that and we should not China and this and that let me tell you this:

India has been claiming all of Kashmir for over 60 years. We Pakistan have and control about a third. You are a country that is six times the size of Pakistan in population a super power in the making as some of you like to tell us. Why do you not take what you claim is yours??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

Aryan_B said:


> For those Indians who are not jingoistic I appologise if I offend you.
> 
> For those of you Indians that are jingoistic. Those that insist all of Kashmir is written in blood as part of India and that in 60 years plus we are this and that and we should not China and this and that let me tell you this:
> 
> India has been claiming all of Kashmir for over 60 years. We Pakistan have and control about a third. You are a country that is six times the size of Pakistan in population a super power in the making as some of you like to tell us. Why do you not take what you claim is yours??


a claim is just a claim on paper just like Chinese claim on arunachal..
we Indians are happy with our current borders unlike Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAJPUTAANA

ramu said:


> Mountbatten's views
> =======================
> 
> The only chance, and I am saying this now on the spur of the moment, it was the only chance we had of keeping some form of unified India, because he was the only, I repeat the only, stumbling block. The others were not so obdurate. I am sure the Congress would have found some compromise with them.
> 
> Q. With the Muslim League as well?
> 
> A.You see, I liked the Muslim League people-they were mostly the people from the officer class of the Indian Army-much more than the Hindus. We came around to the Hindus more after I got out to India than before. I wasn't pro-anybody, but I really did like the Muslims. I had so many friends. Don't forget the history of India is basically one of conquest. When the Moghuls came along they in fact, conquered India and ran India and people like the Nizam were the viceroys of the Moghuls in the south. The Hindus were completely militarily beaten and treated as an occupied people by the occupying power.
> 
> But they were good brains, much better brains than the Muslims. I'm generalizing; Hindus were good shopkeepers, good business people, good clerks, good civil servants, and were employed by the British and they fitted in very well. They enjoyed serving the British-they preferred to serve the British, don't forget, than to serve the Muslims who were prepared to be gracious as hosts and go hunting and that sort of thing, but did not like the idea of toeing the line to the British at all. They were prepared to enter the army and so forth, but in fact the Hindus got into the whole machinery; they got into it because the Muslims weren't prepared to work in that sort of way with us.
> 
> I think you'll find this one of the things that's not completely understood. The British out there were naturally more easily friends with Muslims because they played polo, they went out shooting, they mixed freely, they didn't have any sort of inhibitions. The Hindus didn't get on so well with the British. Frankly, no Muslim ever took part in any plotting against the British. They wanted the British to remain, it secured their position.
> 
> The last thing Jinnah wanted was that we should go. He said first he didn't want a separate Pakistan, just wanted us to stay and hold the reins for them. But the Hindus wanted us to go because they had gone to British universities, they were all terribly imbued with sort of Fabian ideas and they just thought it was wrong that the British should be ruling India. I mentioned that we ruled with the consent, with the affection, of the vast masses. No doubt of that. But the intelligent, educated people didn't like it. So that this is one of the things one was up against.
> 
> So how could we meet the Congress Party's desire without transferring power? We couldn't. We were obliged to the transfer of power. Nobody, particularly me, wished to have any partition in India. It was a ghastly thought. And it wasn't going to work. It wasn't really going to work because, you see, if you look at the distribution of the Muslim population in India, it's all over India. I don't suppose that we were able to separate more than half the Muslims and make them into East and West Pakistan. The rest of them were all over India. Most were perfectly happy to stay.
> 
> Now, I suppose my wife and I were about the first people to show genuine affection for Indians, irrespective of their creed. Don't forget you had Parsees and Jains also. The last Jain king lost his throne because as he was marching out to meet his enemy, the rains came and he cancelled the march, for fear of the tremendous loss of insect life his troops would cause marching across the marshes when the insects were coming out.
> 
> And there were the Christians also. The south of India became Christian about the first century A D under St. Thomas. So you will never understand the problem of India unless you realize it is not a country. Its called a subcontinent because it's attached to the continent of Asia, but it is, in fact, a continent. It's comparable to Europe in almost every way. The dimensions are not very far apart. The number of races, of languages, of dialects, of religions, is pretty near as great. And what the English did is produce a common market, run by them as sort of overlords 200 years ago. It's a very remarkable piece of social work which mustn't be minimized. So it is tragic that we should have had to divide it on leaving.
> 
> Q. Would you say you were pre-disposed in any way, before you reached India?
> 
> A. It is very difficult to say for certain what the state of my mind was on arrival. I was a great believer in a unified India. I thought the greatest single legacy we could leave the Indians was a unified country. It's a hell of an achievement to have a unified India. I realized I still had to unify the states with the rest of India.That, I thought was going to be the greatest difficulty and indeed it was an absolute miracle that we managed to get that straightened out.
> 
> I thought we should try everything we could to keep India united and I really was very keen that we should find a solution.
> 
> Q. What did the Hindu leaders think of partition?
> 
> A. Nehru was horrified by the idea of partition. He was an extraordinarily intelligent man. He saw the point on everything. He almost got himself in serious trouble when he saw the point on the Indian National Army court martials which no one else could see. He saw everything I was trying to do. I was completely in step with him. He would have given me any help he could to try and keep India unified if Jinnah had shown any sort of advance at all. Nehru was a first class chap.
> 
> Gandhi had no key at all. The key to the whole thing obviously was Jinnah. Not only that, but I believe there was confusion all the way through. Most people thought it was Gandhi. If they didn't think it was Gandhi they thought it was Nehru. But it wasn't Gandhi, it wasn't Nehru, it was Jinnah and Patel. They were the two people.
> 
> If Mr. Jinnah had died of this illness about two years earlier, I think we would have kept the country unified. He was the one man who really made it impossible. I didn't realize how impossible it was going to be until I actually met Jinnah.
> 
> I have the most enormous conceit in my ability to persuade people to do the right and intelligent thing, not because I am persuasive, so much, as because I have the knack of being able to present the facts in their most favourable light. I didn't realize there was nothing at all you could do about Jinnah. He had completely made up his mind. Nothing would move him.
> 
> Q. There was an impasse?
> A. All I could do was just to negotiate. For instance, he wanted to have the whole of the Punjab, the whole of Bengal, and I told him this was not on. And then of course there followed that amusing and rather tragic game of around and around the mulberry bush which I shall describe.
> 
> When I told Jinnah I don't want you to have a partitioned India, I gave him all my reasons, and he said, "Well, I am afraid we must. We can't trust them. Look what they did to us in 1938-39. When you go, we'll permanently be at the mercy of the elected Hindu majority and we shall have no place, we shall be oppressed and it will be quite terrible."
> 
> I told him I was quite certain that people like Nehru, and there were many of his colleagues like him, had no intention whatever of oppressing them.
> 
> He said, "Well, that's what you say, but Nehru was still the most important figure when they did, in fact, oppress us in 1938-1939. And he failed to stop it. But," he said, "you must give me a viable Pakistan. You must give me the whole of Punjab as well as Sindh and NWFP and Bengal and Assam, and I shall want a corridor to unite them."
> 
> I said, "Look, Mr. Jinnah, you have said that you won't agree to having a minority population ruled by a majority population."
> "Absolutely."
> 
> "Alright, I happen to know that in the Punjab and Bengal there are wide areas where the opposite community is in the majority. It happens also that they just about divide east and west. So I'm afraid that if you want Pakistan, I shall have to arrange for the partitioning of both the Punjab and Bengal. You cannot take into Pakistan the Hindus of Punjab and Bengal."
> 
> "Your Excellency doesn't understand that the Punjab is a nation. Bengal is a nation. A man is a Punjabi or a Bengali first before he is a Hindu or a Muslim. If you give us those provinces you must, under no condition, partition them. You will destroy their viability and cause endless bloodshed and trouble. "
> 
> "Mr. Jinnah, I entirely agree."
> "Oh, you do."
> "Yes, of course. A man is not only a Punjabi or a Bengali before he is a Muslim or Hindu, but he is an Indian before all else. What you're saying is the perfect, absolute answer I've been looking for. You've presented me the arguments to keep India united."
> 
> "Oh, you don't understand. If you do that..." and so we'd start all over again.
> "Look, Mr.Jinnah, it is a fact you want partition?"
> "Yes, of course."
> "Well, if you want partition then you must have partition of Punjab and Bengal."
> 
> You know, not only did this go on for hours, it went over several discussions. He simply was caught in his own trap. He finally gave up and said, "So you insist on giving me a moth-eaten Pakistan."
> I said,"You call it a moth-eaten Pakistan. I don't even want you to take it at all if it's as moth-eaten as that. I'd really like you to leave India unified."
> 
> But he was absolutely set on his great cry of no-he was the de Gaulle of his day-and when after about three or four of these sessions I realized the man was quite unshakeably immovable and quite impervious to any quarrel or logical argument and not even prepared to look at any safeguards which I might be able to devise, I told him, "Mr. Jinnah, if only you would believe me, if only you would accept some organization like the Cabinet Mission Plan you would find that you could have great autonomy, the Punjab and Bengal could rule themselves, it would be even more autonomous than the USA. It would be quite independent. What is more, you could have the great pleasure of oppressing the minorities in any way you wanted to, because you'd be able to prevent the centre from interfering. Doesn't that appeal to you?"
> "No, I don't want to be part of India. I'd sooner lose everything than be under a Hindu raj."
> 
> He went on and on. Very early I realized what I was up against. I never would have believed, I had never visualized that an intelligent man, well-educated, trained in England, was capable of closing his mind-it wasn't that he didn't see it-he closed his mind. A kind of shutter came down. Then I realized that while he was alive, nothing could be done. The others could be persuaded, but not Jinnah. He was a one-man band, and the one man did it like that.
> 
> Mind you, Jinnah is now forgotten. He was the man who did it. Bangladesh and all that misery which I forecast. Twenty-five years ago Rajagopalachari and I said it would last 25 years. It had to. . . It couldn't go on. All this misery and trouble was caused by Jinnah and no one else. And he hasn't had one word said against him. He was the evil genius in this whole thing. He presented a peaceful solution. He wouldn't play along at all. He was perfectly friendly and courteous and polite, at the end, emotionally pleased when I took him around and prevented him from being blown up[in Karachi, post-independence-blogger]. But with him there, you couldn't move him. You could move all the others. When Jinnah came to see me, he always sat there(relaxes, sits back easily), Ali Khan, when he came in with Jinnah sat right on the edge of his chair. He'd keep saying, "Yes, Qaidi." He would not even sit back.
> 
> The only difference between the scheme I was prepared to give Jinnah and that which he would have go under the Cabinet Mission Plan was that under the Cabinet Mission Plan he was obliged to accept a small, weak centre at Delhi controlling the defence, communications and external affairs. The three might really be lumped together under the general heading of defence.
> 
> That speech was absolutely the last plea for a united India. Please remember, every one of these interviews lasted one hour. They were reduced in my note to three or four pages. They represented, each page, 15 minutes of talking. Therefore, one-eighth of what was said was compressed into this.
> 
> I then realized that he had this faculty of closing his mind to the thing-he could see points, he was an able debater, he had a well-trained mind, he was a lawyer, but he gave me the impression of having closed his mind, closed his ears; he didn't want to be persuaded, he didn't want to hear. I mean whatever one said, it passed him absolutely by. In the case of partitioning Punjab and Bengal, he didn't even seem to have been listening to the previous thing at all.
> 
> His great strength. . . he got all this by closing his mind and saying, "No".And how anybody could fail to see Jinnah held the whole key to the situation, to the continent, in his hand, I fail to understand. I saw that dear old Gandhi held nothing at all in his hands.
> 
> I can remember when Jinnah had got his Pakistan. When the British Government was prepared to let me put forward the plan of June 3, when even the Sikhs had swallowed it, and the Congress. That is what he'd been playing for, and he'd got it. And he said, "No."
> 
> Actually what he said was, "I shall have to put it to the Muslim League Council."
> I said, "I can give you until midnight. Or 8 a.m."
> He said, "I can't get them here before a week."
> 
> I said, "Mr. Jinnah, if you think I can hold the position for a week you must be crazy. You know this has been drawn up to boiling point. A miracle has been achieved in that the Congress Party, for the first time, is prepared to accept this sacrifice of partition. But they are not going to be shown up. Having to wait for you to get your Muslim League to accept it tonight or tomorrow morning, it's out for good. And this is going to make a terrible mess and we aren't going to start again. You'll never again get the Congress Party to respond."
> 
> And we went on and on. And he said, "No, no, I must do this thing the logical, legal way, as is properly constituted. I am not the Muslim League."
> 
> I said, "Now, now Mr.Jinnah, come on. Don't tell me that. You can try and tell the world that. But please don't try to kid yourself that I don't know who's who and what's what in the Muslim League."
> 
> And then he said, "I must do this thing absolutely legally."
> 
> I said, "I'm going to tell you something. I can't allow you to throw away the solution you worked so hard to get. It's absolutely idiotic to refuse to say yes. The Congress has said yes. The Sikhs have said yes. Tomorrow at the meeting, I shall say I have received assurance from the Congress Party, with a few reservations, that I am sure I can satisfy and they have accepted. The Sikhs have accepted. And I had a very long, very friendly conversation with Mr. Jinnah last night, we went through every point and Mr. Jinnah feels this is an absolutely acceptable solution. Now, at this moment, I will turn to you and you will nod your head in agreement, and if you shake your head(to indicate disagreement) you will have lost the thing for good, and as far as I am concerned, you can go to hell."
> 
> I didn't know whether he was going to shake his head or nod his head the next morning.
> I said, "Finally, Mr. Jinnah has given me his personal assurance that he is in agreement with this plan," and turned to him and he went like that.* [*Mountbatten nodded his head imperceptably-Authors]
> 
> Now I can tell you that if he had shaken his head, the whole thing would have been in the bumble pot. To think that I had to say yes for this clot to get his own plan through, it shows you what one was up against. This was probably the most hair-raising moment of my entire life. I've never forgotten that moment, waiting to see if that clot was going to nod or shake his head. He had no expression on his face. He couldn't have made a smaller gesture and still accepted.
> 
> The funny part is that the others, I knew, guessed that Jinnah was being difficult. And I think they realized the only hope for them to get a transfer of power quickly was to agree, and I think they allowed me to get away with it. They could have absolutely had me by questioning Jinnah, but they didn't. They knew pretty well what was going on.
> 
> You can't make too much of that, that dramatic moment when this great clot was about to throw everything away and I don't even know why. I can't imagine. He was the Muslim League and what he said, they did. He knew he'd got the last dreg. He knew as far as I was concerned, "You're out whether I shall stay or not, you're out. No one's going to deal with you if you reject this. You'll just have to fight for it."
> 
> But isn't it fascinating that the whole thing should have depended on which way he was going to shake his head.
> 
> Q. Was there a sense of relief among the others?
> 
> A. I, in fact, realized that none of them had the faintest conception of the administrative consequences of the decision they were taking. I'd given Ismay the special task with a high priority to work out all that had to be done. God knows, 30, 40, 50 major things. He produced this admirable paper on the administrative consequence of partition and transfer of power. That was brought down like an exam paper being issued by myself and that marvellous fellow Erskine Crum, and put around, and they couldn't resist looking at it and it destroyed the euphoria. I mean I'm nothing if not a stage manager. This was really stage managed. The result was that their whole attention was distracted by this. They came down to this. Even Jinnah was shaken. Then I did a thing that was very unpopular. To this day a lot of Indians hate it, even friends of mine like Mrs. Pandit. I had a calendar made, which showed how many days were left to the transfer of power.
> 
> They disliked it because they thought it was a trick of mine. I knew it was unpopular but I couldn't care less. It was unpopular because they felt they were being put under pressure and they were. The reason they were put under pressure was that if I'd let up on them the whole thing would have blown up under my feet.
> 
> I have no worry about Jinnah being shown up for the bastard he was. You know he really was. I actually got on with him, because I can get on with anybody. He made not a single effort at all. The worst thing he did to me was that he kept saying I mustn't go, that I must stay, that if I didn't stay they wouldn't get their assets transferred so that after the transfer of power I must stay out in over all charge.
> 
> When this was analyzed by my staff and myself, we realized that we couldn't have two governors-general with a viceroy over them after independence. Quite clearly the only way we could do the thing was if I was Governor-General of both provinces just for the transfer, and that was accepted tacitly as the solution. My staff talked about it with his staff. And indeed we know that this came about because of the Indian side which first suggested I should stay with them-and when they suggested that, which staggered me, that they were prepared to do it, then I said that I thought the solution would be if Jinnah wanted me to stay, then I must also stay as Governor-General of Pakistan.
> 
> It would have been absolute hell, living in two houses, it would be almost untenable, but I was prepared to try it. But he led us up the garden path. At the last moment this man-who obviously wanted to run Pakistan- instead of running it as a chief executive, i.e., the prime minister, decided to be the constitutional head of state who had no authority whatsoever under the Constitution.
> 
> When I discussed it with him I said, "You realize you've chosen the wrong thing. The man you want to be is the Prime Minister, he runs the country."
> 
> "Not in my Pakistan." he said, "there the Prime Minister will do what the Governor-General tells him."
> 
> So I said, "That's the whole reverse of the whole British concept of democracy."
> "Nevertheless, that's the way I'm going to run Pakistan."
> 
> Then he said, "I'll accept you as Chairman of the Defence Council, a very important thing" - and he did until it finally broke down after the troubles. And he said, "I'll also accept the fact that you shouldn't feel that you can't accept the Indian invitation to be Governor-General of India. Please feel it would help us if you would, because the only way to retain my influence with them is by remaining as Governor-General. After all they've got everything and we've got nothing. We've got to get it out of them. Being Governor-General of Pakistan won't help you because we've got nothing to give, to transfer."
> 
> Q. What were your own feelings about this exchange with Jinnah?
> 
> A. You see, I found it very difficult to believe that an educated man, a man of apparently goodwill, with great affection and admiration for the British, a man who'd shown me consideration, although of a rather cold sort, I found it rather difficult to believe that he would accept India becoming a second class power, and destroy everything, and produce what he himself had said would be an unviable Pakistan. I had hoped that he would say, "If you give me absolute and complete autonomy, if you limit the centre's interference to inter-dominion committees which will sit and elaborate a common defence policy, I might go along with keeping India together."
> 
> Do you realize what he has done instead? He absolutely ensured the complete break-up of Pakistan because, you see, the wealth and population resided in East Bengal and they had loathed, they had learned to hate the others, and they've broken up completely. They're now making friends with India. And the little tribes up in the north will split up; if it wasn't for the Americans giving the others enormous aid, they couldn't continue to exist. They're finished the day America withdraws her aid. I don't see how they can survive. Even with an army, an air force, they'll be completely at the mercy of India. All this I tried to explain to Jinnah. I went on and on, and I am fairly glib, and I was very clued up.
> 
> I don't think people realized what a one man band this was. I don't believe people realize that nobody ever did any negotiating for me with anybody. Sometimes I'd try to get Ismay to go back to Jinnah to butter him up. He liked Ismay, but this was entirely a one-man band. Whereas before it was a negotiation by a sort of a committee, by sitting around a table and thrashing things out.
> 
> If you, in fact, are doing it yourself on the other hand, if you know that what you say goes and you can tell London what you've done, you don't have to ask their permission. If you're a complete negotiator like that, then you can get things very easily.
> 
> So it isn't surprising that it was a one-man band, that I knew all the answers. It had to be a one-man band. Even a stenographer sitting in the room would have absolutely killed the effect.They never in their lives had been faced with a Viceroy all by himself. They'd never in their lives had to deal with day to day conversations and continuing dialogue that went on day after day after day. They were used to round table conferences, to endless great discussions. This was something none of them had ever come across before.
> 
> It produced quite a different result. People saw points and moved and spoke in a way they'd never done before. I will at once confess that I failed with Jinnah. But let me tell you this, nobody else would have been any more successful. I don't believe there was any more you could do with Jinnah. I must take the responsibility myself. And it was done at very high speed.



amazing find bro...... but very few will care to read it..... ppl are too blind to figure out that millions of muslims/sikhs/hindus burned in flames of a single mans fiery personal ambition

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HAIDER

Well, beside all argument, lets talk the known fact. Kashmir is under Draconian law and has longest martial law in history. Over 90,000 people died. Unmarked grave....what else ? ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lem34

Agnostic_Indian said:


> a claim is just a claim on paper just like Chinese claim on arunachal..
> we Indians are happy with our current borders unlike Pakistan.



So what you are stating is that you have accepted the status quo. That is what I was suggesting earlier we were getting a fair deal and Mush was near to a deal, but our HQ has deliberately moved back. Just wait till you taste TAPI oil. A deal which btw you have signed up for.


----------



## ramu

Aryan_B said:


> India has been claiming all of Kashmir for over 60 years. We Pakistan have and control about a third. You are a country that is six times the size of Pakistan in population a super power in the making as some of you like to tell us. Why do you not take what you claim is yours??



Because India is a true democracy and never will India use its powers to settle disputes. It is a soft state within the hard cover. Indians by nature are peace loving but will fight for what they believe belongs to them. The 1/3rd of Kashmir that is with Pakistan is a large area that indeed belongs to India. However, if we had to change the borders by force, it should have been done in 1947 and not after 1966 (Tashkent Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and more so after 1972 (the Simla agreement
Simla Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JanjaWeed

Armstrong said:


> Mate, had I thought that it was just a struggle by a few misguided souls...I would have supported 'cementing the status quo' as it is but as it so happens...I don't think that thats entirely reflective of the situation on the ground ! I do hope that it gets resolved but I think both of us need to take 'patriotic blinders' off our eyes and realize - Not all in Indian Kashmir want to join with Pakistan, for me, and not most in Indian Kashmir want to remain with India, for you !



It has become that way. When reality strikes & the realisation that the grass is not always green on the other side, one starts doubting in his own conviction & that's when you realise that you are misguided.Those days of crossing to other side to get trained & come back to your part to liberate your land, is just a distant dream now. Section of hardliners who used to cling on to that heavenly verse called 'UN Resolution' is now coming out saying that the same is unrealistic in current scenario. & those who didn't want to be a part of any dialogue are now asking for the same. To top it all.. people are surrendering themselves to the establishment, & the narration of their misguided misadventure. Things are not all gloom & doom for those living in reality..


----------



## danger007

Pakistanisage said:


> Maybe there is a small minority of kashmiris who may be ambivalent about joining Pakistan or may want to become an Independent country, but most want to be with Pakistan. However there is no ambivalence about leaving India amongst Kashmiris. Every Kashmiri who introduces himself/herself says they are from Kashmir. They NEVER introduce themselves as Indians. That should tell you something.



lolz May pak o. Kashmiris wont introduce them as pakistani.... but i met alot of people they never talked against India.... yeah may be some people talks against India, who are brainwashed by some terrorists in the name of religion ...... are you guys real.... you people dividing every one in the name of religion and crying to wards India because it is Hindu majority country????

1. Who tried to occupy kashmir ???
Pakistan army tried to attack when maharaja decision is pending......
2. Why pakistan attacked kashmir???
because pakistan feared maharaja may leaned towards India...
3. For what pakistan attacked Kashmir????
for the water lines and other natural resources and strategic advantage....


And if you people want safe and secured kashmir why did you people attacked first???


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

Why there are so many ******** in this forum ???? Is it defence.india ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zip

@aryan 
do you think it is because we are not capable or frightened to take it back ? 
If we did that we would have created another bangladesh ..


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

In my humble and modest opinion, I think Kashmir ,where the vast majority of it's residents are Muslims, rightfully belongs to Pakistan, since Pakistan itself was established for the same reason. It's a vital area from where the artery of Pakistan (Alsend river) comes from. RRR..Right Armstrong?!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## abhishekgoel80

Pakistanisage said:


> I would like to open this thread to discuss the circumstances how one single incident took Kashmir away from Pakistan because of Mountbatten's Manipulation. As Punjab was being divided up by the Radcliffe Commission, Gurdaspur District which was Muslim Majority District was awarded to Pakistan by Radcliffe commission, initially. Mountbatten kept the Radcliffe partition plan of Punjab secret till two days after Partition ( August 17th, 1947) and changed the award from going to Pakistan to India. *This had a huge implcation as two out of the three roads leading to Kashmir went through Gurdaspur district. *These two roads were the shortest route to Kashmir. The third road went through leh and was the longest way to Kashmir.



Their are many roads leading into Kashmir. You forgot sialkot to Jammu, via Muzzafrabad etc. If you are considering present day India the main city before enter Jammu and Kashmir is Pathankot. This city is well connected with many cities apart from Gurdaspur. Infact more cities of Himachal are closer to pathankot than Gurdaspur. *When Traveling from Delhi to Srinagar Gurdaspur is not even in the way.* Kindly look for Pathankot on maps.google.com and check for the shortest way from Delhi to Srinagar.


----------



## ramu

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Why there are so many ******** in this forum ???? Is it defence.india ??



Indian computer literacy rate is high and not to mention the population !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yyetttt

Kashmir is rightfully Pakistan's because its Muslim majority which should have been given to us during partition!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

jellodragon said:


> Kashmir is rightfully Pakistan's because its Muslim majority which should have been given to us during partition!!!



ok Take it........

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

samantk said:


> Most of the muslims wanted partition because they feared of being second class citizens, they feared so many things because British using their famous divide and rule policy created a chasm of hatred between hindus and muslims who were living peacefully for decades, they could not believe that we could live together, which incidentally has been proven incorrect, the example is there in front of you and then again TNT is demolished in that context.



Mate, the first step would always be to understand what the TNT was before either espousing its success or declaring its failure. It was never about 'We don't want to live with you guys because your Hindus' or anything of the sort. It was that Islam is a lot more than just praying 5 times a day and it has a profound and pronounced socio, political, economic and legal dimension to it and as Muslims we need the space to express it. Iqbal talked about how Muslims needed a platform where we'd be able to shun *Taqid* (or blind imitation) and engage in *Ijtihad* (or consensus to form a legal opinion, a fatwa in other words) to reinterpret Islam in the light of modernity. And for him the Parliament where Sunnis, Shi'ites and the sects within our sects will be represented so that they can exchange ideas, compromise with each other, engage in debates and try to come up with a brand of Islam that not only transcends our 'Sectarian' differences but presents solutions to some of our concerns. For example, Islamic finance is based, fundamentally, around two notions : 1) Making money off money is unethical and a Muslim will not indulge in this, i.e a certain kind of Interest is unacceptable to us. And 2) the Risk and Rewards of any financial venture should be equitably shared between the 'investor' and the 'manager of wealth' i.e Banks getting back their capital with interest whilst the lessee is virtually destroyed is unacceptable for us. What Iqbal wanted was for us to have a platform where we'd decide upon whether we'd need to reinvent the wheel to accommodate these Islamic Injunctions, whether there was an already existing model out there which fits this cent for cent or whether a compromise between the two would be established. 

Further more the TNT recognized that many of Our Heroes were not your Heroes, many of our practices were the opposite of yours, many of our habits were in contravention to your own and within this existed a potential for a backlash if they were suppressed or a potential for a 'loss of identity' if they were ignored. Whether our view was right or yours....these fault lines were there ! No amount of political machinations could have ignited 'Our People' enough to butcher each other at the time of the Partition as they did. 

And the TNT is just as valid today as it was in '47. Bangladesh despite their independence reclaimed their roots by giving patronage to Islam, explicitly, in their constitution. Israel is the living breathing example of the TNT where Jews and Muslims said we're too different and so we think it best to separate.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

Oye...God my back hurts right now ! I've been sitting stationary in this position for the past 4 hours...! Any recommendations ? 

A walk and a stretch didn't cut it ! Pushups maybe ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zip

No one touched kashmir during partition ..why you attacked ? It is not only kashmir it has jammu and laddak region ..sending your soldiers to princely state of jammu and kashmir is your first mistake and giving a part of the state to china is your second mistake ..


----------



## pk_baloch

fata aur ballochistan mein RAW k log he mudlarahe hein .............

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilSpec

Armstrong said:


> Mate, the first step would always be to understand what the TNT was before either espousing its success or declaring its failure. It was never about 'We don't want to live with you guys because your Hindus' or anything of the sort. It was that Islam is a lot more than just praying 5 times a day and it has a profound and pronounced socio, political, economic and legal dimension to it and as Muslims we need the space to express it. Iqbal talked about how Muslims needed a platform where we'd be able to shun *Taqid* (or blind imitation) and engage in *Ijtihad* (or consensus to form a legal opinion, a fatwa in other words) to reinterpret Islam in the light of modernity. And for him the Parliament where Sunnis, Shi'ites and the sects within our sects will be represented so that they can exchange ideas, compromise with each other, engage in debates and try to come up with a brand of Islam that not only transcends our 'Sectarian' differences but presents solutions to some of our concerns. For example, Islamic finance is based, fundamentally, around two notions : 1) Making money off money is unethical and a Muslim will not indulge in this, i.e a certain kind of Interest is unacceptable to us. And 2) the Risk and Rewards of any financial venture should be equitably shared between the 'investor' and the 'manager of wealth' i.e Banks getting back their capital with interest whilst the lessee is virtually destroyed is unacceptable for us. What Iqbal wanted was for us to have a platform where we'd decide upon whether we'd need to reinvent the wheel to accommodate these Islamic Injunctions, whether there was an already existing model out there which fits this cent for cent or whether a compromise between the two would be established.
> 
> Further more the TNT recognized that many of Our Heroes were not your Heroes, many of our practices were the opposite of yours, many of our habits were in contravention to your own and within this existed a potential for a backlash if they were suppressed or a potential for a 'loss of identity' if they were ignored. Whether our view was right or yours....these fault lines were there ! No amount of political machinations could have ignited 'Our People' enough to butcher each other at the time of the Partition as they did.
> 
> And the TNT is just as valid today as it was in '47. Bangladesh despite their independence reclaimed their roots by giving patronage to Islam, explicitly, in their constitution. Israel is the living breathing example of the TNT where Jews and Muslims said we're too different and so we think it best to separate.



most of mohd ali jinnahs ideas were trashed by pakistanis post his death, TNT specifically was designed for political representation of the muslims. Political representation cannot and has never stood up to mullah-military alliance, hence TNT was actually thrown in the dumpster with the demise of Mohd Ali Jinnah. Where is the muslim representation in pakistan, when the governments installed are puppet regimes and are thrown out by any army chief at his will.


----------



## Armstrong

sandy_3126 said:


> most of mohd ali jinnahs ideas were trashed by pakistanis post his death, TNT specifically was designed for political representation of the muslims. Political representation cannot and has never stood up to mullah-military alliance, hence TNT was actually thrown in the dumpster with the demise of Mohd Ali Jinnah. Where is the muslim representation in pakistan, when the governments installed are puppet regimes and are thrown out by any army chief at his will.



True that this isn't Jinnah's Pakistan and it most certainly isn't the Islamic Polity that Iqbal hoped for !


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

Kashmir needs a referendum

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pk_baloch

journalist se zyada to yahan indians ko fikar pari he.....donot worry hum ye war app logon ko lekar katam karenge lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TalkToMe:D

Armstrong said:


> Oye...God my back hurts right now ! I've been sitting stationary in this position for the past 4 hours...! Any recommendations ?
> 
> A walk and a stretch didn't cut it ! Pushups maybe ?



Just flex you muscle and joints slowly and gradually.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAJPUTAANA

every pakistani watch this video and talk about misery of these ppl too..... who are rottening up in refugee camps.... kashmiris whether muslim or hindu are very peaceful ppl...... but what made these ppl so messed up try to figure out..... none other than ur rulers


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

mastbalochi said:


> journalist se zyada to yahan indians ko fikar pari .....donot worry hum ye war app logon ko lekar katam karenge lol


Yaar, ye pakistani forum hai ? Yaha lagta hai k zyada indians members likhte hai :rire:


----------



## pk_baloch

@ramo ya lamba safar nama kon parhe ga ????


----------



## MilSpec

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Kashmir needs a referendum



Please do the necessary research for the UN specified requirements for holding a plebiscite, and come to your own conclusions wwhich country is responsible for violations of the requirements.


----------



## zip

There is only one solution and that is making loc as border ..
There may be people in kashmir who want to live in pakistan and there may be minority people in pakistan who wants to live in india ..give them a final chance to migrate ..and make the partition complete .


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Pakistanisage said:


> Maybe there is a small minority of kashmiris who may be ambivalent about joining Pakistan or may want to become an Independent country, but most want to be with Pakistan. However there is no ambivalence about leaving India amongst Kashmiris. Every Kashmiri who introduces himself/herself says they are from Kashmir. They NEVER introduce themselves as Indians. That should tell you something.



You see you want me to admit that Kashmiris of the Kashmir valley want freedom form India but you don't want to admit that most Kashmiris of the valley also don't wish to join you even though this has been found in various Indian and international opinion pool result . They want an indipendent country . you want me to be honest while being completely dishonest yourself.

check out the Chatham house kashmir - paths to peace poll that was funded and initiated by Saif al Qaddafi , muamar gaddafis son .



Armstrong said:


> Hello ! I'm an ethnic Kashmiri myself...no way do we want 'Independence' either...! Maybe some guys on the Indian side of Kashmir but here in Pakistan - Proud to be a Pakistani, sir jee !
> 
> There are a dozen different reasons why we shouldn't be with Pakistan but we followed Jinnah to get 'Our Pakistan', we gave so many sacrifices to have a homeland of our and by God we're not going to give up on it...just yet !
> 
> P.S Don't pull any surveys, guys ! Around 4 families on my Dad's side were cut down in Jammu and near Srinagar...so nah, we're pretty set calling ourselves Pakistanis ! And so are those of my family who remained on the Indian side...about 3 families left.



I am talking about ethnic Kashmiris in the Kashmir valley which is in India . Most of them want indipendence not Pakistan .What the few ethnic Kashmiries living in pakistan want is none of our concern .They can live there or go to Uganda for all we care .

when i say Kashmir i mean ethnic Kashmiris from the Kashmir valley who speak the Kashmiri language , not people of azad kashmir .

http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/109338

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zip

If plebiscite happens according to un resolution i bet you will loose gilgit baltistan and your part of kashmir and we will loose our part and china has to give back aksai chin.. Majority will go for independent state .. Thats the reality .. Emotion drives the people .. No one thinks about consequences ..


----------



## SamantK

Armstrong said:


> Mate, the first step would always be to understand what the TNT was before either espousing its success or declaring its failure. It was never about 'We don't want to live with you guys because your Hindus' or anything of the sort. It was that Islam is a lot more than just praying 5 times a day and it has a profound and pronounced socio, political, economic and legal dimension to it and as Muslims we need the space to express it. Iqbal talked about how Muslims needed a platform where we'd be able to shun *Taqid* (or blind imitation) and engage in *Ijtihad* (or consensus to form a legal opinion, a fatwa in other words) to reinterpret Islam in the light of modernity. And for him the Parliament where Sunnis, Shi'ites and the sects within our sects will be represented so that they can exchange ideas, compromise with each other, engage in debates and try to come up with a brand of Islam that not only transcends our 'Sectarian' differences but presents solutions to some of our concerns. For example, Islamic finance is based, fundamentally, around two notions : 1) Making money off money is unethical and a Muslim will not indulge in this, i.e a certain kind of Interest is unacceptable to us. And 2) the Risk and Rewards of any financial venture should be equitably shared between the 'investor' and the 'manager of wealth' i.e Banks getting back their capital with interest whilst the lessee is virtually destroyed is unacceptable for us. What Iqbal wanted was for us to have a platform where we'd decide upon whether we'd need to reinvent the wheel to accommodate these Islamic Injunctions, whether there was an already existing model out there which fits this cent for cent or whether a compromise between the two would be established.
> 
> Further more the TNT recognized that many of Our Heroes were not your Heroes, many of our practices were the opposite of yours, many of our habits were in contravention to your own and within this existed a potential for a backlash if they were suppressed or a potential for a 'loss of identity' if they were ignored. Whether our view was right or yours....these fault lines were there ! No amount of political machinations could have ignited 'Our People' enough to butcher each other at the time of the Partition as they did.
> 
> And the TNT is just as valid today as it was in '47. Bangladesh despite their independence reclaimed their roots by giving patronage to Islam, explicitly, in their constitution. Israel is the living breathing example of the TNT where Jews and Muslims said we're too different and so we think it best to separate.


 It is the idle state, please remember that those who created this TNT made a theory which was ideal and not based on the actual realities. Israel, lets see here goes the Israeli makeup 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze also they have a parties representing every group of its citizens, which goes against TNT which is a religion based theory, what about minorities, the basic flaw of TNT was that it put religion above the state and its subjects rather than the other way round...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pk_baloch

lets finish the topic and concusion is


http://up.liga.ir/images/6m7ux4qi4c6tyn7dvp1x.swf

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Pakistanisage said:


> *Really ? The 90% Happy include the 3000+ Gujarati Muslims Massacred on Modi's orders.
> 
> So the 3000+ innocent Indian Muslims who were Slaughtered died HAPPY ?
> 
> Or the Muslims butchered during the Ayodhya Massacre were dying HAPPILY by the Hindu Fundamentalists.
> 
> Are'nt you even Embarrased making such Bogus and BS claims ?
> 
> Or are you so brainwashed that you have lost sight of right and wrong ?*



3000 muslims ?
Modi's orders ? 

Ayodhya massacre ?

Stop pulling numbers and facts out of your a$$ then we can probably have a discussion.Till then


----------



## Ignited Mind

mastbalochi said:


> lets finish the topic and concusion is
> 
> 
> http://up.liga.ir/images/6m7ux4qi4c6tyn7dvp1x.swf



lol WTF! You scared the shyt outta me. Im already sitting with the lights out.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JanjaWeed

mastbalochi said:


> lets finish the topic and concusion is
> 
> 
> http://up.liga.ir/images/6m7ux4qi4c6tyn7dvp1x.swf



you nutter!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zip

Demography of gilgit baltistan has changed due to influx of other people 
demography of kashmir valley is changed due to mass migration of pandits
geography has been changed due to china taking a part 
and according to un resolution pakistani army should have vacated the occupied land ..
Due to all these issues there is zero possibility of plebiscite happening ..


----------



## RAJPUTAANA

mastbalochi said:


> lets finish the topic and concusion is
> 
> 
> http://up.liga.ir/images/6m7ux4qi4c6tyn7dvp1x.swf



that was a comic relief


----------



## pk_baloch

lets finish the topic and conclusion is......

http://up.liga.ir/images/6m7ux4qi4c6tyn7dvp1x.swf

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armstrong

nick_indian said:


> I am talking about ethnic Kashmiris in the Kashmir valley which is in India . Most of them want indipendence not Pakistan .What the few ethnic Kashmiries living in pakistan want is none of our concern .They can live there or go to Uganda for all we care .
> 
> when i say Kashmir i mean ethnic Kashmiris from the Kashmir valley who speak the Kashmiri language , not people of azad kashmir .
> 
> Kashmir: Paths to Peace | Chatham House: Independent thinking on international affairs



I'm an ethnic Kashmiri thank you very much with roots in a town near Gulmarg which in turn is about 60kms (I think !) from Srinagar ! And consequently I do have relatives on the Indian side who don't want to go to Uganda but either way if the majority wants Independence and the majority by far on our side, wants Pakistan....then things aren't exactly alright are they ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DRaisinHerald

mastbalochi said:


> lets finish the topic and concusion is
> 
> 
> http://up.liga.ir/images/6m7ux4qi4c6tyn7dvp1x.swf




Don't do that again  I was totally not expecting this

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

samantk said:


> It is the idle state, please remember that those who created this TNT made a theory which was ideal and not based on the actual realities. Israel, lets see here goes the Israeli makeup 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze also they have a parties representing every group of its citizens, which goes against TNT which is a religion based theory, what about minorities, the basic flaw of TNT was that it put religion above the state and its subjects rather than the other way round...



On the contrary the TNT theory never asserted anything of the sort ! What you're talking about are extrapolations from the TNT. If you read Jinnah's 11th August Speech he talks of, in a nut-shell 'freedom and equality for all in the eyes of the State'. And yet one would find ample mention of words like 'Islamic Socialism' (Dhaka Broadcast of '48) and 'a system of economics inline with Islamic Principles' (At the inauguration of the SBP), in Jinnah's speeches. What he was talking about, essentially, was 'a democratic state' and for religion that extends beyond 'spirituality' and adds these 'socio, political, economic and legal, dimensions to it' be treated as a viable alternative to 'the isms' out there. For every Socialism and Capitalism let there be 'Islamic Finance', for every 'English Civil Law' or 'US Judicial System' let there be a 'Shariah' and for every 'Secularism and Confessionalism let there be an Islamic Polity'; in essence don't treat Islam as something thats between you and your maker alone and should, as such be practiced in the privacy of one's home, but treat it as something that provides models (economic, social, political or legal) that have a deep...deep history of their own and hence can be used as an ideology and a model put forth to the People to choose or refuse. The religious minorities will cease to be minorities because of the strong constitutional guarantees his 11th August Speech entailed which, by the way, is a mirror image of the 'Constitution of Median written on the behest of the Prophet (PBUH)' ! A Jew can table a resolution in the Parliament that wants the imposition of some aspect of Talmudic Law, a Hindu can do the same, a Catholic can talk about the 'Justinian Code' and an atheist can talk about, say, 'Swiss Civil Code' and let all of them be put forth to the People to choose or modify and then choose or to outright reject. 

Unfortunately what was once a dream...a beautiful dream, remains, till date, just a dream !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SamantK

Armstrong said:


> On the contrary the TNT theory never asserted anything of the sort ! What you're talking about are extrapolations from the TNT. If you read Jinnah's 11th August Speech he talks of, in a nut-shell 'freedom and equality for all in the eyes of the State'. And yet one would find ample mention of words like 'Islamic Socialism' (Dhaka Broadcast of '48) and 'a system of economics inline with Islamic Principles' (At the inauguration of the SBP), in Jinnah's speeches. What he was talking about, essentially, was 'a democratic state' and for religion that extends beyond 'spirituality' and adds these 'socio, political, economic and legal, dimensions to it' be treated as a viable alternative to 'the isms' out there. For every Socialism and Capitalism let there be 'Islamic Finance', for every 'English Civil Law' or 'US Judicial System' let there be a 'Shariah' and for every 'Secularism and Confessionalism let there be an Islamic Polity'; in essence don't treat Islam as something thats between you and your maker alone and should, as such be practiced in the privacy of one's home, but treat it as something that provides models (economic, social, political or legal) that have a deep...deep history of their own and hence can be used as an ideology and a model put forth by the People to choose or refuse. The religious minorities will cease to be minorities because of the strong constitutional guarantees his 11th August Speech entailed which, by the way, is a mirror image of the 'Constitution of Median written on the behest of the Prophet (PBUH)' !
> 
> Unfortunately what was once a dream...a beautiful dream, remains just a dream till this day !


 Ok, you say they are extrapolations, but how in a democracy you include the Islamic way and expect a religious population in minority accepting that? Both the concepts are conflicting my dear friend. Is it not why your Qaid wanted Pakistan in the first place, that Muslims will be oppressed by the Hindu raj and wanted a state with minority Hindu and other religions. Then he goes on to subject the minorities to the same fate as he envisaged under an unified India?

Something is wrong right? Am I the only one who sees it here?


----------



## Pakistanisage

nick_indian said:


> You see you want me to admit that Kashmiris of the Kashmir valley want freedom form India but you don't want to admit that most Kashmiris of the valley also don't wish to join you even though this has been found in various Indian and international opinion pool result . They want an indipendent country . you want me to be honest while being completely dishonest yourself.





Even if some in the srinagar valley want independence, they will still have a closer relationship with Pakistan and Azad Kashmir then they would with India. India knows this and this is also the reason why India never agreed to a Plebiscite in Kashmir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KRAIT

Pakistanisage said:


> Even if some in the srinagar valley want independence, they will still have a closer relationship with Pakistan and Azad Kashmir then they would with India. India knows this and this is also the reason why India never agreed to a Plebiscite in Kashmir.


Where do you get these news.....kindly tell us the source to us please so that we can believe you...


----------



## Pakistanisage

nick_indian said:


> 3000 muslims ?
> Modi's orders ?
> 
> Ayodhya massacre ?
> 
> *Stop pulling numbers and facts out of your a$$* then we can probably have a discussion.Till then






Is'nt it funny when someone losing an argument turns to abusive language to compensate for the weakness of their argument.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armstrong

samantk said:


> Ok, you say they are extrapolations, but how in a democracy you include the Islamic way and expect a religious population in minority accepting that? Both the concepts are conflicting my dear friend. Is it not why your Qaid wanted Pakistan in the first place, that Muslims will be oppressed by the Hindu raj and wanted a state with minority Hindu and other religions. Then he goes on to subject the minorities to the same fate as he envisaged under an unified India?
> 
> Something is wrong right? Am I the only one who sees it here?



Oh laalay when you look it you think 'oh they're going to shove religion down our throats', when we see it we ask ourselves 'if one were to assume that either, English Civil Law and Shariah, were completely man-made, then what, principally, makes one shudder at the prospect of the imposition of the Shariah and not in case of English Civil Law ?'. 

Consequently let person A present 'Islamic Finance' to the People, let person B present 'Capitalism' and let person C present 'Socialism', and let the People decide from themselves. This is what the whole Pakistan movement was ! Don't think of Islam as something that is restricted to the 'spiritual plane' only...its much more ! Let us present it to the People...if they accept it - good, if they reject it - fine...its their call, we'd just have to make a better sales pitch the next time. The reason why we separated was because : 1) Secularism effectively rules out there ever being anything called 'Islamic Polity', 'Islamic Finance' etc. that can be tabled as a resolution in the Parliament. And 2) Because of the bad-blood between Hindus and Muslims and consequently because of the acrimony that had developed over the years....any chance of a party that would espouse these, being elected, would be next to impossible and because it couldn't be elected at the Centre it couldn't bring about a 'Constitutional Change' to let us, in the Muslim majority provinces, make laws as per our own belief system without it being struck down as being un-constitutional. 

P.S Which aspect of the Islamic Way would be unacceptable for the Non-Muslims when they are guaranteed their own laws, the right to educate their children as they see fit and the same rights and privileges that everyone else enjoys ! Though in practice this got hijacked right after Jinnah's death !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

kumarkumar1867 said:


> Kashmir was not stolen from Pakistan, Infact Raja Harisingh was thinking to join Pakistan. but Pakistan Army showed impateince and attacked it. Harisingh did what any king will do for saving his kingdom he approached to Indian government & signed papers of accession in return of security assurance. No body stoled Kashmir its Pakistan's lust & impateince which cost them the loss.
> 
> About Gurdaaspur given to India & Why was Mountbatten not made governor of Pakistan you can check following link and find some answers yourself.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/cabin...en-and-jinnah-negotiations-on-pakistan-april-



This is the notorious Sadna Gupta site.

Use it at your own peril.

Indian and Pakistani liberals are advised to look up the proceedings in PTH between Yasser Latif Hamdani and Sadna Gupta's brother, on many related topics. The website is slanted; the documents are selected to expose an evil conspiracy to create a Pakistan at any cost: in effect, a contradiction of the Ayesha Jalal thesis.



Khan_patriot said:


> in the papers Harisingh signed where the hell did he give the IA to rape, plunder and loot his people in the way the IA is doing right now and has been doing since the dawn of partition, what concerns Pakistanis is not that you took Kashmir but that after taking it looted and plundered the innocent and unarmed civilians as if trying to get the last laugh on the matter, the day you stop this devil fest is the day the ''Kashmir dispute'' end and until then the resistance will continue, the hatred will continue and the resentment will only multiply and till then i say ''Vive la resistance'' Allah ho Akbar



This thread is a regrettable error, as it inspires this kind of regrettable idiot's eye view of things.

Every sentence here is wrong, mostly deliberately so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Pakistanisage said:


> Is'nt it funny when someone losing an argument turns to abusive language to compensate for the weakness of their argument.



I would counter your argument right when you start being able to make one . And there is nothing abusive about that post . Pulling numbers out of one's a$$ is not abusive . What are you from disneyland ?

also isn't it funny when you try to hide blatant lies and pass them off as facts . Actually no , it's not only funny , it is also disgusting .

firstly 3000 muslims did not die in Gujarat . The lowest estimate i.e by the Indian govt. is of 900 people whereas the highest estimate of 2000 people was given by some shady NGO . 

Secondly , Modi has never been accused of giving orders of killing people. The accusation on him is of not doing enough to protect people due to ulterior motives which also have not been proved yet .

Thirdly , Massacres in Ayodhya , now that is something that never even happened. 

so yes , you pulled those numbers and facts right out of your a$$.

The strength or weakness of an argument can be gaged if you are able to make a proper argument in the first place which you have failed to do throughout the 13 pages of this thread .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Kashmir is the only state in India who have a large majority of muslims ( also lakshwadeep isles )
> It should belong to pakistan just because of that
> Kashmir valley belongs to a muslim country, hindus killed so many Kashmiris



Again, a completely uneducated post.

Please check the basis on which the Radcliffe Award was made, and what it applied to.

It was made on the basis of religious affiliation, _but it applied ONLY to British India!_

Now please check what was the status of the Princes. It was not Kashmir, but the Maharaja of Kashmir who was an actor. 

Try to be clear on these elementary aspects before commenting, please.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## BATMAN

^^On what grounds India is occupying Hyderabad?


----------



## DRaisinHerald

BATMAN said:


> ^^On what grounds India is occupying Hyderabad?



Greed for more land. Also, Hyderabad had plenty of riches; it was apparently the richest unit of British India and it's king the richest man in the world at one point.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Panjabi Tiger said:


> So why don't you let them have a referendum ?
> Kashmiris don't want your india !! Let's do a referendum
> But you fear....



Why don't you do your homework, for a change? 

If you ever bothered to read the actual text of the UN Resolution, you would find that it calls for the removal of all armed Pakistani elements from Jammu and Kashmir BEFORE a plebiscite was to be called.

Want the document to read? Try 

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/047/72/IMG/NR004772.pdf?OpenElement




> Why do you say " bring modi " ?
> Do you want a war with pakistan ?



On this point as well, although I stand for the prosecution of Modi, your statement about war being a result compels me to point out that Pakistan started every major war in the past.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

Armstrong said:


> Oh laalay when you look it you think 'oh they're going to shove religion down our throats', when we see it we ask ourselves 'if one were to assume that either, English Civil Law and Shariah, were completely man-made, then what, principally, makes one shudder at the prospect of the imposition of the Shariah and not in case of English Civil Law ?'.


 Laalay, English Civil law was based on logic which prevailed at that time and favored logic we modified it to make it more logical in our context. 


> Consequently let person A present 'Islamic Finance' to the People, let person B present 'Capitalism' and let person C present 'Socialism', and let the People decide from themselves.


 Right, so A will always have the highest chance of putting the bill through, nice representation I say when the law is Islam based rather than logic based. The exact reason why your Country was termed an Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Read this link

The Speech of Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhya (Opposition to Objectives Resolution, Constitutent Assembly of Pak, 12 March 1949) - All My Posts governance History India-Pakistan History Islam On Pakistan Pakistan - 'Objectives Resolution' Bengal Bhupen

The first term itself was contested by a Hindu representative from East Pakistan and what happened, you became an Islamic Republic of Pakistan. What the theory states is theory but not how people think and react. So much room to twist the rules to appease the religious majority here, the logic will win or not cannot be guaranteed. 



> This is what the whole Pakistan movement was ! Don't think of Islam as something that is restricted to the 'spiritual plane' only...its much more ! Let us present it to the People...if they accept it - good, if they reject it - fine...its their call, we'd just have to make a better sales pitch the next time. The reason why we separated was because : 1) Secularism effectively rules out there ever being anything called 'Islamic Polity', 'Islamic Finance' etc. that can be tabled as a resolution in the Parliament. And 2) Because of the bad-blood between Hindus and Muslims and consequently because of the acrimony that had developed over the years....any chance of a party that would espouse these, being elected, would be next to impossible and because it couldn't be elected at the Centre it couldn't bring about a 'Constitutional Change' to let us, in the Muslim majority provinces, make laws as per our own belief system without it being struck down as being un-constitutional.


 Yes Islamic polity in state matters is something which should not be allowed because of the reason I stated before, if religion is introduced in the state affairs it so happens that it can be twisted to any extent just because the Majority religious fanatics thought that it was only natural!



> P.S Which aspect of the Islamic Way would be unacceptable for the Non-Muslims when they are guaranteed their own laws, the right to educate their children as they see fit and the same rights and privileges that everyone else enjoys ! Though in practice this got hijacked right after Jinnah's death !


 laws change over time my dear, nothing can trump sound logic and it constantly evolves, but when the basis is a belief then who decides what is correct and what is not, isn't Islam being so twisted to suit the jihadi's who can guarantee that a religious Zealot cannot shadow over a majority Muslims in a TNT based country say 20 years or 100 years afterwards? How did they twist it so when many here say it is all about peace?

A simple example I have given above. So, here the A will always be in majority hence the law will become Islamic whether B or C like it or not. English Civil law is not based on religion not in the form presented to us hence acceptable, whereas Islamic laws are based on their beliefs rather than reason (like not taking interest which is illogical to the state )

I hope you understand that on paper it is beautiful and rosy for you but does not follow the representation of people in their natural form. Jinaah himself was seen not to follow logic sometimes and was the 'only' stumbling block to keep India unified as said by Lord Mountbatten.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BATMAN

Dr.AsianHerald,,,^^ Hyderabad was independent state and not part of British India.

After partition hateful bunch attacked every place populated with Muslims. that was 1948 both Kashmir and Hyderabad were invaded by Indian forces.

Kashmir being shared border with Pakistan, Indians tried to steal border villages of Pakistani territory, which naturally lead to resistance to occupation, villagers retaliated and they fought well with armed troops of Indian army. same with Hyderabad, they also putup great fight but the Muslim genocide was of mamoth magnitude.

Later, Hyderabad lands and business, was awarded to hindus.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pakistanisage said:


> My goal is to make everyone aware of the circumstances regarding the status of Gurdaspur District and how it impacted the Kashmir Status later on.



This was a downright mischievous post.

The Radcliffe Commission made _many_ compromises, on both sides. You have quoted one, although there were decisions made in favour of Pakistan (some already pointed out).



Pakistanisage said:


> I am hoping to have a respectful and respectable discussion as Academics.



It could have been done if the initial post had not been worded as it was. If you want a discussion on facts, and on issues, you have the duty of defining the topic rather more completely than we got. As it stands, it is an open invitation to riot.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pakistanisage said:


> Sir, the manipulations of Mountbatten preceeded the Lashkar attack by at least a year. Infact, had Mountbatten not manipulated the partition results against the unbiased logic and decision of Radcliffe, the Raja of Kashmir would not have gone to India as it would have made it difficult for India to attack. The attack came about because of the Injustice of the situation in 1948, more than a year later than the manipulations of Mountbatten.




There is no connection between Mountbatten's alleged interference with the Radcliffe Award, and the events in Kashmir. Gurdaspur did not influence the Maharaja; he was not looking at lines of communication, he was looking at dynastic and administrative issues. The decision to send in armed tribals was entirely independent of the Gurdaspur matter.

You mention that the Maharaja would not have chosen India if Gurdaspur had gone to Pakistan, because then there would have been no scope for India to attack.

Nonsense.

The Maharaja's choice was not dependent on logistics whatsoever.

His choice was made against the background of an invasion; the tribals attacked. Not India. Get your dates in order please.

Lastly, this thread is such a piece of armchair theory. Indian troops _flew_ into Kashmir, they did not use the land routes for the initial deployment. If necessary, every scrap of equipment could have been flown in. 

Gurdaspur made no difference to the situation.



Pakistanisage said:


> Let us just say, Pakistani leaders were Gentlemen and not as devious and immoral as the Indian ones.
> 
> Everybody knows about the affair Nehru was having with Mrs. Mountbatten ( a married woman).



Why are you bringing in irrelevancies? Do you realize what can follow if people were to retaliate? Have you any idea, or are you irresponsible enough to start a mud-slinging match about the leadership, one which you might not win as you seem to assume.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pakistanisage said:


> Because Sindh was a Muslim Majority State/Province. Punjab was also a Muslim majority State, so it should have come to Pakistan as a whole. The whole division of Punjab and Bengal was unjust as they were both MUSLIM MAJORITY STATES.



It would be so nice if people did their homework before commenting.

Sind was never part of the Pakistan movement. There was a vigorous and active Sind-first movement under G. M. Sayed which opposed the Muslim League. It was an unwilling Sind that was awarded to Pakistan by Radcliffe, _solely on the basis of the agreement worked out at high level, between the leaders, and contrary to the wishes of the Sindi people._

In case you don't know, NWFP was also hostile to the partition. Bacha Khan called it a betrayal. And as for Punjab, the feudals vehemently opposed the League until the end, when they came on board to protect their privileges, which they did with brilliant success so far.

When you talk about the people of Kashmir, you make two errors: you forget the people of Sind and of NWFP, and you have no clue about what Kashmiris really wanted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Joe Shearer said:


> This was a downright mischievous post.
> 
> The Radcliffe Commission made _many_ compromises, on both sides. You have quoted one, although there were decisions made in favour of Pakistan (some already pointed out).
> 
> 
> 
> It could have been done if the initial post had not been worded as it was. If you want a discussion on facts, and on issues, you have the duty of defining the topic rather more completely than we got. As it stands, it is an open invitation to riot.



When he started talking about ayodhya massacres , an event that never happened in the first place , I knew having a discussion with him based on facts was impossible .


----------



## Joe Shearer

Armstrong said:


> Hello ! I'm an ethnic Kashmiri myself...no way do we want 'Independence' either...! Maybe some guys on the Indian side of Kashmir but here in Pakistan - Proud to be a Pakistani, sir jee !
> 
> There are a dozen different reasons why we shouldn't be with Pakistan but we followed Jinnah to get 'Our Pakistan', we gave so many sacrifices to have a homeland of our and by God we're not going to give up on it...just yet !
> 
> P.S Don't pull any surveys, guys ! Around 4 families on my Dad's side were cut down in Jammu and near Srinagar...so nah, we're pretty set calling ourselves Pakistanis ! And so are those of my family who remained on the Indian side...about 3 families left.



In fair exchange, I suggest that you approach the topic not from your personal family point of view but from the factual point of view about the situation at large. 

The sovereign of Kashmir was the Maharaja. He had sovereign authority to decide whom to join. He used those powers, after an invasion, not of Mirpuris or of Muslims from Jammu, who were not ethnic Kashmiris anyway.

The popular leader of Kashmir was Sheikh Abdullah. He and his National Conference were opposed by fringe elements in the Jammu and the Muzaffarabad area, who favoured Pakistan. The bulk of the people followed Abdullah's leadership and participated in the defence of the Valley against the invaders. 

It seems that most people commenting on the events of 1948 have no clue about what actually happened, but are going by urban legend.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Joe Shearer said:


> In fair exchange, I suggest that you approach the topic not from your personal family point of view but from the factual point of view about the situation at large.
> 
> The sovereign of Kashmir was the Maharaja. He had sovereign authority to decide whom to join. He used those powers, after an invasion, not of Mirpuris or of Muslims from Jammu, who were not ethnic Kashmiris anyway.
> 
> The popular leader of Kashmir was Sheikh Abdullah. He and his National Conference were opposed by fringe elements in the Jammu and the Muzaffarabad area, who favoured Pakistan. The bulk of the people followed Abdullah's leadership and participated in the defence of the Valley against the invaders.
> 
> It seems that most people commenting on the events of 1948 have no clue about what actually happened, but are going by *urban legend*.



Urban Legend - 

Yes , a good two word summary of pakistani history education

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pakistanisage said:


> The rule was that those States with Muslim Majority had to go to Pakistan. All the States of West Pakistan had Muslim majority including Punjab, so according to the guiding principle there should not have been any division of Punjab. Similarly Bengal was a Muslim majority area and there was no Justification of division of Bengal.
> 
> Both East Punjab and West Bengal were stolen by India in contravention to the guiding Priciple of Partition.



You are wrong, and totally uninformed.

There were in fact two guiding principles (not rules). 

One was that there would be two Muslim majority groups, to be defined, formed around the Muslim majorities in the north west and in the east. There was no commitment about entire provinces. The precise definition was to be adjudicated, and it was, by a five person commission headed by Radcliffe, a British judge. This commission defined the precise lines, and sought to keep contiguity as far as possible. We have already seen that this was a guideline, and vast concessions were made to common sense. If this had not been done, today Pakistan would not have had Lahore and Karachi. Your biggest cities would have been Multan, Quetta, Peshawar, Hyderabad.

The second was that the Indian princes would once more be independent.



Pakistanisage said:


> I think you are seriously confused. The terrorism started because of the injustices of Kashmir. Please don't put the Cart in front of the horse.




Talking of carts and horses, the terrorism - murder, rape and abduction, and widespread looting - started in 1948.

Guess who it was?



Pakistanisage said:


> *Really ? The 90% Happy include the 3000+ Gujarati Muslims Massacred on Modi's orders.
> 
> So the 3000+ innocent Indian Muslims who were Slaughtered died HAPPY ?
> 
> Or the Muslims butchered during the Ayodhya Massacre were dying HAPPILY by the Hindu Fundamentalists.
> 
> Are'nt you even Embarrased making such Bogus and BS claims ?
> 
> Or are you so brainwashed that you have lost sight of right and wrong ?*



This has nothing to do with the loss of Kashmir due to a biased award by Radcliffe, the cornerstone of this thread.

What happened is Gujarat is something that was criminal, the result of a criminal conspiracy. It has nothing to do with the way our country is, and the way it is run. When you talk about it, please try not to use the deaths of innocents as propaganda pieces; 748 Muslims died, and that was 748 too many. In contrast, in my state, there have has been one communal riot in the last forty years, one in which a Hindu was injured and died.

Try to keep the discussion from sliding further into the gutter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Speaker

Pakistanisage said:


> Let us just say, Pakistani leaders were Gentlemen and not as devious and immoral as the Indian ones.
> 
> Everybody knows about the affair Nehru was having with Mrs. Mountbatten ( a married woman).


 
Mountbatten has enough accounts of where he casts doubts on the abilities and intentions of Jinnah over the other politicians of the day (Including LAK) and none of them described MAJ as a gentleman. Anyway, you are bringing way too many out-of-topic unsubstantiated topics in this discussion.


----------



## jbond197

First of all let's clear some misconceptions about Gurdaspur. People are claiming that it was Muslim majority district which is plain wrong. They were in majority only if Qadianis are counted as Muslims, the very idea, which most of the Muslim clerics of that time were rock solidly against.. So stop the farce of claiming it Muslim majority..

Rest, about Kashmir, I would only say stop dreaming. Kashmir is there where it belongs.. Learn to accept the facts/realities of life.. You have already messed yourself up enough due to this obsession which is not worth your people's life, money, blood.. Better forget it and concentrate on getting rid of terrorism from your land..


----------



## jbond197

> during census in Gurdaspur, Qadianis strategically differentiated themselves from the Muslim population which finally made Gurdaspur a part of India. This development also provided India a safe ground access to Kashmir, and India easily occupied Kashmir.


Qadianis opposed Muslim League during freedom movement| Pakistan News

Pakistanis never considered Qadinianis as Muslims and even during meetings with Radcliffe Qadianis strategically differentiated themselves from Muslim population.. But now most of the Pakistani Kids on one hand counts Ahmadis as Non-Muslims but on the other hand want to show them as Muslims just to get their purpose served.. How Cheap can one get?? I pity such sick people!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistanisage

Speaker said:


> Mountbatten has enough accounts of where he casts doubts on the abilities and intentions of Jinnah over the other politicians of the day (Including LAK) and none of them described MAJ as a gentleman. Anyway, you are bringing way too many out-of-topic unsubstantiated topics in this discussion.




This is not OFF TOPIC because it shows how Nehru Manipulated MOUNTBATTEN who in turn used his bias against the Muslims. This is not my assessment, I am only reporting that which is widely known. Please read abouyt it and inform yourself.


The shocking love triangle between Lord Mountbatten, his wife and the founder of modern India | Mail Online


----------



## Joe Shearer

BATMAN said:


> Problem is you Indian growup with flase history. You are beyond fix.
> 
> There are 500k Indian army soldiers posted in Kashmir and you call it better?
> 
> Apparently Indian Kashmir is worst than Syria and is like this since last 60 years.



If you were not a complete slave to muscle-bound thinking and rhetoric, you would ask yourself the question: how oppressive can things be, when unarmed women have no fear of standing around an armed man and making hostile demonstrations? Or that kids can chuck stones at armed people with no fear of being shot?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RazPaK

Joe shearer, after reading your posts I've come to the conclusion that you have commendable ability for sugar coating, rather than being intellectually honest. Much like Jinnah and Nehru during the partition movement.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pakistanisage said:


> The 200,000 Kashmiris you have butchered are not Punjabi Taliban , my friend. They are from Sirinagar valley and are Kashmiris. I think you need to come out of Denial, Son.



Perhaps a touch of realism on both sides would be nice to see.

Why don't you stop concocting figures, and he agrees not to use the phrase Punjabi Taliban?


----------



## SamantK

RazPaK said:


> Joe shearer, after reading your posts I've come to the conclusion that you have commendable ability for sugar coating, rather than being intellectually honest. Much like Jinnah and Nehru during the partition movement.


 dude, first debunk the points he has put forward, then you can comment on his dishonesty. He is more knowledgeable than my father and your father combined...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

RazPaK said:


> Joe shearer, after reading your posts I've come to the conclusion that you have commendable ability for sugar coating, rather than being intellectually honest. Much like Jinnah and Nehru during the partition movement.



I don't write for good chits. The day you contribute usefully - to any thread - it will be useful to read your conclusions. 

The last time I read your posts, you were claiming that the people of Inner Mongolia were fierce nomads, unaware of the fact that they were 80% Han Chinese agriculturists.

People who contribute at such abysmal levels have no business sitting in judgement on others.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## RazPaK

samantk said:


> dude, first debunk the points he has put forward, then you can comment on his dishonesty. He is more knowledgeable than my father and your father combined...




He may be your father, but not mine. I do appreciate a lot of his posts, but he no god and is biased even if it comes off as subtle. To say a human is not biased, is completely irresponsible.


----------



## Joe Shearer

PakiRambo said:


> look at India getting broken up   Insha'Allah it will break up more soon!
> 
> Videographic: India, Pakistan and Kashmir - YouTube



1948 and 1962? Hmmm. You have a point there. Now would you like Indian fanboys to add other dates to your list?


----------



## SamantK

RazPaK said:


> He may be your father, but not mine. I do appreciate a lot of his posts, but he no god and is biased even if it comes off as subtle. To say a human is not biased, is completely irresponsible.


 I din't comment on his biased attitude, I for one had not seen it yet. However, I simply asked you to debunk his arguments and then freely comment your usual quality content less posts on his dishonesty and fairness... 

When did I say he is my father


----------



## Joe Shearer

Armstrong said:


> Oh hello jeee ! Aryan and Myself are Kashmiris; at least on my part, I've got family in Srinagar, tou bhai kuch tou hammein bhi pataaa ho ga na ?



I doubt it.


----------



## Speaker

Pakistanisage said:


> This is not OFF TOPIC because it shows how Nehru Manipulated MOUNTBATTEN who in turn used his bias against the Muslims. This is not my assessment, I am only reporting that which is widely known. Please read abouyt it and inform yourself.[/url]



I have read full-length accounts of Mountbatten and his narration on the partition. I am also well aware of the vices of all the gentlemen of the era and suffice to say nothing said about MAJ was very charitable. That said, it is off-topic, and there is no point in getting into those details.


----------



## RazPaK

Joe Shearer said:


> I doubt it.




He very much is, as my father's side as well. I can understand koshur and speak a little as well. My grandfather's sisters and my aunts still speak it between each other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jbond197

RazPaK said:


> He very much is, as my father's side as well. I can understand koshur and speak a little as well. My grandfather's sisters and my aunts still speak it between each other.



Ah, so you are now a Kashmiri too after claiming yourself Arian on numerous occasions... 

Make up your mind who you really are and then declare on PDF..


----------



## Ammyy

PakiRambo said:


> look at India getting broken up   Insha'Allah it will break up more soon!
> 
> Videographic: India, Pakistan and Kashmir - YouTube



Dnt worry more like "71" division proposed in future ..... Insha'Allah you will watch them all


----------



## jbond197

Can some one explain the claim in OP that Gurdaspur was Muslim majority? How ??

If you all agree that Qadianis are Muslims then I will agree else they are fake claims and an act of deceit..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EjazR

Just like Gurdaspur with a Muslim majority was given to India, so was Chittagong hills district which had a Buddhist majority was given to East Pakistan. The decision had more to do with administrative issues than conpiracies around Kashmir.

And Mountbatten was not the only played in the partition saga. As per the recently released secret letters between Jinnah and Churchill, there was a lot of politicking going on in the background. Viceroy Wavell before Mounbatten had already prepared the break down plan which was followed to the last detail include the Gurdaspur division.


Another lesser know fact is that Sardar Patel had offered Liaqat Ali Khan J&K if Pakistan agreed to recognize Indian sovereignty over Hyderabad. Liaqat Ali instead rebuffed Sardar Patel's offer assuming Kashmir is already "our's" and the rest as they say is history.

This is in Sardar Shaukhat Hayat Khan's book: The Nation That Lost Its Soul 


> Accordingly, Patel suggested that Pakistan should take Kashmir and renounce its claims to Hyderabad Deccan, which had a Hindu majority and which had no land or sea border with Pakistan. After delivering this message, Mountbatten retired to the Government House to rest.Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan further relates:I was in-charge of Pakistans operations in Kashmir. I went to see Liaqat Ali Khan, and pointed out that Indian forces had entered Kashmir and that Pakistan could not succeed in driving them out using the tribal raiders to ensure that Kashmir became part of Pakistan. I even said that it seemed unlikely that the Pakistani Army could succeed in doing so. Hence, I insisted, we must not reject Patels offer. But Liaqat Ali Khan turned to me and said, Sardar Sahib! Have I gone mad that I should leave the state of Hyderabad Deccan, which is even larger than the Punjab, in exchange for the mountains and peaks of Kashmir? I was stunned at Liaqat Ali Khans reaction, shocked that our Prime Minister was so ignorant of geography, and at his preferring Hyderabad Deccan over Kashmir. This was nothing but living in a fools paradise. To acquire Hyderabad was clearly impossible, and we were rejecting an opportunity that would have given us Kashmir. Yet, Liaqat was totally unaware of the importance of Kashmir for Pakistan. That is why I resigned in protest as in-charge of Kashmir operations.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## RazPaK

jbond197 said:


> Ah, so you are now a Kashmiri too after claiming yourself Arian on numerous occasions...
> 
> Make up your mind who you really are and then declare on PDF..





Were there never Arains in Kashmir? Would they not marry local women? Am I not a product of this?

I'm not here to tell you my family history, but why do you think I must lie to make my point?


----------



## jbond197

^^^
Ejaz bhai, the very notion that Gurdaspur was Muslim majority is wrong. As far as I know, Qadianis are/were not considered Muslims..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Aryan_B said:


> No you are wrong. Indian economy is already going south compared to China. In coming years without routes to oil and gas through Pakistan Indian companies will not be able to compete with Chinese companies globally which will get these transport routes. China is developing an pumping money into its south west to bring prosperity and reduce terrorism etc in that region. China is also assisting in developing infra structure in NE of Pakistan. They are also about to take over the running of Gwador which they financed. This and the NE will be linked. So mate India needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs India.
> 
> The rich Hindu Brahmin's that control the majority of assets and economy in India will do a deal with Pakistan because they like money rather a lot.
> 
> That is the reason that Mushy deal on Kashmir has never been signed. Pakistan High command knows this and is holding out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China in one quiet but swift stroke has changed the geopolitical and geostrategic equations in this critical region which borders China, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan. The deployment of Chinese troops in this region even though for the ostensible purposes of infrastructural improvements of the Karakoram Corridor heralds a new phase of China flexing its muscles not only against India but more significantly against United States in the wider global context.
> 
> Chinas Obtrusive Presence in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir: Implications for India and United States
> 
> 
> London, Oct 10: After the launch of his new political party, All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), recently, Pakistans former president Pervez Musharraf has said that India and Pakistan were close to a solution on Kashmir some years ago.
> We were as close as drafting a final pact for a solution. Final drafts were exchanged through the back channel and Manmohan Singh agreed with my four-point formula, Musharraf told NDTV in an interview last night, when asked how close India and Pakistan came during his Presidency with regard to Kashmir solution.
> Asked if his famous four-point formula for Kashmir was the only pragmatic template within which Kashmir can be resolved, Musharraf said: You said it and let me tell you very proudly, those parameters are mine. I thought of them, because I realised that when I was talking to everyone on Pakistan side, the Indian side, the dispute is the Kashmir dispute. What is the solution? Not one of them ever gave me a solution. So therefore, that set me thinking, and that is where I came into this issue of demilitarisation, maximum self governance, this over-watch and all that, and making the LoC irrelevant. Now you asked me how close we were, we were as close as drafting the final agreement.
> 
> India Pakistan were close to Kashmir solution Musharraf Lastupdate:- Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com
> 
> 
> 
> *So simply all Pakistan has to do is sit it out to get a deal that it is acceptable to it or Indians will continue not to fulfill their potential and ever feed their large population. You also have to remember that India also has unresolved border issues with other mainly China as well *



You are making two mistakes in this comment, fairly elementary ones.

The first is to think that Pakistan wants a deal, and that India doesn't.

How wrong can you get? Throughout the relationship, Pakistan has inevitably been the belligerent. Every responsible Pakistani commentator, including those from the military, has confirmed this. Lt. General Gul Hassan and ACM Asghar Khan are just two out of many.

So for Musharraf to find an initial glad and positive reaction to his proposals is no surprise; it was a response waiting for an occasion. The deal making foundered on the putrid reputation that Musharraf has in India, as the traitor of Kargil. That reputation has rubbed off on his parent organization as well, and is what stands in the way of demilitarization of Siachen and its environs, which may avert tragedies like Gyari.

The second mistake is to think that China will support Pakistan blindly. China will support Pakistan selectively, for a price, probably a hugely reduced price, but a price. They will expand Gwadar, perhaps, and put it to use; they may expand land communications through Pakistan; but they will not omit to ensure the safety of these investments. Not through military intervention, but through diplomacy; they will prefer to ensure India's goodwill.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RazPaK

jbond197 said:


> Can some one explain the claim in OP that Gurdaspur was Muslim majority? How ??
> 
> If you all agree that Qadianis are Muslims then I will agree else they are fake claims and an act of deceit..



Lol my grandmother was not qadiani but that was her city of birth.


----------



## Joe Shearer

PakiRambo said:


> Khalistan will be born soon
> 
> Hindu terrorism murdabad KHALISTAN ZINDABAD - YouTube


 

I refer you to the phenomenon called 'revanchism'. It may carry some useful messages for you.


----------



## karan.1970

Armstrong said:


> Oh hello jeee ! Aryan and Myself are Kashmiris; at least on my part, I've got family in Srinagar, tou bhai kuch tou hammein bhi pataaa ho ga na ?



Hey.. Me too.. I was born in Srinagar.. Have a lot of relatives still there.. And I can go there whenever I want 

Just setup a 200 seat BPO center in Srinagar .. You do not know how the stuff is changing.. Most educated people who wanted to join Pakistan no longer do (one of the assistant Vice presidents in that new center being one of them), but are embarrassed to admit it as it amounts to them admitting they were wrong to begin with. In private though, the words he used were
" We may be nationalist Kashmiris, but we are not morons.. In today's situation, who in their right minds would like to be a part of Pakistan"

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jbond197

RazPaK said:


> Lol my grandmother was not qadiani but that was her city of birth.



ah, here comes the Punjabi blood now.. 

anyways, I am not saying there were no Muslims in Gurdaspur but the claims that they were majority only stands if Qadianis are counted as Muslims.. You guys don't consider them Muslims.. Isn't it??


----------



## Joe Shearer

RazPaK said:


> He very much is, as my father's side as well. I can understand koshur and speak a little as well. My grandfather's sisters and my aunts still speak it between each other.



I did not deny your heritage. Please remember that I have some standards, whether or not others do.

I doubted your ability to comprehend the situation. That does not come with the genes.


----------



## RazPaK

jbond197 said:


> ah, here comes the Punjabi blood now..
> 
> anyways, I am not saying there were no Muslims in Gurdaspur but the claims that they were majority only stands if Qadianis are counted as Muslims.. You guys don't consider them Muslims.. Isn't it??




No need to deviate off topic. I have said my father's side is Kashmiri which is true. I can post a pic and you would end up looking foolish. I never identified myself as Kashmiri. I was born in Punjab and speak punjabi from my mothers side. They came from Jalandhar. Thanks.


----------



## EjazR

Here is a census record on the different populations in Punjab before and after partition. Ofcourse there could be slight discperancy but givesn an idea of the dislocation of people from both sides







http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=41274


http://www.global.ucsb.edu/punjab/journal_11_1/6_krishan.pdf


----------



## RazPaK

Joe Shearer said:


> I did not deny your heritage. Please remember that I have some standards, whether or not others do.
> 
> I doubted your ability to comprehend the situation. That does not come with the genes.



I don't believe it was my fault for mistaking which point you were addressing due to your limited answer previously.


----------



## Rig Vedic

ramu said:


> Mountbatten's views



A monumental interview of Mountbatten, by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, from _Mountbatten and the Partition of India_, Volume 1.

Let me give the link - https://sites.google.com/site/cabin...en-and-jinnah-negotiations-on-pakistan-april-

Thanks for posting.



ramu said:


> This piece more or less sums up the bitter feelings between Jinnah and Mountbatten



You have to understand that Jinnah was getting his strength from the British deep state, as represented by Churchill. Jinnah was in close contact with Churchill throughout. The book by Narila (Book Review: The Shadow of the Great Game) completes the picture. 

Also the book Churchill's Secret War, By Madhusree Mukerjee , about the engineered genocides by famine, gives us an insight into Churchill's mindset.


----------



## third eye

Pakistanisage said:


> I would like to open this thread to discuss the circumstances how one single incident took Kashmir away from Pakistan because of Mountbatten's Manipulation. As Punjab was being divided up by the Radcliffe Commission, Gurdaspur District which was Muslim Majority District was awarded to Pakistan by Radcliffe commission, initially. Mountbatten kept the Radcliffe partition plan of Punjab secret till two days after Partition ( August 17th, 1947) and changed the status of Gurdaspur District as an area which was awarded to Pakistan to instead being awarded to India. This had a huge implication as two out of the three roads leading to Kashmir went through Gurdaspur district. These two roads were the shortest route to Kashmir. The third road went through leh and was the longest way to Kashmir.
> 
> Had Gurdaspur District been rightfully awarded to Pakistan being a Muslim majority district ( as decided by Radcliffe ), India could never have taken over Kashmir. I want Pakistanis to be aware of this historical manipulation that ended in a loss of Kashmir to Pakistan and we owe it all to the dastardly act of Lord Mountbatten.
> 
> Lord Mountbatten had requested both Jinnah and Nehru to let him remain the Governor-General of both India and Pakistan after the Partition. Nehru agreed to Mountbatten's request but Mr. Jinnah declined. Mountbatten never forgot that insult and paid back Pakistan by being biased in the partition matters.
> 
> Please research and give your opinions, respectfully.



I do not have the patience to go thru all the posts hence am commenting on the 1st one.

The premise of the argument presented is that since Gurdaspur did no go to Pak, it lost J&K.

Physical connevtivity back then did not matter for if did, East Pakistan would not have gone to Pak or existed. If EP could survive thousands of miles away why not J&K ? The answer is that it was not meant to be.

Why blame Mountbatten or any one else ?

If J&K was to come to Pak it could have done so without a land connection like EP hung on till 71 ?

In any case we need to MOVE ON and not exhume the dead, carry out a post mortem & bury again till the next exhumation.


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

Pakistanisage said:


> I would like to open this thread to discuss the circumstances how one single incident took Kashmir away from Pakistan because of Mountbatten's Manipulation. As Punjab was being divided up by the Radcliffe Commission, Gurdaspur District which was Muslim Majority District was awarded to Pakistan by Radcliffe commission, initially. Mountbatten kept the Radcliffe partition plan of Punjab secret till two days after Partition ( August 17th, 1947) and changed the status of Gurdaspur District as an area which was awarded to Pakistan to instead being awarded to India. This had a huge implication as two out of the three roads leading to Kashmir went through Gurdaspur district. These two roads were the shortest route to Kashmir. The third road went through leh and was the longest way to Kashmir.
> 
> Had Gurdaspur District been rightfully awarded to Pakistan being a Muslim majority district ( as decided by Radcliffe ), India could never have taken over Kashmir. I want Pakistanis to be aware of this historical manipulation that ended in a loss of Kashmir to Pakistan and we owe it all to the dastardly act of Lord Mountbatten.
> 
> Lord Mountbatten had requested both Jinnah and Nehru to let him remain the Governor-General of both India and Pakistan after the Partition. Nehru agreed to Mountbatten's request but Mr. Jinnah declined. Mountbatten never forgot that insult and paid back Pakistan by being biased in the partition matters.
> 
> Please research and give your opinions, respectfully.


 
1- Why jinnah and muslim league agreed on partition without first defining each and every inch of future border? Itni jaldi kia ti?
2- why jinnah and muslim league agreed with formula that rulers of princely state would decide to choose to join either india and pakistan?. Why muslim league did'nt raise the kashmir as special case before 1947?
3- why jinnah was so eager to become governer general?. Lord mount baiton remained governer general in india, nothing went wrong there. Jinnah sahab ko akhir kia parhi ti ke lord sahab se khamakha dushmani mol le... Chief of army of pakistan was angraiz, so why not governer general. Later we see that jinnah declare himself GG, without being member of assembly, and start using prime minister's powers for himself.
4- there was another state "nabha", small state with 64% muslim population, adjacent to pakistan border whose ruler was hindu and joined his state to india. Pakistan did'nt raised the case of nabha. Par kashmir par jangay karta raha, kyun ka zameen ka tukrra bohat barha ta.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Aryan_B said:


> For those Indians who are not jingoistic I appologise if I offend you.
> 
> For those of you Indians that are jingoistic. Those that insist all of Kashmir is written in blood as part of India and that in 60 years plus we are this and that and we should not China and this and that let me tell you this:
> 
> India has been claiming all of Kashmir for over 60 years. We Pakistan have and control about a third. You are a country that is six times the size of Pakistan in population a super power in the making as some of you like to tell us. Why do you not take what you claim is yours??



Because we are a status quo power. We do not invite trouble, we do not wage war on our neighbours. What happened in 1962 was an aberration; our political leadership believed that dealing with the Chinese was all about an extremely intellectual game of GO; they did not realize that China was prepared to go to war to enforce its boundary claims. If you look at all the armed conflict that India has been involved in other than that, you will see what I mean. The previous two incidents prior to 1962 were called police actions; nobody really wanted to be associated with anything that smacked of military belligerency.

Look at what being a pacifist power gets you. Sneers, crude, tasteless remarks about our being ruled by banias, and a whole chorus line of Pakistani (and other) fanboys doing high kicks about our not being warlike.

You know something funny?

We aren't warlike. You are. We don't plot the downfall of our neighbours; you do. We don't have funny people coming on TV explaining why a holy war against the neighbour is inevitable; you do. Our religious fanatics are people who shame and embarrass large sections of our society, sections that are committed to secularism; not for you.

That's why we didn't move in and take over the rest of Kashmir, when there were times we could have. But like those two great pacifiers, Inder Gujral and Manmohan Singh, even our most war-like Prime Minister took a chance, hoped against hope, that a magnanimous approach would bring peace.

We still try, even though we know the other side is high on macho jingoism. Just don't think we don't know. 

We know, but we still want peace.

Funny lot of buggers, aren't we?

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## EjazR

*@jbond197*

The term Qadiani comes from the fact that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed the founder of the Ahmediyah movement was born in Qadian. Not that it consisted of his followers. His movement didn't take off until the 1900s and the vast majority of his converts were mainly the elites in Punjab, Delhi and UP and the Muslims based in London and the US.

Qadianis were involved in the Pakistan movement from the very begnning. For example, the Lahore resolution of 1940 was drafted by Sir Zafurllah Khan. They had promimnent presnce in various Muslim League comittes and British India administrative machinery. Basically pretty much supported the Pakistan movement in all respects from the very begnning even when there was no support for it by others.

Its another story that soon after Pakistan was formed, a vicious campaign was launched against them in Pakistan and have been completely marginalised today.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RazPaK

EjazR said:


> *@jbond197*
> 
> The term Qadiani comes from the fact that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed the founder of the Ahmediyah movement was born in Qadian. Not that it consisted of his followers. His movement didn't take off until the 1900s and the vast majority of his converts were mainly the elites in Punjab, Delhi and UP and the Muslims based in London and the US.
> 
> Qadianis were involved in the Pakistan movement from the very begnning. For example, the Lahore resolution of 1940 was drafted by Sir Zafurllah Khan. They had promimnent presnce in various Muslim League comittes and British India administrative machinery. Basically pretty much supported the Pakistan movement in all respects from the very begnning even when there was no support for it by others.
> 
> Its another story that soon after Pakistan was formed, a vicious campaign was launched against them in Pakistan and have been completely marginalised today.



This is where I disagree with joe shearer about his urban legend argument. My grandfather had a more truthful account of partition in Punjab. Likewise shearer must have a more exentisive knowledge about Bengal partition.



EjazR said:


> *@jbond197*
> 
> The term Qadiani comes from the fact that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed the founder of the Ahmediyah movement was born in Qadian. Not that it consisted of his followers. His movement didn't take off until the 1900s and the vast majority of his converts were mainly the elites in Punjab, Delhi and UP and the Muslims based in London and the US.
> 
> Qadianis were involved in the Pakistan movement from the very begnning. For example, the Lahore resolution of 1940 was drafted by Sir Zafurllah Khan. They had promimnent presnce in various Muslim League comittes and British India administrative machinery. Basically pretty much supported the Pakistan movement in all respects from the very begnning even when there was no support for it by others.
> 
> Its another story that soon after Pakistan was formed, a vicious campaign was launched against them in Pakistan and have been completely marginalised today.



This is where I disagree with joe shearer about his urban legend argument. My grandfather had a more truthful account of partition in Punjab. Likewise shearer must have a more exentisive knowledge about Bengal partition.


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Aryan_B said:


> Yea right, as I said 99.99 dare I say 99.99999999 of you will not even know what hit you. But then the ones whoa are going to do the deal will use the press that they own in India to brainwash the masses


 
No answer to this wet dreams & dellusions, All I can do at best is to have PITY on You & Your thinkings. With same delusions PA started bombing Indian Airbases in 1971, do you need me to tell you what followed after that??



Aryan_B said:


> I was going to answer the second part of your post mate but why waste bandwidth. Sorry to have to say your intellect and education prevent meaningful discussion



Dont be sorry, we *never* expect meaningful discussion with peoples who are unaware of Past, Present & who bring up stupid future theories.It was you who brought Your Master-Maseeha China's Future role from no where in thread related to Kashmir's history and I responded accordingly.




Aryan_B said:


> For those Indians who are not jingoistic I appologise if I offend you.
> 
> For those of you Indians that are jingoistic. Those that insist all of Kashmir is written in blood as part of India and that in 60 years plus we are this and that and we should not China and this and that let me tell you this:
> 
> India has been claiming all of Kashmir for over 60 years. We Pakistan have and control about a third. You are a country that is six times the size of Pakistan in population a super power in the making as some of you like to tell us. Why do you not take what you claim is yours??



Well its fault Indian political leaders of past. They wanted peaceful solution to issue.


----------



## karan.1970

Aryan_B said:


> Yea right, as I said 99.99 dare I say 99.99999999 of you will not even know what hit you. But then the ones whoa are going to do the deal will use the press that they own in India to brainwash the masses



Yup.. Your commando expected the same in Kargil.. And your leaders before that in 1971 and 1965 (when you tried to *liberate* Kashmir..

Look at Pakistan now and what it was set up as. Your Quaid e azam must be turning in his grave thinking what he set out to make Pakistan as and what it has ended up being.... Keep up with the false jingoism, and you will be left with even lesser than what you have now...


----------



## kumarkumar1867

RAJPUTAANA said:


> amazing find bro...... but very few will care to read it..... ppl are too blind to figure out that millions of muslims/sikhs/hindus burned in flames of a single mans fiery personal ambition


 
It needs courage to read & understand truth...... Its most credible source as its interview of person who designed the partition process.I posted this link on very second post of this thread, but no pakistani dared to read & speak about it.



karan.1970 said:


> Yup.. Your commando expected the same in Kargil.. And your leaders before that in 1971 and 1965 (when you tried to *liberate* Kashmir..
> 
> Look at Pakistan now and what it was set up as. Your Quaid e azam must be turning in his grave thinking what he set out to make Pakistan as and what it has ended up being.... Keep up with the false jingoism, and you will be left with even lesser than what you have now...



No one cares about Qaid-E-Azam and his ideology in present day Pakistan.They have even destroyed his speech recordings about his vision of creating pakistan. Jinnah entered in politics with aspiration of becoming MUSLIM GOKHALE, but I am sure 95% of pakistani dont know who Gokhale was !! All the dire condition they are facing is just because they have completely abondened Jinnah's concept of Pakistan. Zia's regime, MullahGiri & Monkey trap syndrome costed their country the harm which no foreign country or wars would have given them in decades.


----------



## Joe Shearer

RazPaK said:


> This is where I disagree with joe shearer about his urban legend argument. My grandfather had a more truthful account of partition in Punjab. Likewise shearer must have a more exentisive knowledge about Bengal partition.



Neither do I depend on good chits for determining what I should conclude from the evidence, nor do I need people to inform me where my expertise lies - or does not lie.

I have thorough knowledge of the political history of the Indian Independence movement. I have thorough knowledge of the military history of south Asia from ancient times, the beginning of Indian history, till today. I have good knowledge of European military and naval history. I have extended knowledge of general military and naval history. I have a superficial knowledge of east Asian military and naval history.

I have never claimed expertise in the minute details of the events during partition, either in the west or in the east.

None of what I claim to know is due to access to personal reminiscence or family folklore.


----------



## Pakistanisage

zip said:


> @pakistanisage
> what is your solution to the conflict ?




That is an honest question and I would give you an honest answer without regards to how many people I offend on both sides of the divide ( or maybe on all three sides of the divide ). Kashmir is such an intractable issue that it will require painful compromise from all the parties involved. I think all parties involved will have to contend with little less than what they would ideally want to have. One possible solution is for India to retain the Jammu and Southern territory. Let the Kashmiris in the valley have their Independence with the Leh population given the right to have a referendum if they want to join the Independent Kashmir of the valley or stay with India. The Kashmiris on Pakistani side will remain with Pakistan. 

With the Kashmir issue and water issue resolved, Pakistan and India can start building closer Economic ties and Relationship to improve their respective Economies and stop military confrontation.


----------



## RKhan

I don't wanna sound inconsiderate for Kashmir but Lahore was predominately a Hindu/Sikh city and it went to us so the big fuss about Kashmir....seems tiring.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Screambowl

Pakistan doesnt deserve Kashmir.


----------



## kalu_miah

ramu said:


> Mountbatten's views
> =======================
> 
> The only chance, and I am saying this now on the spur of the moment, it was the only chance we had of keeping some form of unified India, because he was the only, I repeat the only, stumbling block. The others were not so obdurate. I am sure the Congress would have found some compromise with them.
> 
> Q. With the Muslim League as well?
> 
> A.You see, I liked the Muslim League people-they were mostly the people from the officer class of the Indian Army-much more than the Hindus. We came around to the Hindus more after I got out to India than before. I wasn't pro-anybody, but I really did like the Muslims. I had so many friends. Don't forget the history of India is basically one of conquest. When the Moghuls came along they in fact, conquered India and ran India and people like the Nizam were the viceroys of the Moghuls in the south. The Hindus were completely militarily beaten and treated as an occupied people by the occupying power.
> 
> But they were good brains, much better brains than the Muslims. I'm generalizing; Hindus were good shopkeepers, good business people, good clerks, good civil servants, and were employed by the British and they fitted in very well. They enjoyed serving the British-they preferred to serve the British, don't forget, than to serve the Muslims who were prepared to be gracious as hosts and go hunting and that sort of thing, but did not like the idea of toeing the line to the British at all. They were prepared to enter the army and so forth, but in fact the Hindus got into the whole machinery; they got into it because the Muslims weren't prepared to work in that sort of way with us.
> 
> I think you'll find this one of the things that's not completely understood. The British out there were naturally more easily friends with Muslims because they played polo, they went out shooting, they mixed freely, they didn't have any sort of inhibitions. The Hindus didn't get on so well with the British. Frankly, no Muslim ever took part in any plotting against the British. They wanted the British to remain, it secured their position.
> 
> The last thing Jinnah wanted was that we should go. He said first he didn't want a separate Pakistan, just wanted us to stay and hold the reins for them. But the Hindus wanted us to go because they had gone to British universities, they were all terribly imbued with sort of Fabian ideas and they just thought it was wrong that the British should be ruling India. I mentioned that we ruled with the consent, with the affection, of the vast masses. No doubt of that. But the intelligent, educated people didn't like it. So that this is one of the things one was up against.
> 
> So how could we meet the Congress Party's desire without transferring power? We couldn't. We were obliged to the transfer of power. Nobody, particularly me, wished to have any partition in India. It was a ghastly thought. And it wasn't going to work. It wasn't really going to work because, you see, if you look at the distribution of the Muslim population in India, it's all over India. I don't suppose that we were able to separate more than half the Muslims and make them into East and West Pakistan. The rest of them were all over India. Most were perfectly happy to stay.
> 
> Now, I suppose my wife and I were about the first people to show genuine affection for Indians, irrespective of their creed. Don't forget you had Parsees and Jains also. The last Jain king lost his throne because as he was marching out to meet his enemy, the rains came and he cancelled the march, for fear of the tremendous loss of insect life his troops would cause marching across the marshes when the insects were coming out.
> 
> And there were the Christians also. The south of India became Christian about the first century A D under St. Thomas. So you will never understand the problem of India unless you realize it is not a country. Its called a subcontinent because it's attached to the continent of Asia, but it is, in fact, a continent. It's comparable to Europe in almost every way. The dimensions are not very far apart. The number of races, of languages, of dialects, of religions, is pretty near as great. And what the English did is produce a common market, run by them as sort of overlords 200 years ago. It's a very remarkable piece of social work which mustn't be minimized. So it is tragic that we should have had to divide it on leaving.
> 
> Q. Would you say you were pre-disposed in any way, before you reached India?
> 
> A. It is very difficult to say for certain what the state of my mind was on arrival. I was a great believer in a unified India. I thought the greatest single legacy we could leave the Indians was a unified country. It's a hell of an achievement to have a unified India. I realized I still had to unify the states with the rest of India.That, I thought was going to be the greatest difficulty and indeed it was an absolute miracle that we managed to get that straightened out.
> 
> I thought we should try everything we could to keep India united and I really was very keen that we should find a solution.
> 
> Q. What did the Hindu leaders think of partition?
> 
> A. Nehru was horrified by the idea of partition. He was an extraordinarily intelligent man. He saw the point on everything. He almost got himself in serious trouble when he saw the point on the Indian National Army court martials which no one else could see. He saw everything I was trying to do. I was completely in step with him. He would have given me any help he could to try and keep India unified if Jinnah had shown any sort of advance at all. Nehru was a first class chap.
> 
> Gandhi had no key at all. The key to the whole thing obviously was Jinnah. Not only that, but I believe there was confusion all the way through. Most people thought it was Gandhi. If they didn't think it was Gandhi they thought it was Nehru. But it wasn't Gandhi, it wasn't Nehru, it was Jinnah and Patel. They were the two people.
> 
> If Mr. Jinnah had died of this illness about two years earlier, I think we would have kept the country unified. He was the one man who really made it impossible. I didn't realize how impossible it was going to be until I actually met Jinnah.
> 
> I have the most enormous conceit in my ability to persuade people to do the right and intelligent thing, not because I am persuasive, so much, as because I have the knack of being able to present the facts in their most favourable light. I didn't realize there was nothing at all you could do about Jinnah. He had completely made up his mind. Nothing would move him.
> 
> Q. There was an impasse?
> A. All I could do was just to negotiate. For instance, he wanted to have the whole of the Punjab, the whole of Bengal, and I told him this was not on. And then of course there followed that amusing and rather tragic game of around and around the mulberry bush which I shall describe.
> 
> When I told Jinnah I don't want you to have a partitioned India, I gave him all my reasons, and he said, "Well, I am afraid we must. We can't trust them. Look what they did to us in 1938-39. When you go, we'll permanently be at the mercy of the elected Hindu majority and we shall have no place, we shall be oppressed and it will be quite terrible."
> 
> I told him I was quite certain that people like Nehru, and there were many of his colleagues like him, had no intention whatever of oppressing them.
> 
> He said, "Well, that's what you say, but Nehru was still the most important figure when they did, in fact, oppress us in 1938-1939. And he failed to stop it. But," he said, "you must give me a viable Pakistan. You must give me the whole of Punjab as well as Sindh and NWFP and Bengal and Assam, and I shall want a corridor to unite them."
> 
> I said, "Look, Mr. Jinnah, you have said that you won't agree to having a minority population ruled by a majority population."
> "Absolutely."
> 
> "Alright, I happen to know that in the Punjab and Bengal there are wide areas where the opposite community is in the majority. It happens also that they just about divide east and west. So I'm afraid that if you want Pakistan, I shall have to arrange for the partitioning of both the Punjab and Bengal. You cannot take into Pakistan the Hindus of Punjab and Bengal."
> 
> "Your Excellency doesn't understand that the Punjab is a nation. Bengal is a nation. A man is a Punjabi or a Bengali first before he is a Hindu or a Muslim. If you give us those provinces you must, under no condition, partition them. You will destroy their viability and cause endless bloodshed and trouble. "
> 
> "Mr. Jinnah, I entirely agree."
> "Oh, you do."
> "Yes, of course. A man is not only a Punjabi or a Bengali before he is a Muslim or Hindu, but he is an Indian before all else. What you're saying is the perfect, absolute answer I've been looking for. You've presented me the arguments to keep India united."
> 
> "Oh, you don't understand. If you do that..." and so we'd start all over again.
> "Look, Mr.Jinnah, it is a fact you want partition?"
> "Yes, of course."
> "Well, if you want partition then you must have partition of Punjab and Bengal."
> 
> You know, not only did this go on for hours, it went over several discussions. He simply was caught in his own trap. He finally gave up and said, "So you insist on giving me a moth-eaten Pakistan."
> I said,"You call it a moth-eaten Pakistan. I don't even want you to take it at all if it's as moth-eaten as that. I'd really like you to leave India unified."
> 
> But he was absolutely set on his great cry of no-he was the de Gaulle of his day-and when after about three or four of these sessions I realized the man was quite unshakeably immovable and quite impervious to any quarrel or logical argument and not even prepared to look at any safeguards which I might be able to devise, I told him, "Mr. Jinnah, if only you would believe me, if only you would accept some organization like the Cabinet Mission Plan you would find that you could have great autonomy, the Punjab and Bengal could rule themselves, it would be even more autonomous than the USA. It would be quite independent. What is more, you could have the great pleasure of oppressing the minorities in any way you wanted to, because you'd be able to prevent the centre from interfering. Doesn't that appeal to you?"
> "No, I don't want to be part of India. I'd sooner lose everything than be under a Hindu raj."
> 
> He went on and on. Very early I realized what I was up against. I never would have believed, I had never visualized that an intelligent man, well-educated, trained in England, was capable of closing his mind-it wasn't that he didn't see it-he closed his mind. A kind of shutter came down. Then I realized that while he was alive, nothing could be done. The others could be persuaded, but not Jinnah. He was a one-man band, and the one man did it like that.
> 
> Mind you, Jinnah is now forgotten. He was the man who did it. Bangladesh and all that misery which I forecast. Twenty-five years ago Rajagopalachari and I said it would last 25 years. It had to. . . It couldn't go on. All this misery and trouble was caused by Jinnah and no one else. And he hasn't had one word said against him. He was the evil genius in this whole thing. He presented a peaceful solution. He wouldn't play along at all. He was perfectly friendly and courteous and polite, at the end, emotionally pleased when I took him around and prevented him from being blown up[in Karachi, post-independence-blogger]. But with him there, you couldn't move him. You could move all the others. When Jinnah came to see me, he always sat there(relaxes, sits back easily), Ali Khan, when he came in with Jinnah sat right on the edge of his chair. He'd keep saying, "Yes, Qaidi." He would not even sit back.
> 
> The only difference between the scheme I was prepared to give Jinnah and that which he would have go under the Cabinet Mission Plan was that under the Cabinet Mission Plan he was obliged to accept a small, weak centre at Delhi controlling the defence, communications and external affairs. The three might really be lumped together under the general heading of defence.
> 
> That speech was absolutely the last plea for a united India. Please remember, every one of these interviews lasted one hour. They were reduced in my note to three or four pages. They represented, each page, 15 minutes of talking. Therefore, one-eighth of what was said was compressed into this.
> 
> I then realized that he had this faculty of closing his mind to the thing-he could see points, he was an able debater, he had a well-trained mind, he was a lawyer, but he gave me the impression of having closed his mind, closed his ears; he didn't want to be persuaded, he didn't want to hear. I mean whatever one said, it passed him absolutely by. In the case of partitioning Punjab and Bengal, he didn't even seem to have been listening to the previous thing at all.
> 
> His great strength. . . he got all this by closing his mind and saying, "No".And how anybody could fail to see Jinnah held the whole key to the situation, to the continent, in his hand, I fail to understand. I saw that dear old Gandhi held nothing at all in his hands.
> 
> I can remember when Jinnah had got his Pakistan. When the British Government was prepared to let me put forward the plan of June 3, when even the Sikhs had swallowed it, and the Congress. That is what he'd been playing for, and he'd got it. And he said, "No."
> 
> Actually what he said was, "I shall have to put it to the Muslim League Council."
> I said, "I can give you until midnight. Or 8 a.m."
> He said, "I can't get them here before a week."
> 
> I said, "Mr. Jinnah, if you think I can hold the position for a week you must be crazy. You know this has been drawn up to boiling point. A miracle has been achieved in that the Congress Party, for the first time, is prepared to accept this sacrifice of partition. But they are not going to be shown up. Having to wait for you to get your Muslim League to accept it tonight or tomorrow morning, it's out for good. And this is going to make a terrible mess and we aren't going to start again. You'll never again get the Congress Party to respond."
> 
> And we went on and on. And he said, "No, no, I must do this thing the logical, legal way, as is properly constituted. I am not the Muslim League."
> 
> I said, "Now, now Mr.Jinnah, come on. Don't tell me that. You can try and tell the world that. But please don't try to kid yourself that I don't know who's who and what's what in the Muslim League."
> 
> And then he said, "I must do this thing absolutely legally."
> 
> I said, "I'm going to tell you something. I can't allow you to throw away the solution you worked so hard to get. It's absolutely idiotic to refuse to say yes. The Congress has said yes. The Sikhs have said yes. Tomorrow at the meeting, I shall say I have received assurance from the Congress Party, with a few reservations, that I am sure I can satisfy and they have accepted. The Sikhs have accepted. And I had a very long, very friendly conversation with Mr. Jinnah last night, we went through every point and Mr. Jinnah feels this is an absolutely acceptable solution. Now, at this moment, I will turn to you and you will nod your head in agreement, and if you shake your head(to indicate disagreement) you will have lost the thing for good, and as far as I am concerned, you can go to hell."
> 
> I didn't know whether he was going to shake his head or nod his head the next morning.
> I said, "Finally, Mr. Jinnah has given me his personal assurance that he is in agreement with this plan," and turned to him and he went like that.* [*Mountbatten nodded his head imperceptably-Authors]
> 
> Now I can tell you that if he had shaken his head, the whole thing would have been in the bumble pot. To think that I had to say yes for this clot to get his own plan through, it shows you what one was up against. This was probably the most hair-raising moment of my entire life. I've never forgotten that moment, waiting to see if that clot was going to nod or shake his head. He had no expression on his face. He couldn't have made a smaller gesture and still accepted.
> 
> The funny part is that the others, I knew, guessed that Jinnah was being difficult. And I think they realized the only hope for them to get a transfer of power quickly was to agree, and I think they allowed me to get away with it. They could have absolutely had me by questioning Jinnah, but they didn't. They knew pretty well what was going on.
> 
> You can't make too much of that, that dramatic moment when this great clot was about to throw everything away and I don't even know why. I can't imagine. He was the Muslim League and what he said, they did. He knew he'd got the last dreg. He knew as far as I was concerned, "You're out whether I shall stay or not, you're out. No one's going to deal with you if you reject this. You'll just have to fight for it."
> 
> But isn't it fascinating that the whole thing should have depended on which way he was going to shake his head.
> 
> Q. Was there a sense of relief among the others?
> 
> A. I, in fact, realized that none of them had the faintest conception of the administrative consequences of the decision they were taking. I'd given Ismay the special task with a high priority to work out all that had to be done. God knows, 30, 40, 50 major things. He produced this admirable paper on the administrative consequence of partition and transfer of power. That was brought down like an exam paper being issued by myself and that marvellous fellow Erskine Crum, and put around, and they couldn't resist looking at it and it destroyed the euphoria. I mean I'm nothing if not a stage manager. This was really stage managed. The result was that their whole attention was distracted by this. They came down to this. Even Jinnah was shaken. Then I did a thing that was very unpopular. To this day a lot of Indians hate it, even friends of mine like Mrs. Pandit. I had a calendar made, which showed how many days were left to the transfer of power.
> 
> They disliked it because they thought it was a trick of mine. I knew it was unpopular but I couldn't care less. It was unpopular because they felt they were being put under pressure and they were. The reason they were put under pressure was that if I'd let up on them the whole thing would have blown up under my feet.
> 
> I have no worry about Jinnah being shown up for the bastard he was. You know he really was. I actually got on with him, because I can get on with anybody. He made not a single effort at all. The worst thing he did to me was that he kept saying I mustn't go, that I must stay, that if I didn't stay they wouldn't get their assets transferred so that after the transfer of power I must stay out in over all charge.
> 
> When this was analyzed by my staff and myself, we realized that we couldn't have two governors-general with a viceroy over them after independence. Quite clearly the only way we could do the thing was if I was Governor-General of both provinces just for the transfer, and that was accepted tacitly as the solution. My staff talked about it with his staff. And indeed we know that this came about because of the Indian side which first suggested I should stay with them-and when they suggested that, which staggered me, that they were prepared to do it, then I said that I thought the solution would be if Jinnah wanted me to stay, then I must also stay as Governor-General of Pakistan.
> 
> It would have been absolute hell, living in two houses, it would be almost untenable, but I was prepared to try it. But he led us up the garden path. At the last moment this man-who obviously wanted to run Pakistan- instead of running it as a chief executive, i.e., the prime minister, decided to be the constitutional head of state who had no authority whatsoever under the Constitution.
> 
> When I discussed it with him I said, "You realize you've chosen the wrong thing. The man you want to be is the Prime Minister, he runs the country."
> 
> "Not in my Pakistan." he said, "there the Prime Minister will do what the Governor-General tells him."
> 
> So I said, "That's the whole reverse of the whole British concept of democracy."
> "Nevertheless, that's the way I'm going to run Pakistan."
> 
> Then he said, "I'll accept you as Chairman of the Defence Council, a very important thing" - and he did until it finally broke down after the troubles. And he said, "I'll also accept the fact that you shouldn't feel that you can't accept the Indian invitation to be Governor-General of India. Please feel it would help us if you would, because the only way to retain my influence with them is by remaining as Governor-General. After all they've got everything and we've got nothing. We've got to get it out of them. Being Governor-General of Pakistan won't help you because we've got nothing to give, to transfer."
> 
> Q. What were your own feelings about this exchange with Jinnah?
> 
> A. You see, I found it very difficult to believe that an educated man, a man of apparently goodwill, with great affection and admiration for the British, a man who'd shown me consideration, although of a rather cold sort, I found it rather difficult to believe that he would accept India becoming a second class power, and destroy everything, and produce what he himself had said would be an unviable Pakistan. I had hoped that he would say, "If you give me absolute and complete autonomy, if you limit the centre's interference to inter-dominion committees which will sit and elaborate a common defence policy, I might go along with keeping India together."
> 
> Do you realize what he has done instead? He absolutely ensured the complete break-up of Pakistan because, you see, the wealth and population resided in East Bengal and they had loathed, they had learned to hate the others, and they've broken up completely. They're now making friends with India. And the little tribes up in the north will split up; if it wasn't for the Americans giving the others enormous aid, they couldn't continue to exist. They're finished the day America withdraws her aid. I don't see how they can survive. Even with an army, an air force, they'll be completely at the mercy of India. All this I tried to explain to Jinnah. I went on and on, and I am fairly glib, and I was very clued up.
> 
> I don't think people realized what a one man band this was. I don't believe people realize that nobody ever did any negotiating for me with anybody. Sometimes I'd try to get Ismay to go back to Jinnah to butter him up. He liked Ismay, but this was entirely a one-man band. Whereas before it was a negotiation by a sort of a committee, by sitting around a table and thrashing things out.
> 
> If you, in fact, are doing it yourself on the other hand, if you know that what you say goes and you can tell London what you've done, you don't have to ask their permission. If you're a complete negotiator like that, then you can get things very easily.
> 
> So it isn't surprising that it was a one-man band, that I knew all the answers. It had to be a one-man band. Even a stenographer sitting in the room would have absolutely killed the effect.They never in their lives had been faced with a Viceroy all by himself. They'd never in their lives had to deal with day to day conversations and continuing dialogue that went on day after day after day. They were used to round table conferences, to endless great discussions. This was something none of them had ever come across before.
> 
> It produced quite a different result. People saw points and moved and spoke in a way they'd never done before. I will at once confess that I failed with Jinnah. But let me tell you this, nobody else would have been any more successful. I don't believe there was any more you could do with Jinnah. I must take the responsibility myself. And it was done at very high speed.



Source and a link please.


----------



## Screambowl

meanwhile, Kashmir is not a peace of cake that one can steal it so easily. lol


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Pakistanisage said:


> *That is an honest question and I would give you an honest answer without regards to how many people I offend on both sides of the divide ( or maybe on all three sides of the divide ). Kashmir is such an intractable issue that it will require painful compromise from all the parties involved. I think all parties involved will have to contend with little less than what they would ideally want to have. One possible solution is for India to retain the Jammu and Southern territory. Let the Kashmiris in the valley have their Independence with the Leh population given the right to have a referendum if they want to join the Independent Kashmir of the valley or stay with India. The Kashmiris on Pakistani side will remain with Pakistan.
> *
> With the Kashmir issue and water issue resolved, Pakistan and India can start building closer Economic ties and Relationship to improve their respective Economies and stop military confrontation.



I am sorry but what concession is Pakistan making here ? no referendum in Pakistan occ Kashmir but a referendum in Kashmir valley and leh ? no way hosay . Only in your dreams . The only logical solution is Status Quo .Convert the LOC into international border.

You handle your problems in Gilgit Baltistan , we don't interfere . Let us handle our problems in the Kashmir valley , you don't interfere.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SamantK

Pakistanisage said:


> That is an honest question and I would give you an honest answer without regards to how many people I offend on both sides of the divide ( or maybe on all three sides of the divide ). Kashmir is such an intractable issue that it will require painful compromise from all the parties involved. I think all parties involved will have to contend with little less than what they would ideally want to have. One possible solution is for India to retain the Jammu and Southern territory. Let the Kashmiris in the valley have their Independence with the Leh population given the right to have a referendum if they want to join the Independent Kashmir of the valley or stay with India. The Kashmiris on Pakistani side will remain with Pakistan.
> 
> With the Kashmir issue and water issue resolved, Pakistan and India can start building closer Economic ties and Relationship to improve their respective Economies and stop military confrontation.


 Good suggestions but you are missing the whole point which has been already been pointed out before. Why should we compromise when the issue has only been raked up to serve the interest of Pakistan? The basis of the claim that Kashmir has a majority Muslim population would naturally mean that it should be with Pakistan stands debunked, then why a compromise? The only solution is for Pakistan to forget what is not theirs and stop trying to distort history and make false claims.


----------



## karan.1970

Screambowl said:


> meanwhile, Kashmir is not a peace of cake that one can steal it so easily. lol




on a lighter note 

funny Deol.. - YouTube


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

RKhan said:


> I don't wanna sound inconsiderate for Kashmir but Lahore was predominately a Hindu/Sikh city and it went to us so the big fuss about Kashmir....seems tiring.



Yes but there were more muslims than hindus or sikhs, hindus and sikhs are different

It was like that :
45% muslims
35% hindus
20% sikhs

So islam was the most important religion in lahore.

Lahore belongs to Pakistan 
Like gurdaspur, ferozepur and actual faridkot

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DRaisinHerald

RKhan said:


> I don't wanna sound inconsiderate for Kashmir but Lahore was predominately a Hindu/Sikh city and it went to us so the big fuss about Kashmir....seems tiring.



THe Sikhs had a choice between Lahore and Amritsar; they chose Amritsar and we got Lahore. Trade off.


----------



## T90TankGuy

the BBC actually had made a lovely documentary . it answers all questions . would advice all to try to watch it .


it available on you tube . *Partition: The Day India Burned*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yeti

Can't steal something that was never yours to begin with.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

jbgt90 said:


> the BBC actually had made a lovely documentary . it answers all questions . would advice all to try to watch it .
> 
> 
> it available on you tube . *Partition: The Day India Burned*



Did u see it? it says tht before the partion it was the hindus who were racist and tht was the reason muslims chose Pakistan... u couldnt drink from a well tht hindus drank from.... nor touch glasses in shops,houses of hindus and sikhs... same case with kashmir... how the dogras used to beat kashmiri workers and throw their luggage etc... the 47-48 dogra genocide of kashmiris is also well noted how they burnt down villages,looted houses and killed kashmiris almost 2 lac in one go... thts how the first kashmir war started.... it was the sikhs who started killing muslims and go it served where muslims were in majority...in Pakistan.... 

The first train tht reached Pakistan had only 1 survivor a baby recovered from the lap of his dead mother.


----------



## Yeti

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Did u see it? it says tht before the partion it was the hindus who were racist and tht was the reason muslims chose Pakistan... u couldnt drink from a well tht hindus drank from.... nor touch glasses in shops,houses of hindus and sikhs... same case with kashmir... how the dogras used to beat kashmiri workers and throw their luggage etc... the 47-48 dogra genocide of kashmiris is also well noted how they burnt down villages,looted houses and killed kashmiris almost 2 lac in one go... thts how the first kashmir war started.... it was the sikhs who started killing muslims and go it served where muslims were in majority...in Pakistan....
> 
> The first train tht reached Pakistan had only 1 survivor a baby recovered from the lap of his dead mother.


 


Yes and no Hindus were killed during partition in Karachi  we all know the state of minorities in Pakistan where Hindu dr's are killed and Hindus cant drink water from muslim wells.







Hindus and Sikhs were massacred by the wahabi jihadi dogs

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DRaisinHerald

Yeti said:


> Hindus and Sikhs were massacred by the wahabi jihadi dogs



What? 



Yeti said:


> Yes and no Hindus were killed during partition in Karachi  we all know the state of minorities in Pakistan where Hindu dr's are killed and Hindus cant drink water from muslim wellss



Sindh was rather peaceful during partition, nothing like Punjab.


----------



## shelly

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Kashmir is the only state in India who have a large majority of muslims ( also lakshwadeep isles )
> It should belong to pakistan just because of that
> Kashmir valley belongs to a muslim country, hindus killed so many Kashmiris


if the pandits return back to kashmir then hindus will become majority again.


----------



## Yeti

DRaisinHerald said:


> What?
> 
> 
> 
> Sindh was rather peaceful during partition, nothing like Punjab.





Yes you can google what Hindus and Sikhs went through in cities like Karachi and why they had to leave


----------



## shelly

change title to How Pakistan was stolen from India by the British


----------



## JonAsad

shelly said:


> change title to How Pakistan was stolen from India by the British



or
How Hindustan was stolen from Muslims by the British-


----------



## Avatar

JonAsad said:


> or
> How Hindustan was stolen from Muslims by the British-



or how the Mughals invaded India ..This can go on forever, the only way out is to accept the present reality as it is.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Yes but there were more muslims than hindus or sikhs, hindus and sikhs are different
> 
> It was like that :
> 45% muslims
> 35% hindus
> 20% sikhs
> 
> So islam was the most important religion in lahore.
> 
> Lahore belongs to Pakistan
> Like gurdaspur, ferozepur and actual faridkot



Hindus and Sikhs were not different as far as the Two Nation Theory was concerned, which was the intellectual justification for Pakistan. Going by that strange doctrine, which lies in tatters today, those not Muslim were 55% of the population of Lahore.

Nobody minds what you to choose to believe in,but don't keep changing it as it suits you from time to time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JonAsad

Avatar said:


> or how the Mughals invaded India ..This can go on forever, the only way out is to accept the present reality as it is.



Just to point it out- There was no India at the time of the great Mughals-


----------



## Joe Shearer

JonAsad said:


> or
> How Hindustan was stolen from Muslims by the British-



You don't like reading much, it appears. If the British had not come along, we'd have been writing to each other in Marathi today.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## shelly

JonAsad said:


> or
> How Hindustan was stolen from Muslims by the British-


or how Muslims came to India they had no business to be in


----------



## Joe Shearer

JonAsad said:


> Just to point it out- There was no India at the time of the great Mughals-



We've been through this several times.

There is political India, and cultural India and geographical India.

The Mughals invaded geographical and cultural India; there was no kingdom or any other political entity called India at that time. 

All these usages were the names by which the external world knew India, but habitants of India did not use it.


----------



## JonAsad

Joe Shearer said:


> You don't like reading much, it appears. If the British had not come along, we'd have been writing to each other in Marathi today.



what appears is of no concern- what had appeared is- We all talk in English now-


----------



## shelly

RazPaK said:


> No need to deviate off topic. I have said my father's side is Kashmiri which is true. I can post a pic and you would end up looking foolish. I never identified myself as Kashmiri. I was born in Punjab and speak punjabi from my mothers side. They came from Jalandhar. Thanks.


so you are an indian?


----------



## DRaisinHerald

shelly said:


> or how Muslims came to India they had no business to be in



You don't need to worry about that; 'India' originally referred to the land of the Indus Valley, which is in Pakistan today. This is geographical and historical India, and the people of this type of India don't mind the Muslim 'invaders'.


----------



## shelly

DRaisinHerald said:


> You don't need to worry about that; 'India' originally referred to the land of the Indus Valley, which is in Pakistan today. This is geographical and historical India, and the people of this type of India don't mind the Muslim 'invaders'.


thats because the original people are not there and in curent india. the type of india you are referring to has only invaders from barbaric arabia


----------



## DRaisinHerald

shelly said:


> thats because the original people are not there and in curent india. the type of india you are referring to has only invaders from barbaric arabia



I'm afraid not; most people are native to the Subcontinent (Indus Valley in this case) and a minority have partial mixed ancestry


----------



## shelly

DRaisinHerald said:


> I'm afraid not; most people are native to the Subcontinent (Indus Valley in this case) and a minority have partial mixed ancestry


from what i understand the muslim invaders carried off with them many many women and killed the males.. so if you are there it can only be that you are of mixed parentage, of arab men and hindu women lineage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

DRaisinHerald said:


> You don't need to worry about that; 'India' originally referred to the land of the Indus Valley, which is in Pakistan today. This is geographical and historical India, and the people of this type of India don't mind the Muslim 'invaders'.



Wrong, as usual. It referred to geographical India. Read Megasthenes for proof.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jbond197

EjazR said:


> *@jbond197*
> The term Qadiani comes from the fact that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed the founder of the Ahmediyah movement was born in Qadian. Not that it consisted of his followers. His movement didn't take off until the 1900s and the vast majority of his converts were mainly the elites in Punjab, Delhi and UP and the Muslims based in London and the US.




I know very well about Qadianis and the fact that Qadian in Gurdaspur is highly important religious site for Ahmadis/Qadianis even to this day..



> Qadianis were involved in the Pakistan movement from the very begnning. For example, the Lahore resolution of 1940 was drafted by Sir Zafurllah Khan. They had promimnent presnce in various Muslim League comittes and British India administrative machinery. Basically pretty much supported the Pakistan movement in all respects from the very begnning even when there was no support for it by others.
> 
> Its another story that soon after Pakistan was formed, a vicious campaign was launched against them in Pakistan and have been completely marginalised today.



My point about Qadianis was from today's perspective.. They are considered non-Muslims today and even at the time of Partition they were not considered any better.. Pakistanis tried to exploit them earlier but today when their constitution declared them Non-Muslims then we should look at least at Gurdaspur division incident@independence in a new light..

Today, with new facts on plate, such talks of injustices done at Gurdaspur should die down.. The point is Pakistan has made up their mind and call them Non-muslims.. Then from that point, any claims of Gurdaspur being Muslim majority in 1947 should be considered null and void.. Now, isn't it?

I was putting my arguments based on Qadianis but apart from that there were quite a few counter balances for Gurdaspur as well..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Screambowl

Kashmir was never a part of Pakistan from where the hell it got stolen from you? are you talking about Bangladesh?
as mentioned earlier, it was Pakistan who tried to annex Kashmir forcefully. You did similar with the Balochistan. No one wanted to join Pakistan rather have their Independent Nations!!!!

aur wese bhi chor ke ghar chori nahi hoti.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shelly

if pakistan claims stake in kashmir then Bangladesh also can because that was the real paksitan in 1971. because that part won the election

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Screambowl

what do you have to say in the case where Balochistan was also stolen From Baluchis, Don't be monotonic in nature. 
Please don't bring absurd threads to discuss which will end up in troll.

This thread should be closed

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Adnan Faruqi

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Kashmir is the only state in India who have a large majority of muslims ( also lakshwadeep isles )
> It should belong to pakistan just because of that
> Kashmir valley belongs to a muslim country, hindus killed so many Kashmiris



lol East pakistan (now Bangladesh) was also Muslim majority state what happen to it?????? 

Its a answer to ur question.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T90TankGuy

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Did u see it? it says tht before the partion it was the hindus who were racist and tht was the reason muslims chose Pakistan... u couldnt drink from a well tht hindus drank from.... nor touch glasses in shops,houses of hindus and sikhs... same case with kashmir... how the dogras used to beat kashmiri workers and throw their luggage etc... the 47-48 dogra genocide of kashmiris is also well noted how they burnt down villages,looted houses and killed kashmiris almost 2 lac in one go... thts how the first kashmir war started.... it was the sikhs who started killing muslims and go it served where muslims were in majority...in Pakistan....
> 
> The first train tht reached Pakistan had only 1 survivor a baby recovered from the lap of his dead mother.



i cant help it if all you took from that documentary was that .

it showed both sides committed atrocities. by the way the so called "lashkars " which invaded Kashmir had nothing to do with the murders which happened on both sides during partition . those invaders had one thing in mind . that was to grab as much land as they could . the how ever stopped to rape loot and pillage .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bhairava

Take Gurdaspur and give us Lahore and parts of Sindh which were Hindu majority in 47. 

facepalm.

what a lame thread..


----------



## Adnan Faruqi

*Pakistani says:*

Gurdaspur should be part of pakistan because it was a Muslim majority district.

*The Fact says:*

*Gurdaspur is a Ahmadis/Qadianis majority state not a Muslim majority district.*

1. Pakistanis don't consider Ahmadis/Qadianis as a Muslims but when it comes to getting a district "Gurdaspur" they are ready to lie and spread propaganda by calling it a Muslim majority district.

2. When Ahmadis/Qadianis are not Muslim then how come their population can be counted as the Muslims??? 

2. Pakistanis should decide first:

a.) Ahmadis/Qadianis = Muslims or not. 

3. This is a perfect example of hippocrasy, double standards and fake propaganda.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Rig Vedic

jbond197 said:


> Qadianis ... are considered non-Muslims today and even at the time of Partition they were not considered any better.



This is not quite the right perspective.

As a pro-British sect, Qadianis were among the leaders of the movement for creation of Pakistan. 

Now of course they may rue it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

JonAsad said:


> what appears is of no concern- what had appeared is- We all talk in English now-



That's fine by me. The point is that in either case, the 'Muslims', whatever you mean by sweeping everybody into that category, were slated to lose power. Why talk about the British 'stealing' Hindustan? There were others - Marathas, Sikhs - ready to sweep aside the rag, tag and bobtail that was left by the beginning of the nineteenth century.

How was Hindustan acquired by the predecessors of the British? By court decree?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## alphamale

history is history, talk abt present. neither pak can get whole kashmir nor india can get Pakistani kashmir. Kashmirs on both sides have no choice. they have to live with their respective countries(ind & pak), no matter what ur believes are, what ur theories are.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Screambowl

4 baar maar kha chuka hai lost muslim majority Bdesh still they are exploiting Islam to get Kashmir. How cheap!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## niaz

As usual we get side tracked and talk of pillage and rape by Indian troops or by the Frontier tribesmen. Both the Indians and my country get highly emotional on the Kashmir question. 

The fact that Gurdaspur went to India thru Mountbatten bias happens to be true and corroborated thru other sources. Don&#8217;t know the reason, may be because Mountbatten expected to be the first Governor General of both India & Pakistan and the Quaid disappointed him by insisting that he would be the first Governor General of Pakistan instead. However Gurdaspur with India only helped India to keep hold of Kashmir but had no bearing on the instrument of accession signed by Raja Hari Sing Dogra. 

Mountbatten did not steal Kashmir, if anyone did it was Sh. Abdullah who was the leader of National Conference (initially called Muslim Conference) the largest political party of Kashmir. Sh. Abdullah always wanted self-rule for the Kashmiris. This was not a communal party and would struggle for the rights of the oppressed, whether Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, with the same fervour. 

Sheikh Abdulla reasserted that the struggle of Kashmiris was not a communal struggle. Party was initially called Muslim Conference but the name was later changed to national conference.

Naya Kashmir (New Kashmir) is the name given to the memorandum that Sheikh Abdullah submitted to Maharaja Hari Singh then ruler of Jammu and Kashmir State in 1944.

It was the outline of a plan to convert the Jammu and Kashmir state from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional democracy with the Maharajah remaining as the Head of the State as the Monarch is in Britain. A detailed economic plan for the development of Jammu and Kashmir State was a part of this memorandum. It was subsequently adopted by the National Conference as its manifesto. The "Naya Kashmir" plan proved to be immensely popular in Kashmir as it was the blueprint for a welfare state far in advance of its times.

Thus majority of Kashmiris including Muslims leaders such as Ch. Ghulam Abbas, Sh. Abdullah and Mulavi Abdul Rahim (Founders of the Muslim Conference) were not in favour of division on communal basis. Kashmir with Sh. Abdullah as her Prime Minister did in fact enjoy a special status within India until outfoxed by Nehru in 1953.

By a simple order by Constitutional Head of the State; Dr Karan Singh (son of the Raja Hari Singh) Sh. Abdullah was fired as a Prime Minister and Kashmir was made into a State as part of the federation of India. Sh. Abdullah was tried for conspiracy against India and imprisoned for 11 years.

There is also a very strong misconception among Pakistanis that 1948 UN resolution was in Pakistan&#8217;s favour. For the record UN Resolution adopted on August 13, 1948 is noted below. Please read Part III carefully.

Quote

Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal

PART I
CEASE-FIRE ORDER

A. The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that their respective High Commands will issue separately and simultaneously a cease- fire order to apply to all forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as of the earliest practicable date or dates to be mutually agreed upon within four days after these proposals have been accepted by both Governments. 

B. The High Commands of Indian and Pakistan forces agreed to refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (For the purpose of these proposals "forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides). 

C.The Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces of India and Pakistan shall promptly confer regarding any necessary local changes in present dispositions which may facilitate the cease-fire. 

D.In its discretions and as the Commission may find practicable, the Commission will appoint military observers who under the authority of the Commission and with the co-operation of both Commands will supervise the observance of the cease-fire order. 

E.The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations. 

PART II
TRUCE AGREEMENT

Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.

A. (l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavor to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting. 

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

B. (1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission

(2) Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

(3) The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within their power to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human and political rights will be guaranteed.

C. (1) Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communiqué containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission will be made public.

PART III

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.
________________________________________

*The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 13-8-1948.
Members of the Commission: Argentina. Belgium, Columbia, Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.

Unquote

Kashmir state has for a long time enjoyed an independent or semi-independent status and historically distinct from India. (Indians please don&#8217;t quote &#8216;Rajatrangini&#8217;; I have that book in my library in English). 

Even though Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked the valley in 1014, 1015 & 1021, Muslim rule in Kashmir did not start until 1338. Kashmir remained independent until annexed by Akbar in 1586.

It must be clearly understood by all my countrymen until such time that a referendum has taken place; and no one can be 100% certain what would be the outcome; Kashmir does not belong to India or to Pakistan, but to the Kashmiris.

Only if we were expecting to occupy Kashmir by force, can it be said that Mountbatten stole Kashmir from Pakistan by making it difficult for Pakistan to conquer Kashmir. But in my honest opinion, Pakistan was never in a position to do so.

The fact that Operation Gibraltar failed miserably in 1965 to incite Kashmiris to throw off the Indian yoke; proves that it is not a forgone conclusion that Kashmiris will automatically opt for Pakistan.

I have been discussing this subject with the Kashmiris, and there are far too many in the UK, for the last 40 years. Believe me, a lot of them have no wish to join Pakistan and would rather have an independent Kashmir. 

This is the bitter truth, whether you like it or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## RAJPUTAANA

niaz said:


> As usual we get side tracked and talk of pillage and rape by Indian troops or by the Frontier tribesmen. Both the Indians and my country get highly emotional on the Kashmir question.
> 
> The fact that Gurdaspur went to India thru Mountbatten bias happens to be true and corroborated thru other sources. Don&#8217;t know the reason, may be because Mountbatten expected to be the first Governor General of both India & Pakistan and The Quaid disappointed him by insisting that he would be the first Governor General of Pakistan instead. However Gurdaspur with India only helped India to keep hold of Kashmir but had no bearing on the instrument of accession signed by Raja Hari Sing Dogra.
> 
> Mountbatten did not steal Kashmir, if anyone did it was Sh. Abdullah who was the leader of National Conference (initially called Muslim Conference) the largest political party of Kashmir. Sh. Abdullah always wanted self-rule for the Kashmiris. This was not a communal party and would struggle for the rights of the oppressed, whether Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, with the same fervour.
> 
> Sheikh Abdulla reasserted that the struggle of Kashmiris was not a communal struggle. Party was initially called Muslim Conference but the name was later changed to national conference.
> 
> Naya Kashmir (New Kashmir) is the name given to the memorandum that Sheikh Abdullah submitted to Maharaja Hari Singh then ruler of Jammu and Kashmir State in 1944.
> 
> It was the outline of a plan to convert the Jammu and Kashmir state from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional democracy with the Maharajah remaining as the Head of the State as the Monarch is in Britain. A detailed economic plan for the development of Jammu and Kashmir State was a part of this memorandum. It was subsequently adopted by the National Conference as its manifesto. The "Naya Kashmir" plan proved to be immensely popular in Kashmir as it was the blueprint for a welfare state far in advance of its times.
> 
> Thus majority of Kashmiris including Muslims leaders such as Ch. Ghulam Abbas, Sh. Abdullah and Mulavi Abdul Rahim (Founders of the Muslim Conference) were not in favour of division on communal basis. Kashmir with Sh. Abdullah as her Prime Minister did in fact enjoy a special status with India, outfoxed by Nehru.
> 
> By a simple order by Constitutional Head of the State; Dr Karan Singh (son of the Raja Hari Singh) Sh. Abdullah was fired as a Prime Minister and Kashmir was made into a State as part of the federation of India. Sh. Abdullah was tried for conspiracy against India and imprisoned for 11 years.
> 
> There is also a very strong misconception among Pakistanis that 1948 UN resolution was in Pakistan&#8217;s favour. For the record UN Resolution adopted on August 13, 1948 is noted below:
> 
> Quote
> 
> Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal
> 
> PART I
> CEASE-FIRE ORDER
> 
> A. The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that their respective High Commands will issue separately and simultaneously a cease- fire order to apply to all forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as of the earliest practicable date or dates to be mutually agreed upon within four days after these proposals have been accepted by both Governments.
> 
> B. The High Commands of Indian and Pakistan forces agreed to refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (For the purpose of these proposals "forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides).
> 
> C.The Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces of India and Pakistan shall promptly confer regarding any necessary local changes in present dispositions which may facilitate the cease-fire.
> 
> D.In its discretions and as the Commission may find practicable, the Commission will appoint military observers who under the authority of the Commission and with the co-operation of both Commands will supervise the observance of the cease-fire order.
> 
> E.The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations.
> 
> PART II
> TRUCE AGREEMENT
> 
> Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.
> 
> A. (l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.
> 
> (2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavor to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
> 
> (3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.
> 
> B. (1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission
> 
> (2) Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.
> 
> (3) The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within their power to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human and political rights will be guaranteed.
> 
> C. (1) Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communiqué containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission will be made public.
> 
> PART III
> 
> The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.
> ________________________________________
> 
> *The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 13-8-1948.
> Members of the Commission: Argentina. Belgium, Columbia, Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.
> 
> Unquote
> 
> Kashmir state has for a long time enjoyed an independent or semi-independent status and historically distinct from India. (Indians please don&#8217;t quote &#8216;Rajatrangini&#8217;; I have that book in my library in English).
> 
> Even though Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked the valley in 1014, 1015 & 1021, Muslim rule in Kashmir did not start until 1338. Kashmir remained independent until annexed by Akbar in 1586.
> 
> It must be clearly understood by all my countrymen until such time that a referendum has taken place; and no one can be 100% certain what would be the outcome; it does not belong to India or to Pakistan but to the Kashmiris.
> 
> Only if we were expecting to occupy Kashmir by force, can it be said that Mountbatten stole Kashmir from Pakistan by making it difficult for Pakistan to conquer Kashmir. But in my honest opinion, Pakistan was never in a position to do so.
> 
> The fact that Operation Gibraltar failed miserably in 1965 to incite Kashmiris to throw off the Indian yoke; proves that it is not a forgone conclusion that Kashmiris will automatically opt for Pakistan.
> 
> I have been discussing this subject with the Kashmiris, and there are far too many in the UK, for the last 40 years. Believe me, a lot of them have no wish to join Pakistan and would rather have an independent Kashmir.
> 
> This is the bitter truth, whether you like it or not.



really a very educating post.


----------



## Joe Shearer

niaz said:


> As usual we get side tracked and talk of pillage and rape by Indian troops or by the Frontier tribesmen. Both the Indians and my country get highly emotional on the Kashmir question.
> 
> The fact that Gurdaspur went to India thru Mountbatten bias happens to be true and corroborated thru other sources. Don&#8217;t know the reason, may be because Mountbatten expected to be the first Governor General of both India & Pakistan and the Quaid disappointed him by insisting that he would be the first Governor General of Pakistan instead. However Gurdaspur with India only helped India to keep hold of Kashmir but had no bearing on the instrument of accession signed by Raja Hari Sing Dogra.
> 
> Mountbatten did not steal Kashmir, if anyone did it was Sh. Abdullah who was the leader of National Conference (initially called Muslim Conference) the largest political party of Kashmir. Sh. Abdullah always wanted self-rule for the Kashmiris. This was not a communal party and
> Sheikh Abdulla reasserted that the struggle of Kashmiris was not a communal struggle.
> 
> [....]
> 
> The fact that Operation Gibraltar failed miserably in 1965 to incite Kashmiris to throw off the Indian yoke; proves that it is not a forgone conclusion that Kashmiris will automatically opt for Pakistan.
> 
> I have been discussing this subject with the Kashmiris, and there are far too many in the UK, for the last 40 years. Believe me, a lot of them have no wish to join Pakistan and would rather have an independent Kashmir.
> 
> This is the bitter truth, whether you like it or not.



A masterly summary. Truly magisterial.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Yeti said:


> Yes and no Hindus were killed during partition in Karachi  we all know the state of minorities in Pakistan where Hindu dr's are killed and Hindus cant drink water from muslim wells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hindus and Sikhs were massacred by the *wahabi jihadi dogs*


 
The whole documentry also shows a indian hindu from lahore how he saw a mob stripping rapping and murdering muslim schoolgirls before 14th aug in delhi... it also shows how sikh mobs or JATHAS armed with looted or service weapons frm ww2 training and wipping our muslims ? how a hindus mother used to treat her muslim neighbours as untouchables...not touching the food they sent,how in lahore muslims couldnt drink from wells... how the muslims had become defensive and pacifists and lived in communities... mostly in rural areas.....where the divide was further wide... 


Thanks to hindu and sikh swines!

In urdu there is a proverb "Tali donou hathoun say bajti hai".....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shelly

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> The whole documentry also shows a indian hindu from lahore how he saw a mob stripping rapping and murdering muslim schoolgirls before 14th aug in delhi... it also shows how sikh mobs or JATHAS armed with looted or service weapons frm ww2 training and wipping our muslims ? how a hindus mother used to treat her muslim neighbours as untouchables...not touching the food they sent,how in lahore muslims couldnt drink from wells... how the muslims had become defensive and pacifists and lived in communities... mostly in rural areas.....where the divide was further wide...
> 
> 
> Thanks to hindu and sikh swines!
> 
> In urdu there is a proverb "*Tali donou hathoun say bajti hai".*....


tell that to Shikh Zaid hamid uz zaman ur rahman almaliki chain kuliki


----------



## Screambowl

please close the thread, it has become a trollolo
thanks.


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

niaz said:


> As usual we get side tracked and talk of pillage and rape by Indian troops or by the Frontier tribesmen. Both the Indians and my country get highly emotional on the Kashmir question.
> 
> The fact that Gurdaspur went to India thru Mountbatten bias happens to be true and corroborated thru other sources. Dont know the reason, may be because Mountbatten expected to be the first Governor General of both India & Pakistan and the Quaid disappointed him by insisting that he would be the first Governor General of Pakistan instead. However Gurdaspur with India only helped India to keep hold of Kashmir but had no bearing on the instrument of accession signed by Raja Hari Sing Dogra.
> 
> Mountbatten did not steal Kashmir, if anyone did it was Sh. Abdullah who was the leader of National Conference (initially called Muslim Conference) the largest political party of Kashmir. Sh. Abdullah always wanted self-rule for the Kashmiris. This was not a communal party and would struggle for the rights of the oppressed, whether Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, with the same fervour.
> 
> Sheikh Abdulla reasserted that the struggle of Kashmiris was not a communal struggle. Party was initially called Muslim Conference but the name was later changed to national conference.
> 
> Naya Kashmir (New Kashmir) is the name given to the memorandum that Sheikh Abdullah submitted to Maharaja Hari Singh then ruler of Jammu and Kashmir State in 1944.
> 
> It was the outline of a plan to convert the Jammu and Kashmir state from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional democracy with the Maharajah remaining as the Head of the State as the Monarch is in Britain. A detailed economic plan for the development of Jammu and Kashmir State was a part of this memorandum. It was subsequently adopted by the National Conference as its manifesto. The "Naya Kashmir" plan proved to be immensely popular in Kashmir as it was the blueprint for a welfare state far in advance of its times.
> 
> Thus majority of Kashmiris including Muslims leaders such as Ch. Ghulam Abbas, Sh. Abdullah and Mulavi Abdul Rahim (Founders of the Muslim Conference) were not in favour of division on communal basis. Kashmir with Sh. Abdullah as her Prime Minister did in fact enjoy a special status within India until outfoxed by Nehru in 1953.
> 
> By a simple order by Constitutional Head of the State; Dr Karan Singh (son of the Raja Hari Singh) Sh. Abdullah was fired as a Prime Minister and Kashmir was made into a State as part of the federation of India. Sh. Abdullah was tried for conspiracy against India and imprisoned for 11 years.
> 
> There is also a very strong misconception among Pakistanis that 1948 UN resolution was in Pakistans favour. For the record UN Resolution adopted on August 13, 1948 is noted below. Please read Part III carefully.
> 
> Quote
> 
> Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal
> 
> PART I
> CEASE-FIRE ORDER
> 
> A. The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that their respective High Commands will issue separately and simultaneously a cease- fire order to apply to all forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as of the earliest practicable date or dates to be mutually agreed upon within four days after these proposals have been accepted by both Governments.
> 
> B. The High Commands of Indian and Pakistan forces agreed to refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (For the purpose of these proposals "forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides).
> 
> C.The Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces of India and Pakistan shall promptly confer regarding any necessary local changes in present dispositions which may facilitate the cease-fire.
> 
> D.In its discretions and as the Commission may find practicable, the Commission will appoint military observers who under the authority of the Commission and with the co-operation of both Commands will supervise the observance of the cease-fire order.
> 
> E.The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations.
> 
> PART II
> TRUCE AGREEMENT
> 
> Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.
> 
> A. (l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.
> 
> (2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavor to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
> 
> (3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.
> 
> B. (1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission
> 
> (2) Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.
> 
> (3) The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within their power to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human and political rights will be guaranteed.
> 
> C. (1) Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communiqué containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission will be made public.
> 
> PART III
> 
> The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.
> ________________________________________
> 
> *The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 13-8-1948.
> Members of the Commission: Argentina. Belgium, Columbia, Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.
> 
> Unquote
> 
> Kashmir state has for a long time enjoyed an independent or semi-independent status and historically distinct from India. (Indians please dont quote Rajatrangini; I have that book in my library in English).
> 
> Even though Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked the valley in 1014, 1015 & 1021, Muslim rule in Kashmir did not start until 1338. Kashmir remained independent until annexed by Akbar in 1586.
> 
> It must be clearly understood by all my countrymen until such time that a referendum has taken place; and no one can be 100% certain what would be the outcome; Kashmir does not belong to India or to Pakistan, but to the Kashmiris.
> 
> Only if we were expecting to occupy Kashmir by force, can it be said that Mountbatten stole Kashmir from Pakistan by making it difficult for Pakistan to conquer Kashmir. But in my honest opinion, Pakistan was never in a position to do so.
> 
> The fact that Operation Gibraltar failed miserably in 1965 to incite Kashmiris to throw off the Indian yoke; proves that it is not a forgone conclusion that Kashmiris will automatically opt for Pakistan.
> 
> I have been discussing this subject with the Kashmiris, and there are far too many in the UK, for the last 40 years. Believe me, a lot of them have no wish to join Pakistan and would rather have an independent Kashmir.
> 
> This is the bitter truth, whether you like it or not.



Agree with you sir , however , the wishes of the People of Ladakh and Jammu also can not be ignored. They have always shown the desire of a complete union with India . The desire for an indipendent state is limited only to the Kashmir valley and hence only the wishes of the people of the Valley can not dictate the fate of the whole of Kashmir .The mismatch is not only between the ambitions of Kashmiris and Indians but also between people within Jammu and Kashmir itself . 

i don't even understand how this state came into being , the three divisions of Jammu , Kashmir Valley and Ladakh are so different from each other .


----------



## rajnikant

Pakistanisage said:


> The 200,000 Kashmiris you have butchered are not Punjabi Taliban , my friend. They are from Sirinagar valley and are Kashmiris. I think you need to come out of Denial, Son.


why are u bullshitting in the whole thread..from the starting...without even a single source..then claiming innocence that your are doing it for pure academics purpose...
u smell rats a$$ 

secondly No Kashmir for you..not now, not tomorrow...NEVER...get this straight through your thick skull...and close this thread


----------



## lkozhi

Kashmir stolen by Pakistani
-------------------------------
Kashmir was name of the place where rishi kashyapa medited several thousand centuries ago. Kashyapa one day decided to have a bath. While bathing he looked up and found a pakistani stealing his kashmiri shawl . Kashyapa beat the pakistani away with a bat.Kasyapa became very happy and in memory of the bat that came to his help he named the mount where the battle took place Mt Batten

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

shelly said:


> tell that to Shikh Zaid hamid uz zaman ur rahman almaliki chain kuliki



Thts from the same BBC documentry those edited part low life trolls keep posting...

Now get lost.


----------



## Luffy 500

Its a well known fact that mouthbaton was always baised towards hindus and was 2 faced. Nehru's illegitimate relations with
muthbatons wife is a historical fact. He was a smart a$$ no doubt , used the kings wife to get his work done. And mouthbaton
was a shameless british crook and so no surprise there. Raja harising was a hindu and so according to partition principles, he
can not give kashmir to India. Kashmir being a muslim majority technically goes to PAK and fag0t nehru,muthbaton and harising
trio stole it. Apart from kashmir, pujab and whole of bengal should have went to PAK as well since those were overwhelming
muslim majority but hipocrisy of hindus knows no bounds. Muslim majority states of tripura, district of Karimganj in sylhet was
given to India even after PAK got it by referendum. Not to forget lawkideep which was also muslim majority. In short indian
congress with the help of 2 faced british , got more than they deserved, they even rigged referendumvotes in many districts 
to to annex those to bharmin india.


----------



## SamantK

Luffy 500 said:


> Its a well known fact that mouthbaton was always baised towards hindus and was 2 faced. Nehru's illegitimate relations with
> muthbatons wife is a historical fact. He was a smart a$$ no doubt , used the kings wife to get his work done. And mouthbaton
> was a shameless british crook and so no surprise there. Raja harising was a hindu and so according to partition principles, he
> can not give kashmir to India. Kashmir being a muslim majority technically goes to PAK and fag0t nehru,muthbaton and harising
> trio stole it. Apart from kashmir, pujab and whole of bengal should have went to PAK as well since those were overwhelming
> muslim majority but hipocrisy of hindus knows no bounds. Muslim majority states of tripura, district of Karimganj in sylhet was
> given to India even after PAK got it by referendum. Not to forget lawkideep which was also muslim majority. In short indian
> congress with the help of 2 faced british , got more than they deserved, they even rigged referendumvotes in many districts
> to to annex those to bharmin india.



God, how can you lie so confidently? 

Dint you read the whole thread?


----------



## niaz

nick_indian said:


> Agree with you sir , however , the wishes of the People of Ladakh and Jammu also can not be ignored. They have always shown the desire of a complete union with India . The desire for an indipendent state is limited only to the Kashmir valley and hence only the wishes of the people of the Valley can not dictate the fate of the whole of Kashmir .The mismatch is not only between the ambitions of Kashmiris and Indians but also between people within Jammu and Kashmir itself .
> 
> i don't even understand how this state came into being , the three divisions of Jammu , Kashmir Valley and Ladakh are so different from each other .




Jammu was the original seat of Dogras. Gulab Singh was one of the minor princes of the ruling clan. Gulab Singh enlisted in the Sikh Army after Ranjit Singh annexed Jammu. For his services as commander of the Dogra contingent, Ranjit initially appointed Gulab Singh as governor over Jammu. He was confirmed as Raja of Jammu after the death of his cousin Kishore Singh in 1822.

Gulab Singh took active part in wars against the Afghans and became the senior Sikh Army Commander in the North West after the death of Hari Singh Nalwa. Kargil, Baltistan and Ladakh were conquered by General Zorawar Singh, commander of Dogra army and loyal to Gulab Singh on behalf of the Sikh Empire between 1836 and 1840.

After the death of Ranjit Singh in 1839, Gulab Singh and his brothers Dhayan Singh & Suchet Singh were heavily involved with the British. It was rumoured that during the chaos following the death of Ranjit Singh, Gulab Singh had spirited away most of the treasury of Lahore court to Jammu.

There is little doubt that it was the intelligence provided by him about the disposition of Khalsa troops that British were able to defeat the Sikhs. Under the treaty of Lahore of 1846, Sikh State lost Jammu, Kashmir, Hazara, the territory to the south of the river Sutlej and the forts and territory in the Jalandhar Doab between the rivers Sutlej and Beas . 

Gulab Singh became independent Raja of Jammu. Also, all the lands in Kashmir including Kargil, Baltistan and Ladakh that were under Sikh control, were sold to Gulab Singh for a sum of 75 lac Nanakshahi rupees, partly as a reward of his services to the British Crown. This made Gulab Singh Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir.

That is how ethnically different regions of Baltistan, Ladakh, Kashmir valley and Jammu became part of the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Luffy 500 said:


> Its a well known fact that mouthbaton was always baised towards hindus and was 2 faced. Nehru's illegitimate relations with
> muthbatons wife is a historical fact. He was a smart a$$ no doubt , used the kings wife to get his work done. And mouthbaton
> was a shameless british crook and so no surprise there. Raja harising was a hindu and so according to partition principles, he
> can not give kashmir to India.



If you had been paying attention, you would have learnt that 

(1) there were no 'partition principles'; 
(2) the princely states were free to do what they wanted, as they were not part of British India, and Kashmir was a princely state; 
(3) Maharaja Hari Singh's religion had nothing to do with the issue.

Unfortunately, you seem to have ignored everything about this discussion except the title.



> Kashmir being a muslim majority technically goes to PAK and fag0t nehru,muthbaton and harising
> trio stole it.



Kashmir's religious composition had nothing to do with it, because it was independent from August 15 onwards, a sovereign kingdom under the Maharaja, who was free to do what he wanted.

Secondly, you seem to have ignored Niaz's brilliant exposition where he explained in terms that all but the terminally stupid would understand that the popular leader of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah, supported the Congress, and supported the Maharaja's decision.




> Apart from kashmir, pujab and whole of bengal should have went to PAK as well since those were overwhelming
> muslim majority but hipocrisy of hindus knows no bounds. Muslim majority states of tripura, district of Karimganj in sylhet was
> given to India even after PAK got it by referendum.



There was no referendum.



> Not to forget lawkideep which was also muslim majority.



Are you referring to Lakshwadeep, or the Laccadive Islands? These were not partitioned by the Radcliffe Commission, and passed to India along with the rest of the Madras Presidency.



> In short indian congress with the help of 2 faced british , got more than they deserved, they even rigged referendumvotes in many districts to to annex those to bharmin india.



There was no referendum.

Where do you get your facts from?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Joe Shearer

niaz said:


> Jammu was the original seat of Dogras. Gulab Singh was one of the minor princes of the ruling clan. Gulab Singh enlisted in the Sikh Army and after Ranjit Singh annexed Jammu. For his services as commander of the Dogra contingent, Ranjit initially appointed Gulab Singh as governor over Jammu. He was confirmed as Raja of Jammu after the death of his cousin Kishore Singh in 1822.
> 
> Gulab Singh took active part in wars against the Afghans and became the senior Sikh Army Commander in the North West after the death of Hari Singh Nalwa. Kargil, Baltistan and Ladakh were conquered by by General Zorawar Singh, commander of Dogra army and loyal to Gulab Singh on behalf of the Sikh Empire between 1936 and 1940.
> 
> After the death of Ranjit Singh in 1939, Gulab Singh and his brothers Dhayan Singh & Suchet Singh were heavily involved with the British. It was rumoured that during the chaos following the death of Ranjit Singh, Gulab Singh had spirited away most of the treasury of Lahore court to Jammu.
> 
> There is little doubt that it was the intelligence provided by him about the disposition of Khalsa troops that British were able to defeat the Sikhs. Under the treaty of Lahore of 1846, Sikh State lost Jammu, Kashmir, Hazara, the territory to the south of the river Sutlej and the forts and territory in the Jalandhar Doab between the rivers Sutlej and Beas .
> 
> Gulab Singh became independent Raja of Jammu. Also, all the lands in Kashmir including Kargil, Baltistan and Ladakh that were under Sikh control, were sold to Gulab Singh for a sum of 75 lac Nanakshahi rupees, partly as a reward of his services to the British Crown. This made Gulab Singh Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir.
> 
> That is how ethnically different regions of Baltistan, Ladakh, Kashmir valley and Jammu became part of the State of Jammu & Kashmir.



Succinctly put, Sir.

Just to correct the dates, they should be 1836, 1840 and 1839. I thought Zorawar Singh died in 1841, during a disastrous invasion of Tibet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FaujHistorian

Shame on Punjabi Muslims that they couldn't keep the Eastern half united with the West. 

Us Pakistanis gained half punjab but we not only lost the other half of Punjab but Kashmir too. Crying about Gurdaspur is like some losing 1 kilo of pure gold and then crying about 1 paisa. What a pathetic analysis? pathetic just pathetic. 


Then if it wasn't enough of $hite, we killed, raped, and ethnically cleansed the W. Punjab from Sikhs and Hindus. 

99% of Hindus and Sikhs in W. Punjab did not commit any crime against the fellow Muslims. Then why did we loot their factories, pillage their homes, and utterly annihilate innocent and soon-to-be Pakistani citizens?


Allah has punished us in the past for being Nazis to our non-Muslim countrymen, and we'll continually be punished unless we change our primitive tribal Islamists ways of dealing with ethnic minorities. 

Any Pakistani crying for Kashmir must apologize from Hindus and Sikhs who got displaced from their ancestral homes, the towns and villages of their forefathers, and had to run for their lives. 

Otherwise we'll be committing double speak and no one will believe us. 


Oh sure, some one will say Hindus killed Muslims in E. Punjab. Indians cleansed E. Punjab. Before 1947, In British rule, there were 55% to 65% Muslims in E. Punjab. Majority of agri land was owned by small to medium sized Muslim farmers. 

In few months of Hindu rule Indian Punjab went down to 0% Muslims. No farmer and land owner survived!

But this is not the competition in murder and death and rape and pillage. No I am talking about upholding values for humanity and justice and fairness to our fellow countrymen. 

Forget about what the f'ing Mountbatten did or didn't do. That was so many decades ago. 

What have we the Paks done since then?

Have we provided justice and security, love and respect to our fellow countrymen who happen to belong to minority religions and sects?

Nothing. Nada, zilch. 

How on earth then we can claim this high and mighty voicing justice for people in some other county. How?????


It is time we think about our own actions.

Only then others will pay heed to what we have to say. 


peace.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## SamantK

FaujHistorian said:


> Shame on Punjabi Muslims that they couldn't keep the Eastern half united with the West.
> 
> Us Pakistanis gained half punjab but we not only lost the other half of Punjab but Kashmir too. Crying about Gurdaspur is like some losing 1 kilo of pure gold and then crying about 1 paisa. What a pathetic analysis? pathetic just pathetic.
> 
> 
> Then if it wasn't enough of $hite, we killed, raped, and ethnically cleansed the W. Punjab from Sikhs and Hindus.
> 
> 99% of Hindus and Sikhs in W. Punjab did not commit any crime against the fellow Muslims. Then why did we loot their factories, pillage their homes, and utterly annihilate innocent and soon-to-be Pakistani citizens?
> 
> 
> Allah has punished us in the past for being Nazis to our non-Muslim countrymen, and we'll continually be punished unless we change our primitive tribal Islamists ways of dealing with ethnic minorities.
> 
> Any Pakistani crying for Kashmir must apologize from Hindus and Sikhs who got displaced from their ancestral homes, the towns and villages of their forefathers, and had to run for their lives.
> 
> Otherwise we'll be committing double speak and no one will believe us.
> 
> 
> Oh sure, some one will say Hindus killed Muslims in E. Punjab. Indians cleansed E. Punjab. Before 1947, In British rule, there were 55% to 65% Muslims in E. Punjab. Majority of agri land was owned by small to medium sized Muslim farmers.
> 
> In few months of Hindu rule Indian Punjab went down to 0% Muslims. No farmer and land owner survived!
> 
> But this is not the competition in murder and death and rape and pillage. No I am talking about upholding values for humanity and justice and fairness to our fellow countrymen.
> 
> Forget about what the f'ing Mountbatten did or didn't do. That was so many decades ago.
> 
> What have we the Paks done since then?
> 
> Have we provided justice and security, love and respect to our fellow countrymen who happen to belong to minority religions and sects?
> 
> Nothing. Nada, zilch.
> 
> How on earth then we can claim this high and mighty voicing justice for people in some other county. How?????
> 
> 
> It is time we think about our own actions.
> 
> Only then others will pay heed to what we have to say.
> 
> 
> peace.



Sir, I thank you not for the facts in the above statements, which will anyways be denied by your countrymen, but to the courage to travel the least travelled path. It often takes a person a lot of will power to oppose the thought flow of the society around.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jetti

look you pak guys if you are not satisfied with what you got, too bad , the paper has been signed some 65 years ago. 
kashmir was independent kingdom and maharaja was free to do wht he wanted . he chose india. british do not come into the picture. if you guys hadnt sent the mslim barbrians into kashmir, then harisingh would have like to stay independent just as you today want. he chose india but you are illegally occupying P0K, GB. please get out of there and problem solevd,.


----------



## ishaqzaade

jetti said:


> look you pak guys if you are not satisfied with what you got, too bad , the paper has been signed some 65 years ago.
> kashmir was independent kingdom and maharaja was free to do wht he wanted . he chose india. british do not come into the picture. if you guys hadnt sent the mslim barbrians into kashmir, then harisingh would have like to stay independent just as you today want. he chose india but you are illegally occupying P0K, GB. please get out of there and problem solevd,.


THEY NEVER SATISFIED MY FRIEND.


----------



## Screambowl

Pakistan is aware that, through Kashmir their Major river flows, and it is a great source of water. So this is one big reason for them to stay in Kashmir. 

Since India has the most economical zones of Kashmir, where tourism plays an important role, Pakistan has terrorized it so that the tourism is reduced to 0.

next is the 1971 revenge which they looking for by separating Kashmir from India. 


Pakistan is not going to step back, because 90% of their policies, have something to do with Kashmir.


----------



## Black Widow

Screambowl said:


> Pakistan is aware that, through Kashmir their Major river flows, and it is a great source of water. So this is one big reason for them to stay in Kashmir.
> 
> Since India has the most economical zones of Kashmir, where tourism plays an important role, Pakistan has terrorized it so that the tourism is reduced to 0.
> 
> next is the 1971 revenge which they looking for by separating Kashmir from India.
> 
> 
> Pakistan is not going to step back, because 90% of their policies, have something to do with Kashmir.




Yes and there is one more reason stopping them from backing down, If they back down, the terrorists will kill them.


----------



## FaujHistorian

samantk said:


> Sir, I thank you not for the facts in the above statements, which will anyways be denied by your countrymen, but to the courage to travel the least travelled path. It often takes a person a lot of will power to oppose the thought flow of the society around.



Thank you for your kindness. 

However I am not alone. Even in this thread if you would go through the umpteenth posts, you will find Pakistanis who have done much better job in stating the facts. 

Similarly there are few Indian posters who ignore the hype and state the facts. 

Just continue spreading tolerance and affection when you can. Things will get better one day. Ignore the fundoos on our side AND on your side too. There is hope, there is light. We just need to find it. 


peace.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## niaz

samantk said:


> Sir, I thank you not for the facts in the above statements, which will anyways be denied by your countrymen, but to the courage to travel the least travelled path. It often takes a person a lot of will power to oppose the thought flow of the society around.



Hon Sir, 

If you would like to know the facts about ethnic and communal riots in the subcontinent ask an old man like me who has seen it all. Here it is:

To be fair one has to admit that crimes of ethnic cleansing were committed on both sides. In fact Hindus Mahasabha, RSS and Sikh Akali Dal, were one of the first sectarian parties to indulge in murder of Muslims simply because of their faith. Most the ethnic parties were formed between 1915 and 1925. Mahasabha was the first political group to oppose Gandhi/Congress principle of nonviolence and secularism and promoted the idea of Hindu Rashtra or Hunduvta and was against holding the dialogues with Muslim League.

On the Muslim side Majlis e Ahrar was the Deobandi sectarian party and mostly against fellow Muslims whom they considered kafir. Ahrars opposed Muslim League (probably) because the Quaid was a Shia and also because Sir Mohammed Zafarulah Khan was a Qadiani and the Ahmadis were supporting Muslim League.

First major communal riots actually started in Calcutta on 16th August 1946 when general strike was called by the Muslim League and opposed by the Akhand Hindustan shouting Hindus. It is difficult to put the blame as who started the killings but it said that about 4,000 persons lost their live the very first day.

Apparently the decision of Unionist leader Khizar Hayat Tiwana to step down as Chief Minister of united Punjab and because Sikh leader Tara Singh fanned the hatred between Muslims and Sikhs along with the death of Sikh constable, was the spark that started a spree of pillage, arson and looting against Hindu and Sikhs in Lahore.


It is said that stabbing of a Muslim taxi driver by Sikh was the start of communal riots in Amritsar, where thousands of Muslims were massacred by the Sikhs.

It must be said that violence of the kind that was witness during the partition was unprecedented in the subcontinent history. Millions lost their lives just because of accident if birth in a different religion. There is absolutely be no justification for such kind behaviour by human beings.

Regret to say that neither Indians nor Pakistanis have learned to curb their inherent bestial instinct. Indian has witnessed mass killing of Sikhs in Delhi when Indra was killed by her Sikh body guard. Everyone is aware of the Gujarat massacre of Muslims following Babri Masjid incident. There have been communal riots in Jabalpur in 1960. There were riots in Moradabad in 1980. Caste riots are still prevalent in rural northern India.

In Pakistan, since there were no more Hindus/Sikhs left, communalism changed to sectarianism/ethnic riots. Anti Qadiani riots broke out in Punjab in Feb 1953 and Martial had to be imposed to bring peace. Again Deobandi/Wahabi parties such as JI & MaJlis Ahrar were mainly responsible. There have been language riots in Sindh in 1972. Who can forget 1971 events in East Pakistan?

With rise of Khomeini in Iran, Saudi financed Wahhabi organizations such as SSP and now TTP have sparked Shia killings. This goes on to this day with the target killing of Hazaras in Quetta and also of Shias in Kurram agency and in Gilgit. Iran financed Shia organizations that are targeting SSP leaders and bombing Sunni mosques.

No matter how objectively I try to look at the senseless killings of innocents in the subcontinent, and indeed the world over such as Nazi atrocities, Northern Ireland, many countries in Africa and massacre of Chinese in Indonesia, ethnic cleansing following the break- up of Yugoslavia; I realize that despite the fact human beings have been to the moon and back; a lot of them remain jungle dwelling savages underneath. More so if the hatred is fanned by the religious/ethnic bigots. Nearly all religions teach tolerance, but somehow I find that more outwardly religious the people are; more hard-line and ruthless their actions. 

Can&#8217;t comment on other religions but being a Muslim I find it very painful when I see Muslims engaging is atrocities. Islam is supposed to be religion of peace but some of its followers have turned into a vindictive hateful creed. I am therefore inclined more and more towards Sufi Islam which is based on love and tolerance. Unfortunately, Ibne Timmiyya, Imam of the Wahabis, Salafin & Takfiris was dead against Ibne Arabi (Imam of the Sufis) and considered him a heretic. I would probably be killed by some Wahhabi/Deobandi/Taliban fanatic for my views.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## SamantK

niaz said:


> Hon Sir,
> 
> If you would like to know the facts about ethnic and communal riots in the subcontinent ask an old man like me who has seen it all. Here it is:
> 
> To be fair one has to admit that crimes of ethnic cleansing were committed on both sides. In fact Hindus Mahasabha, RSS and Sikh Akali Dal, were one of the first sectarian parties to indulge in murder of Muslims simply because of their faith. Most the ethnic parties were formed between 1915 and 1925. Mahasabha was the first political group to oppose Gandhi/Congress principle of nonviolence and secularism and promoted the idea of Hindu Rashtra or Hunduvta and was against holding the dialogues with Muslim League.
> 
> On the Muslim side Majlis e Ahrar was the Deobandi sectarian party and mostly against fellow Muslims whom they considered kafir. Ahrars opposed Muslim League (probably) because the Quaid was a Shia and also because Sir Mohammed Zafarulah Khan was a Qadiani and the Ahmadis were supporting Muslim League.
> 
> First major communal riots actually started in Calcutta on 16th August 1946 when general strike was called by the Muslim League and opposed by the Akhand Hindustan shouting Hindus. It is difficult to put the blame as who started the killings but it said that about 4,000 persons lost their live the very first day.
> 
> Apparently the decision of Unionist leader Khizar Hayat Tiwana to step down as Chief Minister of united Punjab and because Sikh leader Tara Singh fanned the hatred between Muslims and Sikhs along with the death of Sikh constable, was the spark that started a spree of pillage, arson and looting against Hindu and Sikhs in Lahore.
> 
> 
> It is said that stabbing of a Muslim taxi driver by Sikh was the start of communal riots in Amritsar, where thousands of Muslims were massacred by the Sikhs.
> 
> It must be said that violence of the kind that was witness during the partition was unprecedented in the subcontinent history. Millions lost their lives just because of accident if birth in a different religion. There is absolutely be no justification for such kind behaviour by human beings.
> 
> Regret to say that neither Indians nor Pakistanis have learned to curb their inherent bestial instinct. Indian has witnessed mass killing of Sikhs in Delhi when Indra was killed by her Sikh body guard. Everyone is aware of the Gujarat massacre of Muslims following Babri Masjid incident. There have been communal riots in Jabalpur in 1960. There were riots in Moradabad in 1980. Caste riots are still prevalent in rural northern India.
> 
> In Pakistan, since there were no more Hindus/Sikhs left, communalism changed to sectarianism/ethnic riots. Anti Qadiani riots broke out in Punjab in Feb 1953 and Martial had to be imposed to bring peace. Again Deobandi/Wahabi parties such as JI & MaJlis Ahrar were mainly responsible. There have been language riots in Sindh in 1972. Who can forget 1971 events in East Pakistan?
> 
> With rise of Khomeini in Iran, Saudi financed Wahhabi organizations such ads SSP and now TTP have sparked Shia killings. This goes on to this day with the target killing of Hazaras in Quetta and also of Shias in Kurram agency and in Gilgit. Iran financed Shia organizations that are targeting SSP leaders and bombing Sunni mosques.
> 
> No matter how objectively I try to look at the senseless killings on innocents in the subcontinent, and indeed the world over such as Nazi atrocities, Northern Ireland, many countries in Africa and massacre of Chinese in Indonesia, ethnic cleansing following the break- up of Yugoslavia; I realize that despite the fact human beings have been to the moon and back; a lot of them remain jungle dwelling savages underneath. More so if the hatred is fanned by the religious/ethnic bigots. Nearly all religions teach tolerance, but somehow I find that more outwardly religious the people are; more hard-line and ruthless their actions.
> 
> Can&#8217;t comment on other religions but being a Muslim I find it very painful when I see Muslims engaging is atrocities. Islam is supposed to be religion of peace but some of its followers have turned into a vindictive hateful creed. I am therefore inclined more and more towards Sufi Islam which is based on love and tolerance. Unfortunately, Ibne Timmiyya, Imam of the Wahabis, Salafin & Takfiris was dead against Ibne Arabi (Imam of the Sufis) and considered him a heretic. I would probably be killed by some Wahhabi/Deobandi/Taliban fanatic for my views.



Sir, 

First off, I'm not worthy of the title you address me with.. from your narrative I think I might be of the age of your son. 
All I can say is that fanaticism is present everywhere and should be rejected and fought against everywhere too. However to be just and reasonable one should know the history well which puts you in a position I can only envy. 

Thanks for sharing this window which looks onto our history of hatred. If only that hatred was not present we would not have seen one of the biggest genocide the world has seen... and would have lived a life where the two nation theory would not have taken birth..

Yours Sincerely,
Samant



niaz said:


> Hon Sir,
> 
> If you would like to know the facts about ethnic and communal riots in the subcontinent ask an old man like me who has seen it all. Here it is:
> 
> To be fair one has to admit that crimes of ethnic cleansing were committed on both sides. In fact Hindus Mahasabha, RSS and Sikh Akali Dal, were one of the first sectarian parties to indulge in murder of Muslims simply because of their faith. Most the ethnic parties were formed between 1915 and 1925. Mahasabha was the first political group to oppose Gandhi/Congress principle of nonviolence and secularism and promoted the idea of Hindu Rashtra or Hunduvta and was against holding the dialogues with Muslim League.
> 
> On the Muslim side Majlis e Ahrar was the Deobandi sectarian party and mostly against fellow Muslims whom they considered kafir. Ahrars opposed Muslim League (probably) because the Quaid was a Shia and also because Sir Mohammed Zafarulah Khan was a Qadiani and the Ahmadis were supporting Muslim League.
> 
> First major communal riots actually started in Calcutta on 16th August 1946 when general strike was called by the Muslim League and opposed by the Akhand Hindustan shouting Hindus. It is difficult to put the blame as who started the killings but it said that about 4,000 persons lost their live the very first day.
> 
> Apparently the decision of Unionist leader Khizar Hayat Tiwana to step down as Chief Minister of united Punjab and because Sikh leader Tara Singh fanned the hatred between Muslims and Sikhs along with the death of Sikh constable, was the spark that started a spree of pillage, arson and looting against Hindu and Sikhs in Lahore.
> 
> 
> It is said that stabbing of a Muslim taxi driver by Sikh was the start of communal riots in Amritsar, where thousands of Muslims were massacred by the Sikhs.
> 
> It must be said that violence of the kind that was witness during the partition was unprecedented in the subcontinent history. Millions lost their lives just because of accident if birth in a different religion. There is absolutely be no justification for such kind behaviour by human beings.
> 
> Regret to say that neither Indians nor Pakistanis have learned to curb their inherent bestial instinct. Indian has witnessed mass killing of Sikhs in Delhi when Indra was killed by her Sikh body guard. Everyone is aware of the Gujarat massacre of Muslims following Babri Masjid incident. There have been communal riots in Jabalpur in 1960. There were riots in Moradabad in 1980. Caste riots are still prevalent in rural northern India.
> 
> In Pakistan, since there were no more Hindus/Sikhs left, communalism changed to sectarianism/ethnic riots. Anti Qadiani riots broke out in Punjab in Feb 1953 and Martial had to be imposed to bring peace. Again Deobandi/Wahabi parties such as JI & MaJlis Ahrar were mainly responsible. There have been language riots in Sindh in 1972. Who can forget 1971 events in East Pakistan?
> 
> With rise of Khomeini in Iran, Saudi financed Wahhabi organizations such ads SSP and now TTP have sparked Shia killings. This goes on to this day with the target killing of Hazaras in Quetta and also of Shias in Kurram agency and in Gilgit. Iran financed Shia organizations that are targeting SSP leaders and bombing Sunni mosques.
> 
> No matter how objectively I try to look at the senseless killings on innocents in the subcontinent, and indeed the world over such as Nazi atrocities, Northern Ireland, many countries in Africa and massacre of Chinese in Indonesia, ethnic cleansing following the break- up of Yugoslavia; I realize that despite the fact human beings have been to the moon and back; a lot of them remain jungle dwelling savages underneath. More so if the hatred is fanned by the religious/ethnic bigots. Nearly all religions teach tolerance, but somehow I find that more outwardly religious the people are; more hard-line and ruthless their actions.
> 
> Cant comment on other religions but being a Muslim I find it very painful when I see Muslims engaging is atrocities. Islam is supposed to be religion of peace but some of its followers have turned into a vindictive hateful creed. I am therefore inclined more and more towards Sufi Islam which is based on love and tolerance. Unfortunately, Ibne Timmiyya, Imam of the Wahabis, Salafin & Takfiris was dead against Ibne Arabi (Imam of the Sufis) and considered him a heretic. I would probably be killed by some Wahhabi/Deobandi/Taliban fanatic for my views.



Sir, 

First off, I'm not worthy of the title you address me with.. from your narrative I think I might be of the age of your son. 
All I can say is that fanaticism is present everywhere and should be rejected and fought against everywhere too. However to be just and reasonable one should know the history well which puts you in a position I can only envy. 

Thanks for sharing this window which looks onto our history of hatred. If only that hatred was not present we would not have seen one of the biggest genocide the world has seen... and would have lived a life where the two nation theory would not have taken birth..

Yours Sincerely,
Samant


----------



## Screambowl

niaz said:


> Hon Sir,
> 
> If you would like to know the facts about ethnic and communal riots in the subcontinent ask an old man like me who has seen it all. Here it is:
> 
> To be fair one has to admit that crimes of ethnic cleansing were committed on both sides. In fact Hindus Mahasabha, RSS and Sikh Akali Dal, were one of the first sectarian parties to indulge in murder of Muslims simply because of their faith. Most the ethnic parties were formed between 1915 and 1925. *Mahasabha was the first political group to oppose Gandhi/Congress principle of nonviolence and secularism and promoted the idea of Hindu Rashtra or Hunduvta and was against holding the dialogues with Muslim League.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the Muslim side Majlis e Ahrar was the Deobandi sectarian party and mostly against fellow Muslims whom they considered kafir. Ahrars opposed Muslim League (probably) because the Quaid was a Shia and also because Sir Mohammed Zafarulah Khan was a Qadiani and the Ahmadis were supporting Muslim League.
> 
> First major communal riots actually started in Calcutta on 16th August 1946 when general strike was called by the Muslim League and opposed by the Akhand Hindustan shouting Hindus. It is difficult to put the blame as who started the killings but it said that about 4,000 persons lost their live the very first day.
> 
> Apparently the decision of Unionist leader Khizar Hayat Tiwana to step down as Chief Minister of united Punjab and because Sikh leader Tara Singh fanned the hatred between Muslims and Sikhs along with the death of Sikh constable, was the spark that started a spree of pillage, arson and looting against Hindu and Sikhs in Lahore.
> 
> 
> It is said that stabbing of a Muslim taxi driver by Sikh was the start of communal riots in Amritsar, where thousands of Muslims were massacred by the Sikhs.
> 
> It must be said that violence of the kind that was witness during the partition was unprecedented in the subcontinent history. Millions lost their lives just because of accident if birth in a different religion. There is absolutely be no justification for such kind behaviour by human beings.
> 
> Regret to say that neither Indians nor Pakistanis have learned to curb their inherent bestial instinct. Indian has witnessed mass killing of Sikhs in Delhi when Indra was killed by her Sikh body guard. Everyone is aware of the Gujarat massacre of Muslims following Babri Masjid incident. There have been communal riots in Jabalpur in 1960. There were riots in Moradabad in 1980. Caste riots are still prevalent in rural northern India.
> 
> In Pakistan, since there were no more Hindus/Sikhs left, communalism changed to sectarianism/ethnic riots. Anti Qadiani riots broke out in Punjab in Feb 1953 and Martial had to be imposed to bring peace. Again Deobandi/Wahabi parties such as JI & MaJlis Ahrar were mainly responsible. There have been language riots in Sindh in 1972. Who can forget 1971 events in East Pakistan?
> 
> With rise of Khomeini in Iran, Saudi financed Wahhabi organizations such ads SSP and now TTP have sparked Shia killings. This goes on to this day with the target killing of Hazaras in Quetta and also of Shias in Kurram agency and in Gilgit. Iran financed Shia organizations that are targeting SSP leaders and bombing Sunni mosques.
> 
> No matter how objectively I try to look at the senseless killings on innocents in the subcontinent, and indeed the world over such as Nazi atrocities, Northern Ireland, many countries in Africa and massacre of Chinese in Indonesia, ethnic cleansing following the break- up of Yugoslavia; I realize that despite the fact human beings have been to the moon and back; a lot of them remain jungle dwelling savages underneath. More so if the hatred is fanned by the religious/ethnic bigots. Nearly all religions teach tolerance, but somehow I find that more outwardly religious the people are; more hard-line and ruthless their actions.
> 
> Can&#8217;t comment on other religions but being a Muslim I find it very painful when I see Muslims engaging is atrocities. Islam is supposed to be religion of peace but some of its followers have turned into a vindictive hateful creed. I am therefore inclined more and more towards Sufi Islam which is based on love and tolerance. Unfortunately, Ibne Timmiyya, Imam of the Wahabis, Salafin & Takfiris was dead against Ibne Arabi (Imam of the Sufis) and considered him a heretic. I would probably be killed by some Wahhabi/Deobandi/Taliban fanatic for my views.



For the bold part, I would have to go back to the History when Aurangzeb exploited and discriminated Hindus, Invaders Like Mauhammad Ghauri, including Mughals etc, all these people did not have a very good impression in the hearts of Natives. You should also consider that part. Fearing the Islamic leadership would not be accepted by Hindus after what their Great Grandparents had gone through, and why should they? If you could justify me this, I would be ready to accept Islam. 

Coming to Gujarat Riots and etc and all, they were all the repercussions what the Minority tried to achieve through Violence in their dominating area in India. You should be also aware of how those riots started. 

So there is indeed no comparison and you cannot expect a box of sugar If you gift poison to the latter. Still in India the people accept each other,* WE have Public Holiday for EID, DiWALI, GURU NANAK Birthday, Mahavir Jayanti , Christmas, and Buddh Purnima. Do you have such in Pakistan?*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Stumper

Screambowl said:


> For the bold part, I would have to go back to the History when Aurangzeb exploited and discriminated Hindus, Invaders Like Mauhammad Ghauri, including Mughals etc, all these people did not have a very good impression in the hearts of Natives. You should also consider that part.


Sad. Indeed Sad. How else do one describe our reaction, whenever faced with historic facts. 




> Fearing the Islamic leadership would not be accepted by Hindus after what their Great Grandparents had gone through, and why should they? If you could justify me this, I would be ready to accept Islam.


Fear ? .... Why, it was pure barbarism on both side of the fence. Fear does not make you kill innocent's... Only hatred does.



> Coming to Gujarat Riots and etc and all, they were all the repercussions what the Minority tried to achieve through Violence in their dominating area in India. You should be also aware of how those riots started.


Point here is not about mass hysteria. But why did the system fail the very people who had voted for the modern day Nepo?... A society which failed its citizen's is no society.



> you cannot expect a box of sugar If you gift poison to the latter.


So what do you suggest ? .... Obliterate whom so ever we hate? ... Parry those who are too weak to fight for his right in our republic?


Does it not bother you .... when we complain about corruption in our society, high handedness of our police men, no social welfare ... yet, we covet this very same people when they violate our constitution to serve their own flavor of Justice to the riot victims ?.... Should'nt we be ashamed of saying "Dont expect Sugar for Poison" to our fellow citizens who were killed just because you and me never stood up for them, we stood silent and watched this butchers dream of becoming Prime Minister of our Country. We expect to be treated fair. But we wont afford same to our minorities?

We need to ashamed, Sir, not vindictive.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Rig Vedic

Screambowl said:


> For the bold part, I would have to go back to the History when Aurangzeb exploited and discriminated Hindus, Invaders Like Mauhammad Ghauri, including Mughals etc, all these people did not have a very good impression in the hearts of Natives. You should also consider that part. Fearing the Islamic leadership would not be accepted by Hindus after what their Great Grandparents had gone through, and why should they? If you could justify me this, I would be ready to accept Islam.



Learn from history, but bear in mind that the Sins of the Fathers are not the Sins of the Sons. 

In this case, Muslim victims were in all likelihood not even descendants of the invaders. 

One should be clear-eyed, however, about the pernicious effects of indoctrination into misguided ideologies.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## buddyboyyash

BATMAN said:


> No it is Indian army who want to kill Pakistanis and are doing it via their proxies...ie. BLA TTP
> Stop lying. Both terrorist organizations are products of RAW and are killing ONLY Pakistani soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, motherfucker Iftikhar ch. released this terrorist..



just tell me the number of videos and news articles u want about PAKISTANI TERRORISTS captured or killed while crossing the LOC...i just need the number from u...n mind u...u wont have the right to say that its fake coz u have posted something from pakistani media


----------



## Pakistanisage

Every Pakistani knows the amount of RAW activities in Pakistan and their role in these bomb blasts in Pakistan.


----------



## ashokdeiva

Pakistanisage said:


> Every Pakistani knows the amount of RAW activities in Pakistan and their role in these bomb blasts in Pakistan.


then I should say that RAW is the worst inteligence agency if its activities are known by every Pakistani.
please prove your evidence in International court and we will dismantle RAW.


----------



## kurup

Pakistanisage said:


> Every Pakistani knows the amount of RAW activities in Pakistan and their role in these bomb blasts in Pakistan.


But neither your govt nor you people have a single evidence to support this BS

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IND151

kumarkumar1867 said:


> Kashmir was not stolen from Pakistan, Infact Raja Harisingh was thinking to join Pakistan. but Pakistan Army showed impateince and attacked it. Harisingh did what any king will do for saving his kingdom he approached to Indian government & signed papers of accession in return of security assurance.* No body stoled Kashmir its Pakistan's lust & impateince which cost them the loss.
> *
> About Gurdaaspur given to India & Why was Mountbatten not made governor of Pakistan you can check following link and find some answers yourself.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/cabin...en-and-jinnah-negotiations-on-pakistan-april-



right

had Pakistan not attacked Kashmir under international pressure hari singh would have been forced to accede it to Pakistan


----------



## buddyboyyash

octopus said:


> But neither your govt nor you people have a single evidence to support this BS



after hafiz saeed 26/11 case...i believe evidences are BS in pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Screambowl said:


> For the bold part, I would have to go back to the History when Aurangzeb exploited and discriminated Hindus, Invaders Like Mauhammad Ghauri, including Mughals etc, all these people did not have a very good impression in the hearts of Natives. You should also consider that part. Fearing the Islamic leadership would not be accepted by Hindus after what their Great Grandparents had gone through, and why should they? If you could justify me this, I would be ready to accept Islam.
> 
> Coming to Gujarat Riots and etc and all, they were all the repercussions what the Minority tried to achieve through Violence in their dominating area in India. You should be also aware of how those riots started.
> 
> So there is indeed no comparison and you cannot expect a box of sugar If you gift poison to the latter. Still in India the people accept each other,* WE have Public Holiday for EID, DiWALI, GURU NANAK Birthday, Mahavir Jayanti , Christmas, and Buddh Purnima. Do you have such in Pakistan?*



I couldn't disagree more with this post, both with its contents and its tone.

Niaz was precisely right in pointing to the beginnings of religious exclusivity in politics. Perhaps due to politeness, he did not mention that Savarkar was the first person to articulate that theory that we all love to hate, the Two Nation Theory.

Much, not all, written about Aurangzeb is myth; he was obstinate, bigoted and implacable in his persecution of those he felt to be enemies of Mughal reign, specifically, his reign, but much of the malevolent aura around him is due to a cottage industry devoted to producing inchoate, unsubstantiated comments about how terrible he was. Three facts seem to have contributed to popular aversion to him: his apparent contrast to his benign and broadminded predecessors; his persecution of his brothers and father; his persecution of the personification of Hindu resurgence, of Hindu Pad Padshahi, Shivaji. Obviously, this ignores substance and leans heavily on symbolism. 

For one, after the open-minded reign of Akbar, first, Jehangir, then, more than he, Shah Jahangir, were increasingly rigid and unbending on issues of religious tolerance. Before drawing our breath in sharply, it would well to remember that both princes came to the throne with the support of powerful factions in court. In that court, there was an increasingly weaker constituency for religious toleration.

That also gives us clues to his cruelty to his brothers and father; that's how things were. The first Mughal actually asked his son to take a lenient view of his brothers, even if they proved unreliable or even hostile. They were unreliable and treacherous and poor Humayun had a very difficult time with his brothers. The trend continued, through every reign, ambitious young princes challenging ea ch other for the throne, and taking no prisoners.

Finally, the great Maratha was actually housed as a great courtier should have been, from all accounts. He was under strict guard; his return to a career of guerrilla resistance to the Mughal state was unthinkable. But he was not in prison, he was not physically in danger, and he was not executed out of hand to start with.

We could go on, but this was a most unappealing presentation of a case, whatever the case was.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DGMO

Whatever has happened, has happened. It's how we move forward from the current situation that really matters. If we keep on digging up history, then how much progress do we honestly expect to make?

The truth is, we're not going back to 1947 or 48 and readdressing any grievances there may be. We need to be honest with ourselves on what is the most realistic solution for all concerned parties. Pakistan is not going to take Jammu, Ladakh and Leh, and India is not going to take the Northern Areas or AJK.

Therefore, we have a stalemate, and that will form the basis for any resolution. We can cry about what Mountbatten did, what was said, what was written etc. until the cows come home. The fact is that it won't influence any final decision or peace between India and Pakistan, or offer any breathing space for the Kashmiri's.

Once the LoC is confirmed as the final border in a peace deal, we can move forward towards friendship and prosperity.

What is the problem with that? Why does common sense and reality elude so many people on this subject?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## niaz

Hon Joe Shearer has hit the nail on the head. It is the mass hysteria which brings the animal out of the normally rational humans. 

For example, Indra Gandhi was shot by her Sikh body guard. A murder most heinous and foul. Suppose the mob had dragged the body of the assassin thru dirt and the hung on a pole for all to see; barbarous acts but nevertheless it was understandable fury. But to run around the streets of Delhi targeting Sikhs and their property? How is this justified? It is doubtful if any of the 3,000 or so Sikhs reputed to be killed during riots even knew the assassin or in any way related to the killer.

I hear the argument about Aurangzeb and Moghal far too often, especially after the famous Advani Rath Yatra. People forget that many Hindu Rajputs were part of the Aurangzeb&#8217;s army and fighting their fellow Hindus Marhatas. One such was Raja Jai Singh of Amber and it was him who brought Shivaji to Delhi in the first place. Why reserve one&#8217;s hate for Aurangzeb alone, why not settle the score with the Bhatti, Rathore and Kachwahha Rajputs as well who sided with Aurangzeb?

Aurangzeb fought and killed his brothers and imprisoned his father that should tell you about the ruthless nature of the man. To consider Muslims of today; a vast majority of whom are converts and carry no Mughal blood: responsible for crimes of Aurangzeb who died in 1707is very twisted logic. 

Alas there too many with such outlook all over the world. It is only a few years ago that Serbs killed hundreds of Bosnians ostensibly because of the atrocities committed by Ottoman Turks who were ruling Serbia up to the 19th Century; ignoring the fact that Bosnians are ethically and linguistically related to Serbs.

Times during the Aurangzeb and Ottoman Turk era were totally different. Majority were illiterate and superstitious, whereas now most people are literate and some highly educated.
However it is precisely this kind of view point which leads me to conclude that scientific achievements aside, civilization in most people, even those who are educated, runs only skin deep.

Coming back to the topic of Kashmir. My personal view concurs with the solution that both the parts of Kashmir should be united and given independence, with easy access to both Indians and Pakistanis. 

I honestly can&#8217;t see any other way that would be even remotely acceptable to Kashmiris as well as to India and Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

I'm happy to see that majority of Kashmiris have a favourable view of Pakistan and that despite our domestic problems, there are people that still keep Kashmiris and their plight at heart.

may the Kashmiri nation see victory


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> I'm happy to see that majority of Kashmiris have a favourable view of Pakistan and that despite our domestic problems, there are people that still keep Kashmiris and their plight at heart.
> 
> may the Kashmiri nation see victory


Most of the kashmiris have lost trust in pakistan. Meri kashmiri se baat cheet hoti rehti he, they want independant kashmir country.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Monkey D Luffy said:


> Most of the kashmiris have lost trust in pakistan. Meri kashmiri se baat cheet hoti rehti he, they want independant kashmir country.



some of them have, actually...no doubt

but then again, they should just be able to determine their fate -- free of intimidation. Pakistan had one thing going for it. We never had to subjugate, humiliate and degrade Kashmiris and instill fear into them. 

it's no wonder that despite some untoward incidents, Azad Kashmir sees no anti-Pakistan resistance. The people are very nationalistic there - even if they have economic issues or other issues.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> some of them have, actually...no doubt
> 
> but then again, they should just be able to determine their fate -- free of intimidation. Pakistan had one thing going for it. We never had to subjugate, humiliate and degrade Kashmiris and instill fear into them.
> 
> it's no wonder that despite some untoward incidents, Azad Kashmir sees no anti-Pakistan resistance. The people are very nationalistic there - even if they have economic issues or other issues.



I agree with Niaz' vision of the only stable outcome, with some reservations. These reservations are due to the existence of people who write self-deluding, self-congratulating comments like this one above.

Have you come across the term 'disingenuous'?

What would you expect after millions have been spent on subsidizing religious fanatics to do nothing but spout unremitting hatred, breed suspicion, question every act of administration as being part of a deep conspiracy, and destroy every spell of peace with a rent-a-crowd riot? That people should sit around a bonfire, sipping cocoa and singing Kumbaya?

In the same vein, when you make sanctimonious remarks, you no doubt know that the centre forward of your team doesn't pay his taxes because he can't explain his income?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Lal Chowk, Sri Nagar, Occupied Kashmir

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lkozhi

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> Lal Chowk, Sri Nagar, Occupied Kashmir
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> Putting a flag like that is insulting. The moon is facing other way and flag is ulta . Very nice


----------



## Pakistanisage

lkozhi said:


> Lal Chowk, Sri Nagar, Occupied Kashmir
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> Putting a flag like that is insulting. The moon is facing other way and flag is ulta . Very nice






*I think you are missing the point, as usual.

The INSULT is directed at India ? Capisch, Genius ???????*


----------



## kas786

lkozhi said:


> Abu Zolfiqar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lal Chowk, Sri Nagar, Occupied Kashmir
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> Putting a flag like that is insulting. The moon is facing other way and flag is ulta . Very nice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The message was clear.
> 
> The poor guys had to work with whatever limited resources they had to make the flag and put it up there. After all, YOU guys had control over them.
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

lkozhi said:


> Abu Zolfiqar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lal Chowk, Sri Nagar, Occupied Kashmir
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> Putting a flag like that is insulting. The moon is facing other way and flag is ulta . Very nice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> these are small nuances.....
> 
> the fact that they compromised a bit to ensure the sitaara-hilal were facing correctly is refreshing.
> 
> 
> Lal Chowk is actually a very interesting place, with a very interesting history to it. Not sure if this is the appropriate place to delve into it. But very symbolic venue for the Kashmir Freedom movement.
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lkozhi

la bangladesh not working out that well. Keep trying. Because of afgan issues not many terrorists available so sleeping on kashmir. Actually GOI missed an opportunity to show world press as to who is behind kashmir problems. Should have made this to a press party as 26/11.


----------



## Screambowl

Stumper said:


> Sad. Indeed Sad. How else do one describe our reaction, whenever faced with historic facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Fear ? .... Why, it was pure barbarism on both side of the fence. Fear does not make you kill innocent's... Only hatred does.
> 
> 
> Point here is not about mass hysteria. But why did the system fail the very people who had voted for the modern day Nepo?... A society which failed its citizen's is no society.
> 
> 
> So what do you suggest ? .... Obliterate whom so ever we hate? ... Parry those who are too weak to fight for his right in our republic?
> 
> 
> Does it not bother you .... when we complain about corruption in our society, high handedness of our police men, no social welfare ... yet, we covet this very same people when they violate our constitution to serve their own flavor of Justice to the riot victims ?.... Should'nt we be ashamed of saying "Dont expect Sugar for Poison" to our fellow citizens who were killed just because you and me never stood up for them, we stood silent and watched this butchers dream of becoming Prime Minister of our Country. We expect to be treated fair. But we wont afford same to our minorities?
> 
> We need to ashamed, Sir, not vindictive.






I was expecting an answer from Pakistani member, but no one replied, And ultimately, it is the secularism in India which has come up again. I hope After this Live example, of how Extremism cannot prevail in India, Pakistanis will not doubt or have any misconception against India. 

And meanwhile, I am not an extremist lol.



Rig Vedic said:


> Learn from history, but bear in mind that the Sins of the Fathers are not the Sins of the Sons.
> 
> In this case, Muslim victims were in all likelihood not even descendants of the invaders.
> 
> One should be clear-eyed, however, about the pernicious effects of indoctrination into misguided ideologies.




I am very much aware of the facts, more than you. But as always, None of the Pakistani member could reply to what I have said. And It was in comparison to the ideology of Pakistan and India. Even I know that many Muslims remained in India after 47.


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

The kashmiris people from the kashmir valley are really similar to pakistanis, kashmir valley belongs to pakistan for me there is no doubt.
Kashmir is a region, an ethnicity , a different culture, an identity
They deserve a referendum


----------



## Joe Shearer

Screambowl said:


> I was expecting an answer from Pakistani member, but no one replied, And ultimately, it is the secularism in India which has come up again. I hope After this Live example, of how Extremism cannot prevail in India, Pakistanis will not doubt or have any misconception against India.
> 
> And meanwhile, *I am not an extremist* lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am very much aware of the facts, more than you. But as always, None of the Pakistani member could reply to what I have said. And It was in comparison to the ideology of Pakistan and India. Even I know that many Muslims remained in India after 47.



I am surprised. 

The principle to apply here is, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. You can say what you like, and put as many LOLs after it as a Pakistani Tiger insisting without any basis that Kashmir should be Pakistani because he, personally, sees a great resemblance between Pakistani and Kashmiri, but you will remain a duck.


----------



## divya

Panjabi Tiger said:


> The kashmiris people from the kashmir valley are really similar to pakistanis, kashmir valley belongs to pakistan for me there is no doubt.
> Kashmir is a region, an ethnicity , a different culture, an identity
> They deserve a referendum



If kashmiris and similar to Pakistanis then
Pakistanis are similar to North Indians then Pakistan belongs to India
Bengalis are similar to Bangladeshis then Bangladesh belongs to India
Sri lankans are similar to south indians so sri lanka belongs to India
North east indians are similar to chinese so china belongs to India...

Come again what were you saying.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

Panjabi Tiger said:


> The kashmiris people from the kashmir valley are really similar to pakistanis, kashmir valley belongs to pakistan for me there is no doubt.
> Kashmir is a region, an ethnicity , a different culture, an identity
> They deserve a referendum



If you people are fighting for Kashmiris freedom..... then the title is wrong..... and if pakistan really want freedom of Kashmir why did your military attacked when maharaja decision is pending....... so pakistan want to occupy kashmir at any cost.....if maharaja didn't lean towards pakistan or even if he leaned towards India or alone..... pakistan planned to occupy forcefully....


----------



## Bhairava

Rig Vedic said:


> Learn from history, but bear in mind that the Sins of the Fathers are not the Sins of the Sons.
> 
> In this case, Muslim victims were in all likelihood not even descendants of the invaders.
> 
> One should be clear-eyed, however, about the pernicious effects of indoctrination into misguided ideologies.



Good point. Genetically they are not the descendants of the Muslim invaders who wreaked havoc on this land.

BUt then you would notice how a section of the Muslim society [some names that immediately come to my mind include Owaisi, mj Akbar] holds an attitude that 'they' ruled over this land once upon a time and how 'they' added to India's culture, oversaw one of the biggest economies etc. *Well if they are going to take ownership of the 'crests' what is the issue when people try to hoild them accountable for the 'troughs' too* ?



Stumper said:


> Point here is not about mass hysteria. But why did the system fail the very people who had voted for the modern day Nepo?... A society which failed its citizen's is no society.



And the proof for your accusations ? Its "innocent until proven guilty" not the opposite.




Stumper said:


> So what do you suggest ? .... Obliterate whom so ever we hate? ... Parry those who are too weak to fight for his right in our republic?


 
please..people are not emotionless robots who process things on cold logic and logic alone. emotions play a very large part in the decision making process and more often than not they tend to act like mirrors. Give back what they get

Unless that genome that is causing such things are mapped and altered, things will remain the way they are. Not alone in Gujarat, not alone in India...but anywhere in the world, irrespective of faith, language, ethnicity...


----------



## Bhairava

niaz said:


> I hear the argument about Aurangzeb and Moghal far too often, especially after the famous Advani Rath Yatra. People forget that many Hindu Rajputs were part of the Aurangzeb&#8217;s army and fighting their fellow Hindus Marhatas. One such was Raja Jai Singh of Amber and it was him who brought Shivaji to Delhi in the first place. Why reserve one&#8217;s hate for Aurangzeb alone, why not settle the score with the Bhatti, Rathore and Kachwahha Rajputs as well who sided with Aurangzeb?
> 
> Aurangzeb fought and killed his brothers and imprisoned his father that should tell you about the ruthless nature of the man. To consider Muslims of today; a vast majority of whom are converts and carry no Mughal blood: responsible for crimes of Aurangzeb who died in 1707is very twisted logic.


 
There are many Muslims who consider Aurangazeb their hero, even today in India. That is their personal choice but then there is no point in complaining about the suspicion....an analogy would be if people openly celebrate Osama Bin laden or Mumtaz Qadri then it doesn't give a very good account of them in other people's eyes..does it ? And that is the reason why there is a wariness. Things dont happen in vacuum Niaz ji. Its the cultural,faith linkage that is causing the distrust, not the genetics. Everyone knows that the vast majority of SCal Muslims are natives who converted to Islam.

To some it may appear as an unreasoned hate, but truth be told if you go to Mathura or Kashi and see the original temples there, now converted to mosques, it would be a lie to say that even for a moment you do not see those times with hostility or animosity..and when you see people cheering on the perpetrators it further contributes to the wariness..

And if you think the Hindu wariness about Islam is *only* because of 17th century history then you are missing the entire picture..many things have happened even in post independence India..like the ethnic cleansing in Kashmir that have contributed to it..

Maybe time will heal it....but that healing must be a natural process...any forced attempts at healing will only open the wound much further..

Regarding the Kachhwaha Rajputs of Jaipur who are the proverbial Mughal flag bearers, some friends of mine from Rajasthan, they being from Mewar and Marwar regions tell how even today they pull the legs of their Jaipuri cousins for their past..



Joe Shearer said:


> Much, not all, written about Aurangzeb is myth; he was obstinate, bigoted and implacable in his persecution of those he felt to be enemies of Mughal reign, specifically, his reign, but much of the malevolent aura around him is due to a cottage industry devoted to producing inchoate, unsubstantiated comments about how terrible he was. Three facts seem to have contributed to popular aversion to him: his apparent contrast to his benign and broadminded predecessors; his persecution of his brothers and father; his persecution of the personification of Hindu resurgence, of Hindu Pad Padshahi, Shivaji. Obviously, this ignores substance and leans heavily on symbolism.




Aurangzeb, as he was according to Mughal Records

These are not some "Hindutva" fabrications...but based on his own firmans which are now preserved in the Bikaner museum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bhairava

Wanted to emphasize this line more than any other..

*Maybe time will heal it [a lingering divide, atleast on a mental level between Hindus and Muslims - Muslim hostility about Hindu in Pakistan and mutual HIndu-Muslim wariness in India]....but that healing must be a natural process...any forced attempts at healing will only open the wound much further..*

_I just wanted to generalize the Hindu-Muslim relations in the subcontinent....there may not be an open hostility now, but it would be a lie to say they are on the pappi-jhappi level...Exceptions may exist on an individual basis...but on a societal level suspicions still exist.._


----------



## Screambowl

Joe Shearer said:


> I am surprised.
> 
> *The principle to apply here is, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck*. You can say what you like, and put as many LOLs after it as a Pakistani Tiger insisting without any basis that Kashmir should be Pakistani because he, personally, sees a great resemblance between Pakistani and Kashmiri, *but you will remain a duck.*


 
And your are insisting me to be an extremist. Post reported for Personal Attacks!!

I think you have a fear, of Hindu leadership. Try to accept the secularism, if it gives freedom to minorities, it does apply for majority too.


coming back to the topic, Kashmir was never a Pakistani land, they are claiming it for Resources, not any Islamic brotherhood.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Screambowl said:


> And your are insisting me to be an extremist. Post reported for Personal Attacks!!
> 
> I think you have a fear, of Hindu leadership. Try to accept the secularism, if it gives freedom to minorities, it does apply for majority too.
> 
> 
> coming back to the topic, Kashmir was never a Pakistani land, they are claiming it for Resources, not any Islamic brotherhood.



Let us stay on topic, by all means, but misguided statements have to be corrected.

I am not afraid of Hindu leadership, or any other leadership, but I do abhor bigotry, wherever the origin. Thank you for providing examples.

Another incredible misguided statement was to say that Kashmir was never a Pakistani land. NOTHING was ever a Pakistani land, or an Indian land. Kashmir was a princely state, whose ruler had the sovereign right to accede to either Dominion, and chose to accede to India.

You obviously do not understand the implications of classifying any territory as intrinsically Pakistani, or intrinsically Indian.


----------



## Screambowl

Joe Shearer said:


> Let us stay on topic, by all means, but misguided statements have to be corrected.
> 
> I am not afraid of Hindu leadership, or any other leadership, but I do abhor bigotry, wherever the origin. Thank you for providing examples.
> 
> Another incredible misguided statement was to say that Kashmir was never a Pakistani land. NOTHING was ever a Pakistani land, or an Indian land. Kashmir was a princely state, whose ruler had the sovereign right to accede to either Dominion, and chose to accede to India.
> 
> *You obviously do not understand the implications of classifying any territory as intrinsically Pakistani, or intrinsically Indian.*



well I am not a Pakistani, so I will call it an intrinsic Indian territory since we administer the main economical zone, one should not have doubt on that, you need to understand. If you have any other opinion whom Kashmir belongs racially, ethically, geographically, then you can come up with that.



Joe Shearer said:


> *Another incredible misguided statement was to say that Kashmir was never a Pakistani land. NOTHING was ever a Pakistani land, or an Indian land. Kashmir was a princely state, whose ruler had the sovereign right to accede to either Dominion, and chose to accede to India.*




I do sense, that you are favoring an Independent Kashmir. But the status is something else, the constitution of India no more recognizes Kashmir as an Independent domain under Instrument of Accession.


----------



## Screambowl

adding to it, an Independent Kashmir in Urdu means *Azad Kashmir, which is in Pakistan*, so it does not guarantee of Independence of Kashmir, hence imposing plebiscite means giving Kashmir to Pakistan.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bhairava said:


> There are many Muslims who consider Aurangazeb their hero, even today in India. That is their personal choice but then there is no point in complaining about the suspicion....an analogy would be if people openly celebrate Osama Bin laden or Mumtaz Qadri then it doesn't give a very good account of them in other people's eyes..does it ? And that is the reason why there is a wariness. Things dont happen in vacuum Niaz ji. Its the cultural,faith linkage that is causing the distrust, not the genetics. Everyone knows that the vast majority of SCal Muslims are natives who converted to Islam.




Your analysis is fraught with peril, and not for the silly people who support that mediaeval bigot, Aurangzeb. There are some politicians who consider Hitler their hero, and glorify him, in public speeches. By the same token, they and their supporters should be the objects of suspicion to the rest of humanity. Do these feelings of suspicion wake up in such a selective manner?





> Regarding the Kachhwaha Rajputs of Jaipur who are the proverbial Mughal flag bearers, some friends of mine from Rajasthan, they being from Mewar and Marwar regions tell how even today they pull the legs of their Jaipuri cousins for their past.



So what is expected of us, that we burst into peals of mirth? So one set of backward feudals twits another set of backward feudals; so what? The whole lot collaborated, and are now busy amending records to display how distant each was. It has nothing to do with modern India. If it comes to that, and you are so keenly aware of which Muslim destroyed which temple in which year, you might remember just a little bit more, and avoid asking us to celebrate the exploits of the descendants of Jaichand.




> Aurangzeb, as he was according to Mughal Records
> 
> These are not some "Hindutva" fabrications...but based on his own firmans which are now preserved in the Bikaner museum.



What part of my post is this supposed to contradict? Everybody knows that Aurangzeb - and Shah Jahan, and Jahangir - destroyed temples; the degree of rigidity steadily increased. Instead of drawing yourself up and filling yourself with righteous indignation, try to distinguish between 'exaggeration' and 'fabrication'.



Screambowl said:


> well I am not a Pakistani, so I will call it an intrinsic Indian territory since we administer the main economical zone, one should not have doubt on that, you need to understand. If you have any other opinion whom Kashmir belongs racially, ethically, geographically, then you can come up with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do sense, that you are favoring an Independent Kashmir. But the status is something else, the constitution of India no more recognizes Kashmir as an Independent domain under Instrument of Accession.



Again, distortion and less than stellar logic.

Kashmir is Indian because of the Maharaja's accession, not because of some fanciful administration of the main economical zone. As if that is any measure of possession! 

Secondly, favouring an independent Kashmir (either the whole of the erstwhile Kashmir state, or the Vale alone) is a view for the future. In no way does it contradict the facts of the doubly legitimate accession of Kashmir to India, through both the Maharaja's Instrument and the wishes of the political leadership. It is not clear why you are getting confused between the two.


----------



## lkozhi

Pakistan has a portion of kashmir. Why is that pakistan make it truly independent than just in name? Make it a full fledged country and show to india what it should be. Then we can follow your example. 
Make Azad Kashmir really azad. Abhi wo kaha ki azad kashmir 
Otherwise rename azad kashmir to gulam kashmir. That suits better.


----------



## Joe Shearer

lkozhi said:


> Pakistan has a portion of kashmir. Why is that pakistan make it truly independent than just in name? Make it a full fledged country and show to india what it should be. Then we can follow your example.
> Make Azad Kashmir really azad. Abhi wo kaha ki azad kashmir
> Otherwise rename azad kashmir to gulam kashmir. That suits better.



You fail to note the brazen conversion of Gilgit and Baltistan to 'the Northern Territories'. The Pakistani state has been utterly hypocritical about Kashmir, preaching good governance to India and practicing the worst methods itself.

But that never occurs to our fanboys.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Screambowl

Joe Shearer said:


> *Again, distortion and less than stellar logic*.


why should India compromise, just to prove some logic right? Why cannot Pakistan compromise and drop the claim. isn't this a simple logic. 



Joe Shearer said:


> Kashmir is Indian because of the Maharaja's accession, not because of some fanciful administration of the main economical zone. As if that is any measure of possession!



Why did Pakistan try to annex it with it's force before the imposition of plebiscite? What is the guarantee that Pakistan would not try to influence Kashmiris to join them again, as they are already influenced. Fate cannot be decided solely any more.





Joe Shearer said:


> Secondly, favouring an independent Kashmir (either the whole of the erstwhile Kashmir state, or the Vale alone) is a view for the future. In no way does it contradict the facts of the *doubly legitimate accession of Kashmir to India,* through both the Maharaja's Instrument and the wishes of the political leadership. It is not clear why you are getting confused between the two.



What instrument does Pakistan hold to legitimate its administration of Kashmir(Azad Kashmir, Gilgit- Baltistan, etc) ???


----------



## Rig Vedic

Bhairava said:


> BUt then you would notice how a section of the Muslim society [some names that immediately come to my mind include Owaisi, mj Akbar] holds an attitude that 'they' ruled over this land once upon a time and how 'they' added to India's culture, oversaw one of the biggest economies etc. *Well if they are going to take ownership of the 'crests' what is the issue when people try to hoild them accountable for the 'troughs' too* ?



This is where the secularist education system has failed. In their eagerness to appease minoritarianism they fail to present the simple historical facts. But distorting history leads to more virulent form of bigotry. I would like the books of savants like Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel to be made required reading in schools.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Screambowl said:


> why should India compromise, just to prove some logic right? Why cannot Pakistan compromise and drop the claim. isn't this a simple logic.



No, it isn't simple logic; nobody argued that India should compromise. No such compromise is required to prove logic. Do you have a problem with comprehension of simple English?

There is no question of Pakistan compromising. If you bother to look up the word, You will find that a compromise involves two (or more) parties each giving up some part of its stand, in order to reach a solution. Since Pakistan has no legal standing, and never had one in the first place, talking about compromise is meaningless and misleading and implies that there is some legitimacy in the Pakistani position. There is none. So stop talking about a compromise.





> Why did Pakistan try to annex it with it's force before the imposition of plebiscite?



What plebiscite are you talking about? None was imposed, or sought to be imposed. 

Pakistan sought to annex Kashmir by force because it thought that was the only way to get Kashmir. What else did you imagine it was?




> What is the guarantee that Pakistan would not try to influence Kashmiris to join them again, as they are already influenced.



There is no guarantee. When did it become a crime to influence people in favour of one's own side? Nobody, and nothing stops any move to influence Kashmiris to stay with India. What are you looking for, a pledge by the Pakistanis never to say what they want?



> Fate cannot be decided solely any more.



Whatever this means. I am unable to understand who is supposed to decide whose fate, solely.




> What instrument does Pakistan hold to legitimate its administration of Kashmir(Azad Kashmir, Gilgit- Baltistan, etc) ???



None whatever. They hold it by right of conquest.

When did this become a mystery to anyone? What is the point, actually?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKBARBIE

However does the instrument of accession legitimize Indian claim over Kashmir. Going by that logic Israeli occupation of Palestine is also justified. The prince obviously did not consider the will of the people before selling out. For those that claim that most Kashmiris r happy to be "Indian" why does india need More than half million troops there. Highest density of troops anywhere in the world. Why wud u call Kashmir an atoot ang of Bharat when u don't even give kashmiris indian passports. Back then yes it made sense for Kashmir to join Pakistan forget all the british red tape it was not their land to begin with. But now I guess we should stop speaking for them and Give them the plebiscite that was promised to them after India occupied the teritory. Whether they choose Pakistan or being independent should be upto them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## danger007

PAKBARBIE said:


> However does the instrument of accession legitimize Indian claim over Kashmir. Going by that logic Israeli occupation of Palestine is also justified. The prince obviously did not consider the will of the people before selling out. For those that claim that most Kashmiris r happy to be "Indian" why does india need More than half million troops there. Highest density of troops anywhere in the world. Why wud u call Kashmir an atoot ang of Bharat when u don't even give kashmiris indian passports. Back then yes it made sense for Kashmir to join Pakistan forget all the british red tape it was not their land to begin with. But now I guess we should stop speaking for them and Give them the plebiscite that was promised to them after India occupied the teritory. Whether they choose Pakistan or being independent should be upto them.



because of pak adventures like kargil, we deoployed those troops....


----------



## MilSpec

PAKBARBIE said:


> However does the instrument of accession legitimize Indian claim over Kashmir. Going by that logic Israeli occupation of Palestine is also justified. The prince obviously did not consider the will of the people before selling out. For those that claim that most Kashmiris r happy to be "Indian" why does india need More than half million troops there. Highest density of troops anywhere in the world. Why wud u call Kashmir an atoot ang of Bharat when u don't even give kashmiris indian passports. Back then yes it made sense for Kashmir to join Pakistan forget all the british red tape it was not their land to begin with. But now I guess we should stop speaking for them and Give them the plebiscite that was promised to them after India occupied the teritory. Whether they choose Pakistan or being independent should be upto them.



I keep hearing about this militarization of Jammu and kashmir state. 

i hope pakistani members do realize that regiments of the army,Ladakh Scouts, J&K Rifles along with J&K light infantry are regiments from this state. 

they will be stationed there because of their HQ's and then there is state sponsored terror mechanism so additional deployments have to be made.. so please stop this I billion military present in J&K state.
There will always be a heavier deployment in troubled states

The divisional head quarters of Northern Command which has 7 infantry divisions and with 5 armored divisions along with regimental HQ of J&K Rifles, J&K Light Infantry, all are located in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. So at any given day there will be 50000+ troops in the state. 

The active deployments of troop is an outcome of state sponsored terrorism from pakistani establishments, due to which armed forces have to deploy in kashmir. the deployment of army in any place causes the restriction on democratic privileges.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAKBARBIE

Kashmiri Stone pelting teenagers r Pakistan sponsored terrorists?


----------



## neutral_person

PAKBARBIE said:


> Kashmiri Stone pelting teenagers r Pakistan sponsored terrorists?



Give it up bro. Even your politicians have admitted to sending Jihadis to Pakistan.

Musharraf stopped it for a bit, but even then there is still funding for them.


----------



## seethru

PAKBARBIE said:


> Kashmiri Stone pelting teenagers r Pakistan sponsored terrorists?



no the people who incite them are.


----------



## PAKBARBIE

seethru said:


> no the people who incite them are.



So Indian army is?



neutral_person said:


> Give it up bro. Even your politicians have admitted to sending Jihadis to Pakistan.
> 
> Musharraf stopped it for a bit, but even then there is still funding for them.



I am speaking about current status quo there. The resistance to occupation has shifted from a violent one to a peaceful and more of a youth oriented movement. Pak terrorists r not needed to incite anything anymore. The mass graves and human rights violations r enough to get any peaceful youth or Kashmiri to stand up against occupation and for azaadi.


----------



## Joe Shearer

PAKBARBIE said:


> However does the instrument of accession legitimize Indian claim over Kashmir. Going by that logic Israeli occupation of Palestine is also justified. The prince obviously did not consider the will of the people before selling out.



'Selling out'? Do you understand the meaning of sovereign? What did he sell out? 

And by what feat of the imagination did you figure out that he did not consider the will of the people? Are you aware that the people had been pressing him to join India? That the leading political organization, the People's Conference, was aligned to the Congress, not to the Muslim League? That the Muslim League was supported by the then Mirwaiz, and that Jinnah despised him?

Instead of allowing your imagination such indulgences, read post #270, particularly paragraphs 3 to 7.





> For those that claim that most Kashmiris r happy to be "Indian" why does india need More than half million troops there.



Visit the local public library and look up Operation Gibraltar, also Grand Slam. People put in burglar alarms when they are in a larcenous neighbourhood.



> Highest density of troops anywhere in the world.



That's a nice, round figure to roll around one's tongue, but the whole Indian Army numbers 1.1 million persons. Such a figure is possible only by clubbing together the troops on the border, the troops on the Chinese border, armed police, border security police, the state police, in fact, anyone and everyone wearing a uniform, including the postal service.




> Why wud u call Kashmir an atoot ang of Bharat when u don't even give kashmiris indian passports.



And where did you get that impression? The only way Kashmiris travel is on Indian passports.

Also, 'atoot ang' and crap like that is language used by a section of the Indian political spectrum. Sometimes I read appeals by rational, logical Pakistanis not to be labelled or classified according to the language used by Zaid Hamid. So now you know it's an erratic fringe that uses this term, and you also know how representative it is.




> Back then yes it made sense for Kashmir to join Pakistan forget all the british red tape it was not their land to begin with. But now I guess we should stop speaking for them and Give them the plebiscite that was promised to them after India occupied the teritory. Whether they choose Pakistan or being independent should be upto them.



For that to happen, you need to comply with the UN resolution, also printed at post number 270.

Read it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## seethru

PAKBARBIE said:


> So Indian army is?



security, law and order of the areas hit by miscreants in valley and of course watching the Border and infiltration of People(brainwashed Youth) form P O K.


----------



## MilSpec

PAKBARBIE said:


> Kashmiri Stone pelting teenagers r Pakistan sponsored terrorists?


Please look at the timeline of militancy in kashmir and understand the need for deployment.


----------



## Screambowl

Joe Shearer said:


> No, it isn't simple logic; nobody argued that India should compromise. No such compromise is required to prove logic. Do you have a problem with comprehension of simple English?
> 
> *There is no question of Pakistan compromising*. If you bother to look up the word, You will find that a compromise involves two (or more) parties each giving up some part of its stand, in order to reach a solution. Since Pakistan has no legal standing, and never had one in the first place, talking about compromise is meaningless and misleading and implies that there is some legitimacy in the Pakistani position. There is none. So stop talking about a compromise.



Pakistan has to compromise and accept LOC as IB or move back. 





Joe Shearer said:


> What plebiscite are you talking about? None was imposed, or sought to be imposed.
> 
> 
> Pakistan sought to annex Kashmir by force because it thought that was the only way to get Kashmir. What else did you imagine it was?



this is what you wrote >>> _"Kashmir is Indian because of the Maharaja's accession, *not because of some fanciful administration of the main economical zone*. As if that is any measure of possession!_"

so Maharaja should have not annexed it to India?? Your tone seems to be very unhappy about it. Instead according to you Plebiscite should be imposed right? 








Joe Shearer said:


> There is no guarantee. When did it become a crime to influence people in favour of one's own side? Nobody, and nothing stops any move to influence Kashmiris to stay with India. What are you looking for, a pledge by the Pakistanis never to say what they want?



Influencing means to interfere and brainwash people against a Nation, which is indeed a crime. Seems like you do support Pakistan influencing Kashmiris. Are you a Pakistani, or Pro Pakistani?









Joe Shearer said:


> None whatever. They hold it by right of conquest.



kindly tell me in which book of world this right of conquest is written? If you steal some one's wife, does she belong to the stealer? lol ... do not quote crap. 
So if Ravana had stolen Sita, Ram had no right on her, she became Ravana's wife??? 

man you speak utter rubbish.


----------



## Joe Shearer

PAKBARBIE said:


> So Indian army is?



This sort of wit and word play is entertaining when used to lighten things after a Complex piece of writing. Not when used to cover up an embarrassing mistake.



Joe Shearer said:


> No, it isn't simple logic; nobody argued that India should compromise. No such compromise is required to prove logic. Do you have a problem with comprehension of simple English?
> 
> There is no question of Pakistan compromising. If you bother to look up the word, You will find that a compromise involves two (or more) parties each giving up some part of its stand, in order to reach a solution. *Since Pakistan has no legal standing, and never had one in the first place, talking about compromise is meaningless and misleading and implies that there is some legitimacy in the Pakistani position. There is none. So stop talking about a compromise.*





Screambowl said:


> Pakistan has to compromise and accept LOC as IB or move back.



I suggest you get someone to explain to you what I wrote, since you seem not to be able to follow.


----------



## Screambowl

PAKBARBIE said:


> However does the instrument of accession legitimize Indian claim over Kashmir. Going by that logic Israeli occupation of Palestine is also justified. The prince obviously did not consider the will of the people before selling out.* For those that claim that most Kashmiris r happy to be "Indian" why does india need More than half million troops there*. Highest density of troops anywhere in the world.* Why wud u call Kashmir an atoot ang of Bharat when u don't even give kashmiris indian passports.* Back then yes it made sense for Kashmir to join Pakistan forget all the british red tape it was not their land to begin with. But now I guess we should stop speaking for them and Give them the plebiscite that was promised to them after India occupied the teritory. Whether they choose Pakistan or being independent should be upto them.



Kargil is one reason. Infiltration from your side is other reason. TERRORIST Camps near LOC, whom you call Mujahids, is one more reason. Today one of our soldier died in a cease fire violation from your side. 

They are for you.


and who told you Kashmiris do not have Indian Passports?



Joe Shearer said:


> I suggest you get someone to explain to you what I wrote, since you seem not to be able to follow.




No you were arguing with me by quoting, India is in kashmir due to Maharaja and Pakistan has Kashmir because the conquered it so they did a fabulous thing and we are wrong. but are you upset about this accession???


----------



## Joe Shearer

> this is what you wrote >>> "Kashmir is Indian because of the Maharaja's accession, not because of some fanciful administration of the main economical zone. As if that is any measure of possession!"





> so Maharaja should have not annexed it to India??



Where did you get that? Have you read my earlier posts?

You really have a problem with English. Should I explain in German?




> Your tone seems to be very unhappy about it.



Instead of making inept attempts at detecting tones which do not exist, read my posts, where I have carefully explained that the Maharaja had sovereign status and could decide whatever he wanted, but his decision in favour of India also had popular political support.




> Instead according to you Plebiscite should be imposed right?



According to me, a plebiscite was impossible as Pakistan did not withdraw its troops and armed personnel. I was correcting your utterly misplaced reference to imposition of a plebiscite.

You *really* have a problem.


----------



## PAKBARBIE

Joe Shearer said:


> 'Selling out'? Do you understand the meaning of sovereign? What did he sell out?
> 
> And by what feat of the imagination did you figure out that he did not consider the will of the people? Are you aware that the people had been pressing him to join India? That the leading political organization, the People's Conference, was aligned to the Congress, not to the Muslim League? That the Muslim League was supported by the then Mirwaiz, and that Jinnah despised him?
> 
> Instead of allowing your imagination such indulgences, read post #270, particularly paragraphs 3 to 7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Visit the local public library and look up Operation Gibraltar, also Grand Slam. People put in burglar alarms when they are in a larcenous neighbourhood.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a nice, round figure to roll around one's tongue, but the whole Indian Army numbers 1.1 million persons. Such a figure is possible only by clubbing together the troops on the border, the troops on the Chinese border, armed police, border security police, the state police, in fact, anyone and everyone wearing a uniform, including the postal service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where did you get that impression? The only way Kashmiris travel is on Indian passports.
> 
> Also, 'atoot ang' and crap like that is language used by a section of the Indian political spectrum. Sometimes I read appeals by rational, logical Pakistanis not to be labelled or classified according to the language used by Zaid Hamid. So now you know it's an erratic fringe that uses this term, and you also know how representative it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For that to happen, you need to comply with the UN resolution, also printed at post number 270.
> 
> Read it.



Since going to the local public library seems like ur favorite pasttime i'm not surprised u r unaware of realities on the ground. I guess the un's imagination was going wild too when they concocted all those stories about the highest number of troops And human rights abuses. Maybe u shud save the trip to the library and don't need to go further than the Internet to find that kasmiris aren't getting the Indian passports they need to travel as u point out. Nor is it that easy for foreign even western press to enetr kashmir (whats to hide if all is hunky dory). I'm not favoring the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan I am for of a plebiscite for today's Kashmiris and yes Pakistan needs to comply as does Bharat. Thanks for pointing out in a condescending manner(cuz that somehow makes u superior) that kashmiris wanted to join india. But i strongly believe that now the ground realities r different. Being stuck in a historical time warp will not get us anywhere. We need peace now. Not just the Kashmiris but the 2 nations fighting over it.


----------



## Screambowl

Joe Shearer said:


> Where did you get that? Have you read my earlier posts?
> 
> You really have a problem with English. Should I explain in German?


No thank you , you do not have to twist your tongue.







Joe Shearer said:


> Instead of making inept attempts at detecting tones which do not exist, read my posts, where I have carefully explained that the Maharaja had sovereign status and could decide whatever he wanted, but his decision in favour of India also had popular political support.



This decision was a quick and helpless decision after Pakistan's offensive move. And I do not see it wrong. Since day 1 after Independace, Pakistan was in a very aggressive nature and had to be dealt with diplomacy. 






Joe Shearer said:


> According to me, a plebiscite was impossible as Pakistan did not withdraw its troops and armed personnel. I was correcting your utterly misplaced reference to imposition of a plebiscite.
> 
> You *really* have a problem.



Even if it withdraws, there is no resolution, since we hold the Instrument of accession which declares Kashmir as an integral Part of India and how dare Pakistan give a Part of Kashmir to China? This should be considered too.


----------



## Joe Shearer

> There is no guarantee. When did it become a crime to influence people in favour of one's own side? Nobody, and nothing stops any move to influence Kashmiris to stay with India. What are you looking for, a pledge by the Pakistanis never to say what they want?





> Influencing means to interfere and brainwash people against a Nation, which is indeed a crime.



It means nothing of the kind.

_verb (used with object)
7.
to exercise influence on; affect; sway: to influence a person.
8.
to move or impel (a person) to some action: Outside factors influenced her to resign._



> Seems like you do support Pakistan influencing Kashmiris.



I don't support it, I don't oppose it. It will happen with or without my pleasure - or yours. And as you may have noticed from the dictionary definition, it is not what you think it means. Only the truly demented would suggest that 'influencing' is a crime.




> Are you a Pakistani, or Pro Pakistani?



Are you authorized to hand out certificates of patriotism?



> No you were arguing with me by quoting, India is in kashmir due to Maharaja and Pakistan has Kashmir because the conquered it so* they did a fabulous thing and we are wrong. * but are you upset about this accession???



Will you show me where I said this?


----------



## Screambowl

Joe Shearer said:


> It means nothing of the kind.
> 
> _verb (used with object)
> 7.
> to exercise influence on; *affect*; sway: to influence a person.
> 8.
> to move or impel (a person) to some action: Outside factors influenced her to resign._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support it, *I don't oppose it*. It will happen with or without my pleasure - or yours. And as you may have noticed from the dictionary definition, it is not what you think it means. Only the truly demented would suggest that 'influencing' is a crime.


well this kinds of Influence comes through cross border terrorism. I do not support it. This Influence comes under Psychological warfare and covert operation, funded by intelligence services.
You still support it then I have to take down your IP and give it to the security forces.(joke)




Joe Shearer said:


> Are you authorized to hand out certificates of patriotism?



well if you support the cross border terrorism which is to INFLUENCE Kashmirs, impels to go against my Nation, then I am authorized.



Joe Shearer said:


> Will you show me where I said this?



No your tone is like, what pakistan has, they conquered it, what we have, we got in dowry LOL

And Kashmir is a Issue for Pakistan, Terrorism in Kashmir is issue for India and should be taken care of.


----------



## Joe Shearer

PAKBARBIE said:


> Since going to the local public library seems like ur favorite pasttime i'm not surprised u r unaware of realities on the ground.



Since I am here, and travel throughout the country, including to Kashmir, perhaps my grip of realities on the ground is stronger than yours.




> I guess the un's imagination was going wild too when they concocted all those stories about the highest number of troops And human rights abuses.



This is not a statement by the UN, it is one made by you. 




> Maybe u shud save the trip to the library and don't need to go further than the Internet to find that kasmiris aren't getting the Indian passports they need to travel as u point out.



And on the basis of somebody sounding off on the Internet you conclude that Kashmiris don't get passports? On the contrary, except for those who are rejected due to security reasons, every Kashmiri who applies gets passports. Look at the Internet yourself, and check to see the number of Kashmiris working abroad on Indian passports. Your ignorance is abysmal.



> Nor is it that easy for foreign even western press to enetr kashmir (whats to hide if all is hunky dory).



Dozens of them travel there every month. Journalists don't need special permission, even ordinary foreign tourists are allowed free access, and use that to travel there. Most of the white-water rafting on the Zanskar and the Indus is conducted by foreigners, who also have a heavy presence in the hiking and ski-ing sectors.

What on earth are you talking about?




> I'm not favoring the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan I am for of a plebiscite for today's Kashmiris and yes Pakistan needs to comply as does Bharat. Thanks for pointing out in a condescending manner(cuz that somehow makes u superior) that kashmiris wanted to join india.



I am sorry that you feel that a condescending manner is what makes me superior; surely there are other proofs available.



> But i strongly believe that now the ground realities r different. Being stuck in a historical time warp will not get us anywhere. We need peace now. Not just the Kashmiris but the 2 nations fighting over it.



Two points - your strong beliefs are simply that - your strong beliefs. They do not necessarily reflect realities on the ground.

My strong belief is that Kashmiris want progress and development more than anything else, except for that section of the political class that depends on stirring up trouble as a matter of its livelihood.

Second, the vast majority of Kashmiris, in the Valley, in Jammu and in Ladakh supported accession to India. Assuming for a moment that there is a section in the Valley that wants independence, do we drag along the other two sections? Do we assume that Pakistan will also allow the Mirpur strip and Gilgit-Baltistan independence? There was no change in sentiment for forty years, in spite of Pakistan's best efforts. There is some change now, due to disgruntled politicians who crossed over to Pakistan on losing elections and promoted armed intrusion. Are we supposed to shift around again in another forty years? 

When is a decision final? Think carefully before you answer that; it has implications all over the sub-continent.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Screambowl said:


> well this kinds of Influence comes through cross border terrorism. I do not support it. This Influence comes under Psychological warfare and covert operation, funded by intelligence services.



Nonsense. It is open political activity. Even libertarian fringe elements like Arundhati Roy, Mridu Rai and many more have had much to say about events in Kashmir.

I don't agree with them, but the process is a public process, and the elements influenced by terrorism, which are real elements, operate at a different level.




> You still support it then I have to take down your IP and give it to the security forces.(joke)



Try not to let your juvenile fancy intrude into every post.



> well if you support the cross border terrorism which is to INFLUENCE Kashmirs, impels to go against my Nation, then I am authorized.



Your shaky grasp of English, AND your shaky grasp of the law, have let you down again.

First, I do not support cross-border terrorism. There are nearly 2,300 posts which make my position clear. It is just your fanboy laddishness that leads you to believe that not preventing free speech amounts to supporting cross-border terrorism.

Second, even if anyone supported cross border terrorism, you have no say in the matter. None whatsoever.



> No your tone is like, what pakistan has, they conquered it, what we have, we got in dowry LOL
> 
> And Kashmir is a Issue for Pakistan, Terrorism in Kashmir is issue for India and should be taken care of.



As I mentioned, you should not try listening for overtones or undertones until you get a firmer grip on the English language.



Screambowl said:


> No thank you , you do not have to twist your tongue.
> 
> This decision was a quick and helpless decision after Pakistan's offensive move. And I do not see it wrong.



So who did? What are you arguing about?



> Since day 1 after Independace, Pakistan was in a very aggressive nature and had to be dealt with diplomacy.



Sadly, it is becoming clear that a wobbly grip over English is not the only chink in your defences. You also don't know what is called what.

India's response to Pakistan's aggression was military, not diplomatic. Only after driving the intruders out of the Vale, and into the Mirpur fringe did India refer the problem to the UN.

Why do I even bother?




> Even if it withdraws, there is no resolution, since we hold the Instrument of accession which declares Kashmir as an integral Part of India and how dare Pakistan give a Part of Kashmir to China? This should be considered too.



This has nothing to do with the discussion. And you are also not aware of the terms of the border settlement between Pakistan and China. You should learn about it before commenting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Screambowl

Joe Shearer said:


> Nonsense. It is open political activity. Even libertarian fringe elements like Arundhati Roy, Mridu Rai and many more have had much to say about events in Kashmir.
> 
> I don't agree with them, but the process is a public process, and the elements influenced by terrorism, which are real elements, operate at a different level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to let your juvenile fancy intrude into every post.
> 
> 
> 
> Your shaky grasp of English, AND your shaky grasp of the law, have let you down again.
> 
> First, I do not support cross-border terrorism. There are nearly 2,300 posts which make my position clear. It is just your fanboy laddishness that leads you to believe that not preventing free speech amounts to supporting cross-border terrorism.
> 
> Second, even if anyone supported cross border terrorism, you have no say in the matter. None whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned, you should not try listening for overtones or undertones until you get a firmer grip on the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> So who did? What are you arguing about?
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, it is becoming clear that a wobbly grip over English is not the only chink in your defences. You also don't know what is called what.
> 
> India's response to Pakistan's aggression was military, not diplomatic. Only after driving the intruders out of the Vale, and into the Mirpur fringe did India refer the problem to the UN.
> 
> Why do I even bother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with the discussion. And you are also not aware of the *terms of the border settlement between Pakistan and China*. You should learn about it before commenting.



Forget the english ... 

I do not recognize nor India does , any border settlement between Pak-China. it is on illegal terms. If you know those illegal terms kindly share with us.



Joe Shearer said:


> m.
> 
> Second, even if anyone supported cross border terrorism, you have no say in the matter. None whatsoever.



so being a citizen of India, I should keep quite and stay calm, if some one is terrorizing my Nation, through cross border terrorism. What kind of so good thoughts you have. I am pleasured (Sarcasm)


----------



## PAKBARBIE

Joe Shearer said:


> Since I am here, and travel throughout the country, including to Kashmir, perhaps my grip of realities on the ground is stronger than yours.
> 
> considering ur narrow-minded views on the plight of kashmiris i highly doubt u have travelled anywhere near kashmir
> 
> 
> This is not a statement by the UN, it is one made by you.
> 
> what statement? the reason u probably missed those findings by the un is cause u were trekking to the local public library to be with other 5 year olds while the rest of us were taking advantage of electronic media which carries entire databases of books, articles, newspapers, etc. save the trip!
> 
> 
> And on the basis of somebody sounding off on the Internet you conclude that Kashmiris don't get passports? On the contrary, except for those who are rejected due to security reasons, every Kashmiri who applies gets passports. Look at the Internet yourself, and check to see the number of Kashmiris working abroad on Indian passports. Your ignorance is abysmal.
> 
> so the internet is a legitimate source to find kashmiris working abroad on indian passports and not to find kashmiris being denied indian passports for no reason. my ignorance may be abysmal but not more than ur pseudo-intellect.
> 
> 
> Dozens of them travel there every month. *Journalists don't need special permission, even ordinary foreign tourists are allowed free access*, and use that to travel there. Most of the white-water rafting on the Zanskar and the Indus is conducted by foreigners, who also have a heavy presence in the hiking and ski-ing sectors.
> 
> What on earth are you talking about?
> 
> now thats a good one- no limitations to travel in kashmir...now where did u get these "facts" .
> nice slip up...i was actually starting to think u may have travelled to kashmir and knew u what u were talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry that you feel that a condescending manner is what makes me superior; surely there are other proofs available.
> 
> there there sweety if it makes u feel better that u are superior to a stranger on the internet then i'll let u have it. u seem like someone who wud probably get a kick out of coming up with a list of proofs so i welcome them.
> 
> 
> Two points - your strong beliefs are simply that - your strong beliefs. They do not necessarily reflect realities on the ground.
> 
> i agree that they do not necessarily reflect realities. nor does ur "opinion" from having "travelled" to kashmir reflect the plight of kashmiris.
> 
> My strong belief is that Kashmiris want progress and development more than anything else, except for that section of the political class that depends on stirring up trouble as a matter of its livelihood.
> 
> Second, the vast majority of Kashmiris, in the Valley, in Jammu and in Ladakh supported accession to India. Assuming for a moment that there is a section in the Valley that wants independence, do we drag along the other two sections? Do we assume that Pakistan will also allow the Mirpur strip and Gilgit-Baltistan independence?
> 
> we are not discussing pakistan at the moment. lets discuss the kashmir problem. does the current population of kashmir support accession to india. lets hold a plebiscite and find out instead of speaking for them. if like u claim the majority wishes to remain with india maybe the plebiscite will legitimize it as indian territory. then they have no reason to continue their azadi struggle. from my understanding and correct me if i'm wrong the azadi struggle is asking for the right to self determination according to todays kashmiris.


----------



## Screambowl

PAKBARBIE said:


> we are not discussing pakistan at the moment. *lets discuss the kashmir problem.* does the current population of kashmir support accession to india. lets hold a plebiscite and find out instead of speaking for them. if like u claim the majority wishes to remain with india maybe the plebiscite will legitimize it as indian territory. then they have no reason to continue their azadi struggle. from my understanding and correct me if i'm wrong the azadi struggle is asking for the right to self determination according to todays kashmiris.



India has only one Problem in Kashmir, that is the cross border terrorism. Rest is the internal matter of India and we are taking care of it.


----------



## Albatross

Screambowl said:


> India has only one Problem in Kashmir, that is the cross border terrorism. Rest is the internal matter of India and we are taking care of it.



Just to make it simple for yu guys tell me one thing who is in majority there hindus or muslims...If yr answer is muslim then who was in majority in 47 if again yr answer is muslims then another question what was the dividing principle if yr answer is "all muslim dominated areas were to make a muslim state and all hindu dominated areas were to make a hindu state" but it dint happen in the case of kashmir and brits while leaving deliberately made the maharaja then to join indians as they knew this unjust divide will keep both these states locked for decades and they would sell their weapons something they did successfully uptill now...
So dude if any of yu indians have anyother answers for whom i replied yes do let me know...
And be assure unless kashmiris get their rights of free will something they were supposed to get back then in 47 india would have to keep 8 millions soldiers there and even that hasnt helped for so many decades ...So be just and hold a referendum there and live in peace we have nothin else againt india they are pretty normal humans like all others ..And if india doesnt comply we ll always be comin after our kashmiri brothers...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Screambowl

Albatross said:


> Just to make it simple for yu guys tell me one thing who is in majority there hindus or muslims...If yr answer is muslim then who was in majority in 47 if again yr answer is muslims then another question what was the dividing principle if yr answer is "all muslim dominated areas were to make a muslim state and all hindu dominated areas were to make a hindu state" but it dint happen in the case of kashmir and brits while leaving deliberately made the maharaja then to join indians as they knew this unjust divide will keep both these states locked for decades and they would sell their weapons something they did successfully uptill now...
> So dude if any of yu indians have anyother answers for whom i replied yes do let me know...
> And be assure unless kashmiris get their rights of free will something they were supposed to get back then in 47 india would have to keep 8 millions soldiers there and even that hasnt helped for so many decades ...So be just and hold a referendum there and live in peace we have nothin else againt india they are pretty normal humans like all others ..And if india doesnt comply we ll always be comin after our kashmiri brothers...



Pakistan should first secure its border and stop those infiltrators coming from your side into Kashmir and then the talks will be on. 
Plebiscite is a gone case now, as we hold Instrument of Accession, due to your fault indeed. How forcefully Pakistan tried to annex it to its domain is not a secret. And still Azad Kashmir remains a Pakistan Territory, so we do not believe in any Independent Kashmir or UN Resolution any More. 

How you have given Kashmir to China, is against Kashmiris. Think about that tooo


adding to that, How do you Define Kashmiris, is a topic of debate. Are Only Muslims to be called as Kashmiris, or the non Muslims too. Many have migrated and immigrated too. So It wont be a very good idea to confine the term KASHMIRI to Muslims only, who are living there.


----------



## Albatross

Screambowl said:


> Pakistan should first secure its border and stop those infiltrators coming from your side into Kashmir and then the talks will be on.
> Plebiscite is a gone case now, as we hold Instrument of Accession, due to your fault indeed. How forcefully Pakistan tried to annex it to its domain is not a secret. And still Azad Kashmir remains a Pakistan Territory, so we do not believe in any Independent Kashmir or UN Resolution any More.
> 
> How you have given Kashmir to China, is against Kashmiris. Think about that tooo
> 
> 
> adding to that, How do you Define Kashmiris, is a topic of debate. Are Only Muslims to be called as Kashmiris, or the non Muslims too. Many have migrated and immigrated too. So It wont be a very good idea to confine the term KASHMIRI to Muslims only.



Yu are arguing for the sake of it and dint reply to my logical questions..Its this attitude of yrs which nullify justice completely that has brought our nation at this point ..Instrument of accession wasnt a methood described in that division..Yu talk abt azad kashmir we have no issue conductin a referendum there as we aint afraid of anything...2nd remember that if we can take it forcefully then we can do it now too bt ofcourse its gonna be hell more bloody something we wanna avoid but if yr establishments insists it happen sooner or later as yu can see from world history that not even the greatest superpowers were able to enslave people for long against their wishes and india isnt even a superpower..think abt it pakistani flags in srinagar on every 14th august clearly indicates what yu guys have got in all these decades...Be rational and its gonna be good for all of us and peace of the region..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Screambowl

Albatross said:


> Yu are arguing for the sake of it and dint reply to my logical questions..Its this attitude of yrs which nullify justice completely that has brought our nation at this point ..Instrument of accession wasnt a methood described in that division..Yu talk abt azad kashmir we have no issue conductin a referendum there as we aint afraid of anything...2nd remember that if we can take it forcefully then we can do it now too bt ofcourse its gonna be hell more bloody something we wanna avoid but if yr establishments insists it happen sooner or later as yu can see from world history that not even the greatest superpowers were able to enslave people for long against their wishes and india isnt even a superpower..think abt it pakistani flags in srinagar on every 14th august clearly indicates what yu guys have got in all these decades...Be rational and its gonna be good for all of us and peace of the region..




when we already do not believe in such theories which you have posted, we see you illegally occupying Kashmir, why should I reply to it??? 
why a referendum after 60+ years ??? Things are not Status quo.

and according to me, you are already trying forcefully to annex Kashmir, that's why we are demanding you to check up those infiltrators from your side.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> Just to make it simple for yu guys tell me one thing who is in majority there hindus or muslims...If yr answer is muslim then who was in majority in 47 if again yr answer is muslims then another question what was the dividing principle if yr answer is "all muslim dominated areas were to make a muslim state and all hindu dominated areas were to make a hindu state" but it dint happen in the case of kashmir



Just to make it simple for you, are you aware that twice before this, on this thread alone, geniuses have tried saying what you are saying, and have been duly instructed in the fundamentals? Have you read the previous posts, before jumping in?





> and brits while leaving deliberately made the maharaja then to join indians as they knew this unjust divide will keep both these states locked for decades and they would sell their weapons something they did successfully uptill now...
> So dude if any of yu indians have anyother answers for whom i replied yes do let me know...




Yup, right enough. 

Obviously haven't done your homework. The Brits had nothing to do with forcing the decision on the Maharaja, but then, REAL he-men don't read earlier posts, do they?

So we get one new clockwork mouse after another, at regular intervals.

Read post #270 before you reduce us to tears of mirth again.



> And be assure unless kashmiris get their rights of free will something they were supposed to get back then in 47



Actually, they weren't supposed to. But you don't want to read earlier posts, do you?

OK, let's make it easier for you, since you obviously need to get back to homework before long: the Kashmiris, the real one's, in the Vale, supported joining India in 47.

Now how about that? Go ahead, ask me to PROVE IT!

Use a little sarcasm, perhaps a couple of LOLs; every little bit helps, especially when #270, paras 3 to 7 are staring accusingly at you.




> india would have to keep 8 millions soldiers there and even that hasnt helped for so many decades ...



It did, it did. 

Like I was telling an ignorant, dumb cluck (not an intelligent, smart dude like you, the last of the REAL he-men) some posts ago, you could look up Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grand Slam.




> So be just and hold a referendum there and live in peace



We're doing that, more or less, actually....



> we have nothin else againt india they are pretty normal humans like all others ..



Let's not get carried away and start exaggerating things.




> And if india doesnt comply we ll always be comin after our kashmiri brothers...



That's fine. Just like you've done for 60 plus years.

The trouble is getting rid of the bodies.



Albatross said:


> Yu are arguing for the sake of it and dint reply to my logical questions..Its this attitude of yrs which nullify justice completely that has brought our nation at this point ..Instrument of accession wasnt a methood described in that division..



It was, actually. Read the back posts, genius.




> Yu talk abt azad kashmir we have no issue conductin a referendum there as we aint afraid of anything...2nd remember that if we can take it forcefully then we can do it now too bt ofcourse its gonna be hell more bloody something we wanna avoid



Of course you do.

We noticed you avoiding it in 48, in 65, then continuously from 86.




> but if yr establishments insists it happen sooner or later as yu can see from world history that not even the greatest superpowers were able to enslave people for long against their wishes and india isnt even a superpower..think abt it pakistani flags in srinagar on every 14th august clearly indicates what yu guys have got in all these decades...



Pakistani flags? Sure.

But no Pakistanis; they were watching from a vantage point high above it all.




> Be rational and its gonna be good for all of us and peace of the region..



Good idea.

Why don't you studs go first?



Screambowl said:


> Forget the english ...
> 
> I do not recognize nor India does , any border settlement between Pak-China. it is on illegal terms. If you know those illegal terms kindly share with us.



Look it up. It's in the public domain.





> so being a citizen of India, I should keep quite and stay calm, if some one is terrorizing my Nation, through cross border terrorism. What kind of so good thoughts you have. I am pleasured (Sarcasm)



Do you know what being pleasured means, in English? Why do you persist in using a language you simply don't know?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Albatross

@joe
Yu made too much effort to hide the truth but the truth is Pakistani flags fly with all the shine on every 14th august in srinagar..
If yu guys have balls get those 800000 troops out of there and then ask them whom they wanna join..Something that is not forced on gun point and see how much hatered they have for yu...How can one man (maharaja) decide on behalf of millions is that the democracy yu indians believe in....Get a life and a just one it will make things better for yu or else i told yu read my earlier posts its gonna burn and divide india down into dozen states so save yr major chunk and let muslims be with muslims the basic fundamental of indo pak division or yu want US to rule all of yu again like we did for almost a thousand years...Choice is yours..

when yu reply to my posts be careful to have some substance and logic I am not here to teach 5 graders..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

PAKBARBIE said:


> Joe Shearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I am here, and travel throughout the country, including to Kashmir, perhaps my grip of realities on the ground is stronger than yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> considering ur narrow-minded views on the plight of kashmiris i highly doubt u have travelled anywhere near kashmir
Click to expand...


June 17 to July 7, 2011.

Oops! I forgot!! Excuse me.

It's not about facts, it's about opinions, isn't it? And your opinion is that I haven't been there. That's it, then; case closed.





> This is not a statement by the UN, it is one made by you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what statement? the reason u probably missed those findings by the un is cause u were trekking to the local public library to be with other 5 year olds while the rest of us were taking advantage of electronic media which carries entire databases of books, articles, newspapers, etc. save the trip!
Click to expand...


So, great. You are so smart, so up to date. Where are the references?

Damn, I forgot again....it's NOT about facts.




> And on the basis of somebody sounding off on the Internet you conclude that Kashmiris don't get passports? On the contrary, except for those who are rejected due to security reasons, every Kashmiri who applies gets passports. Look at the Internet yourself, and check to see the number of Kashmiris working abroad on Indian passports. Your ignorance is abysmal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so the internet is a legitimate source to find kashmiris working abroad on indian passports and not to find kashmiris being denied indian passports for no reason. my ignorance may be abysmal but not more than ur pseudo-intellect.
Click to expand...


LOL.

I was only quoting your favourite source of information back at you.




> Dozens of them travel there every month. *Journalists don't need special permission, even ordinary foreign tourists are allowed free access*, and use that to travel there. Most of the white-water rafting on the Zanskar and the Indus is conducted by foreigners, who also have a heavy presence in the hiking and ski-ing sectors.
> 
> What on earth are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now thats a good one- no limitations to travel in kashmir...now where did u get these "facts" .
> nice slip up...i was actually starting to think u may have travelled to kashmir and knew u what u were talking about.
Click to expand...


What slip-up? your opinion again?






> I am sorry that you feel that a condescending manner is what makes me superior; surely there are other proofs available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there there sweety if it makes u feel better that u are superior to a stranger on the internet then i'll let u have it.
Click to expand...


Whew!

For a moment, you had me worried.




> u seem like someone who wud probably get a kick out of coming up with a list of proofs so i welcome them.



Oh, I couldn't possibly. It's my opinion, don't you know? If you really want to know, ask Screambowl.



> Two points - your strong beliefs are simply that - your strong beliefs. They do not necessarily reflect realities on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i agree that they do not necessarily reflect realities. nor does ur "opinion" from having "travelled" to kashmir reflect the plight of kashmiris.
Click to expand...


Ummmm...no, it doesn't. And in case long hours of wading through the Internet have eroded your attention span, I didn't say so, either. Perhaps you should go back and check what I actually said. Might help to know what my opinion was, instead of going by your opinion of what my opinion was.



> My strong belief is that Kashmiris want progress and development more than anything else, except for that section of the political class that depends on stirring up trouble as a matter of its livelihood.
> 
> Second, the vast majority of Kashmiris, in the Valley, in Jammu and in Ladakh supported accession to India. Assuming for a moment that there is a section in the Valley that wants independence, do we drag along the other two sections? Do we assume that Pakistan will also allow the Mirpur strip and Gilgit-Baltistan independence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we are not discussing pakistan at the moment. lets discuss the kashmir problem. does the current population of kashmir support accession to india. lets hold a plebiscite and find out instead of speaking for them. if like u claim the majority wishes to remain with india maybe the plebiscite will legitimize it as indian territory. then they have no reason to continue their azadi struggle. from my understanding and correct me if i'm wrong the azadi struggle is asking for the right to self determination according to todays kashmiris.
Click to expand...


Why leave out the rest of Kashmir? If you were so sure about their wishes, why didn't you allow them to elect their own representatives for fifty years?

The Azadi struggle is for the right of self-determination for all Kashmiris.


----------



## Albatross

Azad kashmir is completely autonomous and is a step ahead all other provinces in the sense that they have their own president and primeminister ...We are willing at any given day to hold a referendum there and ask them whomsoever they wanna join or even if they wanna be independent...When are yu gonna do that...Never because yu are afraid of truth and yu know we aint suppressing kashmiris with a million troops like yu ...But if india goes for a referendum there we will hold one here on our side ..
So tell me joe when are yu gonna arrange that as yu seem to know ground realities too well and have visited that place quite often,dont mistake the attitude of a suppressed man equivalent to a free man and thats why yr govt keeps those boots there hoping one day kashmiris will forget all the miseries inflicted upon them by tyrants but read the history it never happened and even after hundreds of years when ever oppressed one's got a chance they secured their freedom and india isnt gonna be an exception..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> @joe
> Yu made too much effort to hide the truth but the truth is Pakistani flags fly with all the shine on every 14th august in srinagar..
> If yu guys have balls get those 800000 troops out of there and then ask them whom they wanna join..Something that is not forced on gun point and see how much hatered they have for yu...*How can one man (maharaja) decide on behalf of millions is that the democracy yu indians believe in.*...Get a life and a just one it will make things better for yu or else i told yu read my earlier posts its gonna burn and divide india down into dozen states so save yr major chunk and let muslims be with muslims the basic fundamental of indo pak division or yu want US to rule all of yu again like we did for almost a thousand years...Choice is yours..
> 
> when yu reply to my posts be careful to have some substance and logic I am not here to teach 5 graders..



Read post 270.



Albatross said:


> Azad kashmir is completely autonomous and is a step ahead all other provinces in the sense that they have their own president and primeminister ...We are willing at any given day to hold a referendum there and ask them whomsoever they wanna join or even if they wanna be independent...When are yu gonna do that...Never because yu are afraid of truth and yu know we aint suppressing kashmiris with a million troops like yu ...But if india goes for a referendum there we will hold one here on our side ..
> So tell me joe when are yu gonna arrange that as yu seem to know ground realities too well and have visited that place quite often,dont mistake the attitude of a suppressed man equivalent to a free man and thats why yr govt keeps those boots there hoping one day kashmiris will forget all the miseries inflicted upon them by tyrants but read the history it never happened and even after hundreds of years when ever oppressed one's got a chance they secured their freedom and india isnt gonna be an exception..



The day you comply with the UN Resolutions. Read post 270.


----------



## Albatross

@joe

I knew yu had nothing to write dude but I can see how propaganda can affect us humans and make us forget the basics of humanity and justice so I forgive yu but I doubt those kashmiries whose young son are killed by yr heroes ,whose daughters are raped and whose homes are searched every now and then and who are called to make lines outside their villages while yr heroes search their daughters and wives touching them all over and then make dirty faces to each other they would ever be able to forget these humiliations.Just think for a second if it is done with your daughter,sister,mother or wife how would yu feel ..

I know even all this wont make a thing move inside yu because yu guys have been slowly poisened and hardened by decades of propaganda but that land belongs to kashmiries their traditions,looks,customs every thing differ from yu ..They are not one of yu and yu were telling me abt the ground realities and here I am who has more relatives in disputed kashmir than you or anyother of your fellow having fun on this thread..

And thats that I have nothing more to argue with you ..Your heart and soul is dead and you guys just think of yr needs and goals and humanity doesnt matter.

have a goodnight sleep with yr loved one's as yu are lucky enough to have that

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> @joe
> 
> I knew yu had nothing to write dude but I can see how propaganda can affect us humans and make us forget the basics of humanity and justice so I forgive yu but I doubt those kashmiries whose young son are killed by yr heroes ,whose daughters are raped and whose homes are searched every now and then and who are called to make lines outside their villages while yr heroes search their daughters and wives touching them all over and then make dirty faces to each other they would ever be able to forget these humiliations.Just think for a second if it is done with your daughter,sister,mother oPr wife how would yu feel ..
> 
> I know even all this wont make a thing move inside yu because yu guys have been slowly poisened and hardened by decades of propaganda but that land belongs to kashmiries their traditions,looks,customs every thing differ from yu ..They are not one of yu and yu were telling me abt the ground realities and here I am who has more relatives in disputed kashmir than you or anyother of your fellow having fun on this thread..
> 
> And thats that I have nothing more to argue with you ..Your heart and soul is dead and you guys just think of yr needs and goals and humanity doesnt matter.
> 
> have a goodnight sleep with yr loved one's as yu are lucky enough to have that



[SAWB!]

Post 270.

Recommended reading for all who flunk fifth grade.


----------



## Albatross

@joe

Yu are proving who yu are...and yu will get what yu deserve...

And I repeat kashmiries are not one of you their traditions,customs,lifestyle,looks(they are lot more pleasant looking)religion everything is different from india and they will get their freedom soon inshallah....Nobody can stop the flow of raging water let alone a nation who has highest number of underweight childeren and highest ratio of child laborers ...Millions of hungry and uneducated masses sleeping on roads...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> @joe
> 
> Yu are proving who yu are...and yu will get what yu deserve...
> 
> And I repeat kashmiries are not one of you their traditions,customs,lifestyle,looks(they are lot more pleasant looking)religion everything is different from india and they will get their freedom soon inshallah....Nobody can stop the flow of raging water let alone a nation who has highest number of underweight childeren and highest ratio of child laborers ...Millions of hungry and uneducated masses sleeping on roads...



Post 270.

If that doesn't stop the flow of raging words from you, nothing will.


----------



## Albatross

@joe

I read that and found nothing convincing or something that addresses the miseries of kashmiries..
Thats the view of one man whose identity is even questionable and I dont know what got him to write that as many truths are distorted I have a first hand knowledge of kashmiries plight and have relatives who got their loved one's dead for nothing..

I have sent him a personal message asking about a certain things he mentioned and his reply will reflect who he is anyways I will keep you posted on that..

As you seem to be better than most of yr fellows in few senses of the word "better" I would advise you against one thing *we see what our eyes wanna see but it doesnt guarantee if thats true and just as well and to be just in life requires sacrifice and selflessness*..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> I read that and found nothing convincing or something that addresses the miseries of kashmiries..


 
I doubt it strongly. You would have found clearly stated the fact that Kashmiris don't want Pakistan. 

The author isn't off the street. He's part of an elect group. I notice you aren't. Maybe someone somewhere (not me) thinks he knows more than you?

The miseries of Kashmiris today is due to infiltrated extremists, and due to a corrupt coterie of people who have been subsidized for decades to keep agitating the state. 

Go and take a look at Srinagar now. It's bustling with visitors, and locals are making money hand over fist. There's no time for aZadi now, not while the season is on.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## neutral_person

Albatross said:


> @joe
> 
> Yu are proving who yu are...and yu will get what yu deserve...
> 
> And I repeat kashmiries are not one of you their traditions,customs,lifestyle,looks(they are lot more pleasant looking)religion everything is different from india and they will get their freedom soon inshallah....Nobody can stop the flow of raging water let alone a nation who has highest number of underweight childeren and highest ratio of child laborers ...Millions of hungry and uneducated masses sleeping on roads...



Cool story bro. Now come take Kashmir. Why are you doing Internet Jihad, and not out there in Kashmir getting killed by the Indian Army like your fellow emotional Pakistani Jihadis in Kashmir? 

I know technology changes things, but you are doing Jihad the wrong way bro. You do Jihad with guns, not your keyboard, just saying

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Joe Shearer

neutral_person said:


> Cool story bro. Now come take Kashmir. Why are you doing Internet Jihad, and not out there in Kashmir getting killed by the Indian Army like your fellow emotional Pakistani Jihadis in Kashmir?
> 
> I know technology changes things, but you are doing Jihad the wrong way bro. You do Jihad with guns, not your keyboard, just saying



Go for it, Albatross!



He's going to kill all - how many is it these days? 800,000? - the oppressors, using nothing but his jawbone.

There's an apt story in the Bible about that.


----------



## Albatross

neutral_person said:


> Cool story bro. Now come take Kashmir. Why are you doing Internet Jihad, and not out there in Kashmir getting killed by the Indian Army like your fellow emotional Pakistani Jihadis in Kashmir?
> 
> I know technology changes things, but you are doing Jihad the wrong way bro. You do Jihad with guns, not your keyboard, just saying


Thanks for lightening up my mood with yr good for nothing pop-up but as I m sure like many other non-muslims you must have had a very wrong idea of jihad something equalling to killing all non muslims ..right but thats not true in Islam the biggest jihad is against one's own desires and ownself not against anyone else and its called "jihad e akbar" mean biggest jihad while the jihad against tyrants is termed jihad e asghar of lesser importance as compare to former one and its this jihad you are talking about but I am at the moment trying to control my ownself and doing the biggest jihad as yu may call it and it doesnt ask for any bloodshed only abstaining from wrong doings and hurting mankind..

Anyways thanks for the advise though...I will consider that when things come around your place...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> @joe
> 
> I read that and found nothing convincing or something that addresses the miseries of kashmiries..
> Thats the view of one man whose identity is even questionable and I dont know what got him to write that as many truths are distorted I have a first hand knowledge of kashmiries plight and have relatives who got their loved one's dead for nothing..
> 
> I have sent him a personal message asking about a certain things he mentioned and his reply will reflect who he is anyways I will keep you posted on that..
> 
> As you seem to be better than most of yr fellows in few senses of the word "better" I would advise you against one thing *we see what our eyes wanna see but it doesnt guarantee if thats true and just as well and to be just in life requires sacrifice and selflessness*..



I don't need to be posted about his views. He is among those for whose views I have great respect, and whose judgement is mature and balanced. There are several others like him, Indian and Pakistani alike.

Where he soars above the rest of us is in his close adherence to the facts. He is an example to all of us.

The pity is that many of you jump in without the slightest knowledge about the facts, and spew out nothing but highly emotional harangues. This includes Indians; some of them are big-time offenders.

Will it kill you to read? And to bone up on the facts before you hit the keyboard?


----------



## Albatross

Joe Shearer said:


> I don't need to be posted about his views. He is among those for whose views I have great respect, and whose judgement is mature and balanced. There are several others like him, Indian and Pakistani alike.
> 
> Where he soars above the rest of us is in his close adherence to the facts. He is an example to all of us.
> 
> The pity is that many of you jump in without the slightest knowledge about the facts, and spew out nothing but highly emotional harangues. This includes Indians; some of them are big-time offenders.
> 
> Will it kill you to read? And to bone up on the facts before you hit the keyboard?


what facts you can tell to someone who since when he has got his sense of listening and feelings as a human is listening stories of his close and far relatives in disputed kashmir being the subject of indian tyranny...It makes me wonder at times when I see people like you defending themselves or their goverment stance without knowing the bare,ugly true ground realities...

You guys blame it all on pakistan that we send people there and create all the nusance ...Tell me one thing honestly now if Pakistan wants to do the same in Tamil nado or anyother state can we do that for a few months leave alone decades..Can we no we cant without active local support and why is that support there for us??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????what have yu guys done there that they hate you so much????????????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Screambowl

Albatross said:


> Azad kashmir is completely autonomous and is a step ahead all other provinces in the sense that they have their own president and primeminister ...*We are willing at any given day to hold a referendum there and ask them whomsoever they wanna join or even if they wanna be independent...*When are yu gonna do that...Never because yu are afraid of truth and yu know we aint suppressing kashmiris with a million troops like yu ...*But if india goes for a referendum there we will hold one here on our side ..*
> So tell me joe when are yu gonna arrange that as yu seem to know ground realities too well and have visited that place quite often,dont mistake the attitude of a suppressed man equivalent to a free man and thats why yr govt keeps those boots there hoping one day kashmiris will forget all the miseries inflicted upon them by tyrants but read the history it never happened and even after hundreds of years when ever oppressed one's got a chance they secured their freedom and india isnt gonna be an exception..


 
There are some conditions for referendum which will never be fulfilled so no question of it. 
Suppressing Kashmiris? define Kashmiris first


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> what facts you can tell to someone who since when he has got his sense of listening and feelings as a human is listening stories of his close and far relatives in disputed kashmir being the subject of indian tyranny...It makes me wonder at times when I see people like you defending themselves or their goverment stance without knowing the bare,ugly true ground realities...
> 
> You guys blame it all on pakistan that we send people there and create all the nusance ...Tell me one thing honestly now if Pakistan wants to do the same in Tamil nado or anyother state can we do that for a few months leave alone decades..Can we no we cant without active local support and why is that support there for us??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????what have yu guys done there that they hate you so much????????????



Ask yourself first why the ordinary Kashmiri resisted the invaders in 48. Where were your question marks then?

Ask yourself why every commando sent across in 65 was hunted down and killed or captured with the active aid of the local people.

Are you even aware of this? Ask yourself who has been paying these communalists over the last sixty years, and why.

Ask yourself who subsidises the leaders of the Hurriyat; ask why the aides of these leaders are found with money where trouble breaks out.


----------



## Albatross

Screambowl said:


> There are some conditions for referendum which will never be fulfilled so no question of it.
> Suppressing Kashmiris? define Kashmiris first



Go to srinagar and roam around in a circle of hundreds of miles if yu can unguarded and yu will see plenty of simply dressed,decent looking,hospitable men and woman carrying out their daily routines while looking over their backs for any boots and if they see one they just get frightened at that very moment all those harmless people are kashmiries..who lived there for generations and generations and are beautiful like their homeland any outsider will be easily distinguised by his dark skin and ugly features..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> Go to srinagar and roam around in a circle of hundreds of miles if yu can unguarded and yu will see plenty of simply dressed,decent looking,hospitable men and woman carrying out their daily routines while looking over their backs for any boots and if they see one they just get frightened at that very moment all those harmless people are kashmiries..who lived there for generations and generations and are beautiful like their homeland any outsider will be easily distinguised by his dark skin and ugly features..



What a racist you are!


----------



## neutral_person

Albatross said:


> what facts you can tell to someone who since when he has got his sense of listening and feelings as a human is listening stories of his close and far relatives in disputed kashmir being the subject of indian tyranny...It makes me wonder at times when I see people like you defending themselves or their goverment stance without knowing the bare,ugly true ground realities...
> 
> You guys blame it all on pakistan that we send people there and create all the nusance ...Tell me one thing honestly now if Pakistan wants to do the same in Tamil nado or anyother state can we do that for a few months leave alone decades..Can we no we cant without active local support and why is that support there for us??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????what have yu guys done there that they hate you so much????????????



The only Kashmiris there today are offshoots of Pakistani Taliban. I dont care about religion, all I care about is India. I dont care if a Hindu/Muslim/Sikh/Christian/Atheist whatever tries to break India through terrorism. They will meet their early death at the hands of Indian Army, because India is not being broken apart again ever again. So you can stop shedding your crocodile tears, because no matter what, you are not getting an inch of Kashmir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Albatross

Joe Shearer said:


> Ask yourself first why the ordinary Kashmiri resisted the invaders in 48. Where were your question marks then?
> 
> Ask yourself why every commando sent across in 65 was hunted down and killed or captured with the active aid of the local people.
> 
> Are you even aware of this? Ask yourself who has been paying these communalists over the last sixty years, and why.
> 
> Ask yourself who subsidises the leaders of the Hurriyat; ask why the aides of these leaders are found with money where trouble breaks out.



Any proof of all this crap except some hindu writers...Nothing and it cant be and if yu have so much local support why dont yu make a army of them and ask themselves to guard their borders???????????? why yu have to send indian army and 800000 of them to guard that place...I thought better of yu but yu are proving yrslef to be as ignorant as anyone else of yr caste ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> Any proof of all this crap except some hindu writers...Nothing and it cant be and if yu have so much local support why dont yu make a army of them and ask themselves to guard their borders???????????? why yu have to send indian army and 800000 of them to guard that place...I thought better of yu but yu are proving yrslef to be as ignorant as anyone else of yr caste ...



Which of these do you think is from a Hindu writer? Please be specific.


----------



## Albatross

neutral_person said:


> The only Kashmiris there today are offshoots of Pakistani Taliban. I dont care about religion, all I care about is India. I dont care if a Hindu/Muslim/Sikh/Christian/Atheist whatever tries to break India through terrorism. They will meet their early death at the hands of Indian Army, because India is not being broken apart again ever again. So you can stop shedding your crocodile tears, because no matter what, you are not getting an inch of Kashmir.



You aint neutral from anyside better change that nick and I dun want an inch of kashmir ..I want it for themif they love yu so much as you and your friends paint ..Withdraw army and hold a referendum asking them whom they wanna join Pak,india or be indepedent and we will hold the same on our side and then just act upon whateva they ask for...Isnt that what we call democracy and yu guys so dumbly claim to have one of the largest democracies in the world go for it ...whats stopping yu ????????????????????????????????? solve it for once and forever and be thankful to brits that they divided subcontinent in 47 as yu got something to govern upon otherwise we would have been ruling yu like we did for a thousand years before brits...Have yu forgotten that?????????????????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> You aint neutral from anyside better change that nick and I dun want an inch of kashmir ..I want it for themif they love yu so much as you and your friends paint ..Withdraw army and hold a referendum asking them whom they wanna join Pak,india or be indepedent and we will hold the same on our side and then just act upon whateva they ask for...Isnt that what we call democracy and yu guys so dumbly claim to have one of the largest democracies in the world go for it ...whats stopping yu ????????????????????????????????? solve it for once and forever and be thankful to brits that they divided subcontinent in 47 as yu got something to govern upon otherwise we would have been ruling yu like we did for a thousand years before brits...Have yu forgotten that?????????????????



Just so you get through fifth form, the Muslim League insisted on partition, not the Congress. Have YOU FORGOTTEN that?

Why didn't they simply take over and rule again?


----------



## neutral_person

Albatross said:


> You aint neutral from anyside better change that nick and I dun want an inch of kashmir ..I want it for themif they love yu so much as you and your friends paint ..Withdraw army and hold a referendum asking them whom they wanna join Pak,india or be indepedent and we will hold the same on our side and then just act upon whateva they ask for...Isnt that what we call democracy and yu guys so dumbly claim to have one of the largest democracies in the world go for it ...whats stopping yu ????????????????????????????????? solve it for once and forever and be thankful to brits that they divided subcontinent in 47 as yu got something to govern upon otherwise we would have been ruling yu like we did for a thousand years before brits...Have yu forgotten that?????????????????



Lol you are quite the joker. Well Sir as you said you did 1000 years hukumat, we are only doing 60 years hukumat and you already start crying. How about this, let us finish the remaining 940 years of hukumat and we promise we will return Kashmir to you (dont hold your breath though).



Joe Shearer said:


> Just so you get through fifth form, the Muslim League insisted on partition, not the Congress. Have YOU FORGOTTEN that?
> 
> Why didn't they simply take over and rule again?



I think logic is wasted on this emotional chap. I am pretty sure I can provoke him enough to join some Kashmiri Mujahideen group by the end of the night

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Albatross

Joe Shearer said:


> Which of these do you think is from a Hindu writer? Please be specific.



Yu tell me which one is not ...and yu dint tell me why yu guys cant make an army of kashmiries to defend their land against cruel intruders from pakistan who disrupts their otherwise peaceful and lovely life???why yu need 800000 of indian troops their to suppress whom when locals are in love with yu ???????????????????????



neutral_person said:


> Lol you are quite the joker. Well Sir as you said you did 1000 years hukumat, we are only doing 60 years hukumat and you already start crying. How about this, let us finish the remaining 940 years of hukumat and we promise we will return Kashmir to you (dont hold your breath though).
> 
> 
> 
> I think logic is wasted on this emotional chap. I am pretty sure I can provoke him enough to join some Kashmiri Mujahideen group by the end of the night



Yu aint answering my question abt arming kashmiries agaisnt Pak and Im cooler than yr wildest imaginations its just I cant take crap for reality yu admit it and say might is right we have boots there so thats our and i can understand that and it makes sense but all else is crap and utterly illogical...If yu have some do elighten me I have a open heart to accept go ahead...btw we did hakumat over whole subcontinent from east to west if yu have balls do that and we will wait for 2000 years and if yu cant then stop suppressing innocents and harmless kashmiries too and I m askin for a referendum why not talk abt that????????Is their something to loose


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> You aint neutral from anyside better change that nick and I dun want an inch of kashmir ..I want it for themif they love yu so much as you and your friends paint ..*Withdraw army and hold a referendum *asking them whom they wanna join Pak,india or be indepedent and we will hold the same on our side and then just act upon whateva they ask for...Isnt that what we call democracy and yu guys so dumbly claim to have one of the largest democracies in the world go for it ...whats stopping yu ????????????????????????????????? solve it for once and forever and be thankful to brits that they divided subcontinent in 47 as yu got something to govern upon otherwise we would have been ruling yu like we did for a thousand years before brits...Have yu forgotten that?????????????????



Just curiousity.

What prevented you from doing that in 1948, like the UN Resolution wanted? Why are you waking up to it sixty years later?


----------



## Albatross

Joe Shearer said:


> Just curiousity.
> 
> What prevented you from doing that in 1948, like the UN Resolution wanted? Why are you waking up to it sixty years later?



Thats yr accusation we wanted it then we want it now...yu dint want it then and yu dont want it now as well because you are afraid...otherwise go ahead lets get done with it...yu still isnt answering my question mr logical why not arm kashmiries against pak intruders????????????


----------



## Screambowl

Albatross said:


> Go to srinagar and roam around in a circle of hundreds of miles if yu can unguarded and yu will see plenty of simply dressed,decent looking,hospitable men and woman carrying out their daily routines while looking over their backs for any boots and if they see one they just get frightened at that very moment all those harmless people are kashmiries..who lived there for generations and generations and are beautiful like their homeland any outsider will be easily distinguised by his dark skin and ugly features..



Of course they are innocent, but Pakistan exploits their innocence and play with their sentiment. Closeness to Pakistan harms them more than being Kashmiri. Pakistan exploits the term Kashmiri for its own Benefit. It is a well known fact, Pakistan is behind the resources in Kashmir rather than sympathy for people.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> Yu tell me which one is not ...and yu dint tell me why yu guys cant make an army of kashmiries to defend their land against cruel intruders from pakistan who disrupts their otherwise peaceful and lovely life???why yu need 800000 of indian troops their to suppress whom when locals are in love with yu ???????????????????????



Read Aatish-e-Chinar by Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, and My Life and Times, by Syed Mir Qasim, for the 1948 killings and the resistance by ordinary Kashmiris. also the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

It gets better. 

Major General Mahmud Ali Durrani talked about the incidents of 1965.

Which of these four was a Hindu? 

Incidentally, your figure of 800,000 is poppycock. 







> Yu aint answering my question abt arming kashmiries agaisnt Pak and Im cooler than yr wildest imaginations its just I cant take crap for reality yu admit it and say might is right we have boots there so thats our and i can understand that and it makes sense but all else is crap and utterly illogical...If yu have some do elighten me I have a open heart to accept go ahead...



It's been answered already. Why should we keep repeating the same thing over and over again because you are too lazy?



Albatross said:


> Thats yr accusation we wanted it then we want it now...yu dint want it then and yu dont want it now as well because you are afraid...otherwise go ahead lets get done with it...yu still isnt answering my question mr logical why not arm kashmiries against pak intruders????????????



You didn't answer the question; why didn't you comply with the UN Resolution? It's a fact, and you are just afraid of admitting it.

Your question about arming Kashmiris has also been answered, just a few posts ago. Why don't you read?


----------



## Albatross

@joe
i checked dint find in which post yu replied regrading arming kashmiries tell me post no then we can continue..

the book aatish chinar yu mentioned was published after his death in unknown circumstances and therefore hold no solid grounds ..

But the question remains if kashmiries love india so much why cant they be armed to gurad themselves against pak intruders I ll wait for you or any indian to give some logical reply on that...It seems all of yu net warriors have run away lacking logic...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## neutral_person

Albatross said:


> @joe
> i checked dint find in which post yu replied regrading arming kashmiries tell me post no then we can continue..
> 
> the book aatish chinar yu mentioned was published after his death in unknown circumstances and therefore hold no solid grounds ..
> 
> But the question remains if kashmiries love india so much why cant they be armed to gurad themselves against pak intruders I ll wait for you or any indian to give some logical reply on that...It seems all of yu net warriors have run away lacking logic...



No bro we are doing 60 year Hukumat in Kashmir. wait 940 years please before asking Kashmir back. Thanks!


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

neutral_person said:


> No bro we are doing 60 year Hukumat in Kashmir. wait 940 years please before asking Kashmir back. Thanks!



Are you trying to take revenge of the 1000 years of slavery..... lol

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rig Vedic

Albatross said:


> Azad kashmir is completely autonomous and is a step ahead all other provinces in the sense that they have their own president and primeminister ...We are willing at any given day to hold a referendum there and ask them whomsoever they wanna join or even if they wanna be independent..



Just do it. Hold a referendum first in Gilgit-Baltistan and then in "Azad" Kashmir. Let them be free, you don't have to wait for India.


----------



## neutral_person

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Are you trying to take revenge of the 1000 years of slavery..... lol



Yeah bro. So please dont ask for Kashmir now. We promise to give it to you in 940 years.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Albatross said:


> @joe
> 
> I read that and found nothing convincing or something that addresses the miseries of kashmiries..



Life for Kashmiris in the Jihadi training camps is indeed miserable, and that is why so many of them are trying to get back to India with their wives and kids.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Albatross said:


> @joe
> i checked dint find in which post yu replied regrading arming kashmiries tell me post no then we can continue..
> 
> the book aatish chinar yu mentioned was published after his death in unknown circumstances and therefore hold no solid grounds ..
> 
> But the question remains if kashmiries love india so much why cant they be armed to gurad themselves against pak intruders I ll wait for you or any indian to give some logical reply on that...It seems all of yu net warriors have run away lacking logic...



First, you started with a fundamental error: British India was NOT divided on communal lines. Are you aware about the basis for the creation of Pakistan from India?

Second, for all your bellicosity today, it was the Muslim League which fought tooth and nail for partition. The Congress tried to avert it. If you feel so confident about ruling the sub-continent, why did the Muslim League leave behind almost an equal number of Muslims and go away to Pakistan?

Third, you did not know about the different arrangements for the main colony, and for the principalities. Do you now know the reasons, or are you still ignorant? 

Fourth, there was an active political party in the Vale. They favored the Congress, and the Muslim League only had the support of people whom Jinnah himself despised. Are you aware that this party, the representative of the people of Kashmir, opposed Pakistan or accession to Pakistan?

Fifth, you have cast doubts on Sheikh Abdullah's memoirs on the subject of the killings by the tribal invaders. The other two documents are clear enough. Are you satisfied, or do you need more evidence? 

Sixth, you are unaware of the infiltration by commandos for creating trouble in 1965. From your dead silence on the subject, you have probably found out the truth. Have you read the Pakistani general's interview? Or Asghar Khan?

Seventh, you talked about 800,000 soldiers in Kashmir. Slightly more than 60 posts lie between this one and the breakdown of manpower. With that clue, you get your answers.

Eighth, you talked about holding a referendum, but had no idea about the UN's conditions for holding it, although you had been told where to find it. Why did Pakistan not comply with the UN's terms and allow the referendum to be held then?

Ninth, you said that the defence of Kashmir should have been left to armed Kashmiris. Do you know any country with a standing Army, which prefers armed civilians to act in their place? Are you aware that there is a large number of local units formed from among the local population engaged in defending Kashmir? If you follow up point seven, you will get this answer also.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Rig Vedic said:


> Just do it. Hold a referendum first in Gilgit-Baltistan and then in "Azad" Kashmir. Let them be free, you don't have to wait for India.



Gilgitis would 200% join Pakistan as they have been holding rallies to be a part of Pak constitutionally as for kashmiris we have alot of them on PDF who love to hate india.




neutral_person said:


> Yeah bro. So please dont ask for Kashmir now. We promise to give it to you in 940 years.



I aint ur bro bharti... as for 940... are you willing to get ur soldiers killed for even 60 more years? heck poor souls are committing suicide in doves already... and taking their superior officers along with them...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rig Vedic

Nice description of the 1948 Pakistani invasion by Pakistani author Tariq Ali - 

Tariq Ali · Bitter Chill of Winter: Kashmir · LRB 19 April 2001

Jinnah decided to authorise a military operation in defiance of the British High Command. Pakistan would advance into Kashmir and seize Srinagar. Jinnah nominated a younger colleague from the Punjab, Sardar Shaukat Hyat Khan, to take charge of the operation.

Shaukat had served as a captain during the war and spent several months in an Italian POW camp. On his return he had resigned his commission and joined the Muslim League. He was one of its more popular leaders in the Punjab, devoted to Jinnah, extremely hostile to Liaquat, whom he regarded as an arriviste, and keen to earn the title of &#8216;Lion of the Punjab&#8217; that was occasionally chanted in his honour at public meetings. An effete and vainglorious figure, easily swayed by flattery, Shaukat was a chocolate-cream soldier. It was the unexpected death of his father, the elected Prime Minister of the old Punjab, that had brought him to prominence. He was not one of those people who rise above their own shortcomings in a crisis. I knew him well: he was my uncle. To his credit, however, he argued against the use of irregulars and wanted the operation to be restricted to retired or serving military personnel. He was overruled by the Prime Minister, who insisted that his loud-mouthed protégé, Khurshid Anwar, take part in the operation. Anwar, against all military advice, enlisted Pathan tribesman in the cause of jihad. Two extremely able brigadiers, Akbar Khan and Sher Khan from the 6/13th Frontier Force Regiment (&#8216;Piffers&#8217; to old India hands), were selected to lead the assault.

The invasion was fixed for 9 September 1947, but it had to be delayed for two weeks: Khurshid Anwar had chosen the same day to get married and wanted to go on a brief honeymoon. In the meantime, thanks to Anwar&#8217;s lack of discretion, a senior Pakistani officer, Brigadier Iftikhar, heard what was going on and passed the news to General Messervy, the C-in-C of the Pakistan Army. He immediately informed Auchinleck, who passed the information to Mountbatten, who passed it to the new Indian Government. Using the planned invasion as a pretext, the Congress sent Nehru&#8217;s deputy, Sardar Patel, to pressure the Maharaja into acceding to India, while Mountbatten ordered Indian Army units to prepare for an emergency airlift to Srinagar.

Back in Rawalpindi, Anwar had returned from his honeymoon and the invasion began. The key objective was to take Srinagar, occupy the airport and secure it against the Indians. Within a week the Maharaja&#8217;s army had collapsed. Hari Singh fled to his palace in Jammu. The 11th Sikh Regiment of the Indian Army had by now reached Srinagar, but was desperately waiting for reinforcements and didn&#8217;t enter the town. The Pathan tribesman under Khurshid Anwar&#8217;s command halted after reaching Baramulla, only an hour&#8217;s bus ride from Srinagar, and refused to go any further. Here they embarked on a three-day binge, looting houses, assaulting Muslims and Hindus alike, raping men and women and stealing money from the Kashmir Treasury. The local cinema was transformed into a rape centre; a group of Pathans invaded St Joseph&#8217;s Convent, where they raped and killed four nuns, including the Mother Superior, and shot dead a European couple sheltering there. News of the atrocities spread, turning large numbers of Kashmiris against their would-be liberators. When they finally reached Srinagar, the Pathans were so intent on pillaging the shops and bazaars that they overlooked the airport, already occupied by the Sikhs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Gilgitis would 200% join Pakistan as they have been holding rallies to be a part of Pak constitutionally as for kashmiris we have alot of them on PDF who love to hate india.
> 
> I aint ur bro bharti... as for 940... are you willing to get ur soldiers killed for even 60 more years? heck poor souls are committing suicide in doves already... and taking their superior officers along with them...



I am used to stupidity, but this takes the cake.

The Gilgitis have had no constitutional representation for nearly fifty years. Their agitation, as I had pointed out already, and as you unwittingly let slip, was for such reprewsentation. Not for love of Pakistan.

So far, you have lost in five armed conflicts. How many times before it sinks home that you are not going anywhere in military terms?



Rig Vedic said:


> Nice description of the 1948 Pakistani invasion by Pakistani author Tariq Ali -
> 
> Tariq Ali · Bitter Chill of Winter: Kashmir · LRB 19 April 2001
> 
> Jinnah decided to authorise a military operation in defiance of the British High Command. Pakistan would advance into Kashmir and seize Srinagar. Jinnah nominated a younger colleague from the Punjab, Sardar Shaukat Hyat Khan, to take charge of the operation.
> 
> Shaukat had served as a captain during the war and spent several months in an Italian POW camp. On his return he had resigned his commission and joined the Muslim League. He was one of its more popular leaders in the Punjab, devoted to Jinnah, extremely hostile to Liaquat, whom he regarded as an arriviste, and keen to earn the title of &#8216;Lion of the Punjab&#8217; that was occasionally chanted in his honour at public meetings. An effete and vainglorious figure, easily swayed by flattery, Shaukat was a chocolate-cream soldier. It was the unexpected death of his father, the elected Prime Minister of the old Punjab, that had brought him to prominence. He was not one of those people who rise above their own shortcomings in a crisis. I knew him well: he was my uncle. To his credit, however, he argued against the use of irregulars and wanted the operation to be restricted to retired or serving military personnel. He was overruled by the Prime Minister, who insisted that his loud-mouthed protégé, Khurshid Anwar, take part in the operation. Anwar, against all military advice, enlisted Pathan tribesman in the cause of jihad. Two extremely able brigadiers, Akbar Khan and Sher Khan from the 6/13th Frontier Force Regiment (&#8216;Piffers&#8217; to old India hands), were selected to lead the assault.
> 
> The invasion was fixed for 9 September 1947, but it had to be delayed for two weeks: Khurshid Anwar had chosen the same day to get married and wanted to go on a brief honeymoon. In the meantime, thanks to Anwar&#8217;s lack of discretion, a senior Pakistani officer, Brigadier Iftikhar, heard what was going on and passed the news to General Messervy, the C-in-C of the Pakistan Army. He immediately informed Auchinleck, who passed the information to Mountbatten, who passed it to the new Indian Government. Using the planned invasion as a pretext, the Congress sent Nehru&#8217;s deputy, Sardar Patel, to pressure the Maharaja into acceding to India, while Mountbatten ordered Indian Army units to prepare for an emergency airlift to Srinagar.
> 
> Back in Rawalpindi, Anwar had returned from his honeymoon and the invasion began. The key objective was to take Srinagar, occupy the airport and secure it against the Indians. Within a week the Maharaja&#8217;s army had collapsed. Hari Singh fled to his palace in Jammu. The 11th Sikh Regiment of the Indian Army had by now reached Srinagar, but was desperately waiting for reinforcements and didn&#8217;t enter the town. The Pathan tribesman under Khurshid Anwar&#8217;s command halted after reaching Baramulla, only an hour&#8217;s bus ride from Srinagar, and refused to go any further. Here they embarked on a three-day binge, looting houses, assaulting Muslims and Hindus alike, raping men and women and stealing money from the Kashmir Treasury. The local cinema was transformed into a rape centre; a group of Pathans invaded St Joseph&#8217;s Convent, where they raped and killed four nuns, including the Mother Superior, and shot dead a European couple sheltering there. News of the atrocities spread, turning large numbers of Kashmiris against their would-be liberators. When they finally reached Srinagar, the Pathans were so intent on pillaging the shops and bazaars that they overlooked the airport, already occupied by the Sikhs.



An excellent excerpt: I had forgotten about it.

I wonder if our smart alec Pakistani friends realize who Tariq Ali refers to, as Brigadier Iftikhar. It is an amusing side-light.


----------



## Rig Vedic

Joe Shearer said:


> I wonder if our smart alec Pakistani friends realize who Tariq Ali refers to, as Brigadier Iftikhar. It is an amusing side-light.



Tell us. Is it a pseudonym?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Rig Vedic said:


> Tell us. Is it a pseudonym?



This was the best officer in the Pakistani Army, being groomed to take over as C-in-C, the first Pakistani who would have got the position. He died in an air crash on the way to a training assignment in the UK, his replacement refused the job, and an officer who had been sent back from the front and was sidelined became the first Chief instead.

Amusing because we keep hearing complaints that it was a British conspiracy that kept the Pakistani Army on the sidelines. As we just read, the decision to use irregulars was a political decision, and the regular Army did not think much of the idea.

An afterthought: fanboys lack a sense of irony.

Hari Singh's original plan was to keep Kashmir independent. Sheikh Abdullah was inclined to goalong with him, and create a secular kingdom, on the lines of what the Congress was seeking to achieve for the rest of India. If he had not been attacked by the adventurers led by Anwar, Kashmir would have been independent today. Instead, the tribals invaded, the Kashmiris fought back, with the predictable outcome, and the Maharaja was forced to call in the Indian Army to protect Kashmir from rape. The price was accession to India.

Pakistanis today, those at the liberal edge of the spectrum, call for the right of Kashmiris to seek independence. Ironically, it was Pakistan that wrecked this dream.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Screambowl

let's be precise

1) Kashmir was either to be annexed with Pakistan, or remain Independent. No Indian Involvement. 
2) If annexed to Pakistan, the same Instrument of Accession would be signed by the Maharaja.
3) Maharaja wanted an Independent Kashmir, so Sheikh Abdullah, again No Indian Involvement. 
4) Pakistan was not in favor of Independent Kashmir, haste o haste, they sent the armed tribes.
5) Seeing the danger of mass murder and rape in Kashmir, Maharaja makes a call to Indian forces.
6) India asks Maharaja, either let Kashmiris get killed by Pakistanis or Join India.
7) Maharaja saves thousands of Kashmiris from Pakistanis and signed Instrument of Accession.

Game Over for Pakistan!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## killerx

all should be decided in next battle btw India and Pakistan this time both got nukes so mass extension of India and Pakistan Kashmir can decide then


----------



## Screambowl

killerx said:


> all should be decided in next battle btw India and Pakistan this time both got nukes so mass extension of India and Pakistan Kashmir can decide then



One more war? lol 
that would add to 5 I guess and then you will taunt again lets have 6th war. 

you do not know what war is, how many lives suffer.


----------



## third eye

killerx said:


> all should be decided in next battle btw India and Pakistan this time both got nukes so mass extension of India and Pakistan Kashmir can decide then



Brilliant !!


----------



## lkozhi

Albatross said:


> @joe
> 
> Yu are proving who yu are...and yu will get what yu deserve...
> 
> And I repeat kashmiries are not one of you their traditions,customs,lifestyle,looks(they are lot more pleasant looking)religion everything is different from india and they will get their freedom soon inshallah....Nobody can stop the flow of raging water let alone a nation who has highest number of underweight childeren and highest ratio of child laborers ...Millions of hungry and uneducated masses sleeping on roads...


Seems like that is not the case and even with non working nukes and 8s to destroy us we are doing just that. Compare that with speed at which you lost half of your nation. I think it is a case of missing balls.


----------



## mr42O

60+ year , 1 million indian army in Kashmir and despite all problem Kashmiris are not accepting India . KASHMIR BANE GAA PAKISTAN

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Panjabi Tiger

Kashmir zindabad
Pakistan zindabad


----------



## Joe Shearer

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Kashmir zindabad
> Pakistan zindabad



It is likely that this will continue to be your Kashmir strategy even in 2077.

It is likely to be as successful then as it is now.


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Joe Shearer said:


> It is likely that this will continue to be your Kashmir strategy even in 2077.
> 
> It is likely to be as successful then as it is now.



Leave it Joe Sir , the Pakistani members/trolls on this thread are not worth your time . You are better of discussing things with better Pakistani members like Agno-muslim , Developoreo , Niaz ,Oscar etc . Please don't waste your time and wisdom here . It is painful to watch .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jatt+gutts

take kashmir but give us your punjab minus muslims. its fair deal. we wont be having pashmina shawl and carpet but its ok. then all will be well and happy ending.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## neutral_person

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Gilgitis would 200% join Pakistan as they have been holding rallies to be a part of Pak constitutionally as for kashmiris we have alot of them on PDF who love to hate india.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I aint ur bro bharti... as for 940... are you willing to get ur soldiers killed for even 60 more years? heck poor souls are committing suicide in doves already... and taking their superior officers along with them...



I think sarcasm might be lost on you


----------



## jetti

Joe Shearer said:


> It is likely that this will continue to be your Kashmir strategy even in 2077.
> 
> It is likely to be as successful then as it is now.


you may have missd a point here. the second line of the strategy may not exist.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## happycanuck

We are still debating Kashmir. I know Kashmir means water which is what you want rather than welfare of Kashmiri people. Learn to make good use of what you have. Singapore is an example for countries in your part of the world.



jatt+gutts said:


> take kashmir but give us your punjab minus muslims. its fair deal. we wont be having pashmina shawl and carpet but its ok. then all will be well and happy ending.



Never, Never, Never. Kashmir is part of India and will remain in foreseeable future. We can not afford to loose control of water from Kashmir otherwise whole of Punjab is cooked.


----------



## Stumper

Joe Shearer said:


> It is likely that this will continue to be your Kashmir strategy even in 2077.
> 
> It is likely to be as successful then as it is now.


This is something i could never make out. Is Pakistan's Kashmir policy amputative or is it to flux its state with Kashmir ?. 
I can understand the former. But it will take nothing short of a War for the later ... that i guess is the hard reality. How else would you do it ? ..... with all the distrust between generals and PMO, you see all this operations failing for them!


----------



## Joe Shearer

Stumper said:


> This is something i could never make out. Is Pakistan's Kashmir policy amputative or is it to flux its state with Kashmir ?.
> I can understand the former. But it will take nothing short of a War for the later ... that i guess is the hard reality. How else would you do it ? ..... with all the distrust between generals and PMO, you see all this operations failing for them!



A very complex question.

For some reason, rooted in multiple factors, Kashmir has become an emotional issue on both sides, as Niaz pointed out.

Put simply, Pakistanis feel India keeps cheating Pakistan, and working in a systematic, organised way to make their state fail. To cease to exist as they are today, after having caused enormous and fundamental damage already. They trace it to Indian disagreement with the original idea of Muslim-majority homelands, and to an ideological-theological opposition to such homelands, that being itself rooted in the alleged antipathy of the Hindu majority to Muslims.

Kashmir is a typical examples to them of this innate hatred, and they see India bent on preventing Pakistan from taking its natural contours at least in the western homeland.

This idea may have died a natural death, but the deep state has used this as a principal factor to justify hatred of India at a country level, as a tenet of their foreign policy, their defence policy, even, according to some observers, including Pakistani observers, their education policy.

The deep state invested in this idea. It spent money, quality time and resources to promote this institutionalised dislike of India, and seems to have got a consensus among the administrative echelons, the military leadership in particular, to continue this idea. The deep state also invested in extra-institutional processes and groups to deliver the country's counter-attacking intentions in realized form. It succeeded, but the country has had to pay a dreadful price for the development and deployment of this apparatus.

The Indian view is in some respects a mirror. Not entirely, but in some ways.

The Indian view seems to be that Pakistan was unnecessary. The actions of the political leadership baffled the Indian leadership; they considered these actions wholly unfounded in reality. But they were taken, their memories exist today in lurid, highly coloured form. These actions are stated to be the basis for a series of internal actions and steps which amount to appeasement of what the national leadership thought to be the leadership of the Muslim community in India, the religious leadership. Such a deluded response can only have been due to the original flawed injection of religion as a leit-motiv into the political discourse. It provoked an intensification of a bigoted streak which existed already, but got refreshed sanction from the apparent and fairly bizarre pandering to a conservative and regressive section of society.

All this was internal. There was not much attention paid to Pakistan, except for the knee-jerk reactions to the wilder Pakistani diplomacy, until 1971. Events at that time seemed to be a point of closure for most Indians, leading to appalling shocks in later years on realizing that these events had rejuvenated Pakistani hostility to India, and had commenced a sharp, new phase of covert action.

Since then, Indian opinion - and to some extent, policy as well - has fluctuated between saccharine sentimentality and the worst excesses of jingoism, this fluctuation pivotting on a deep-rooted fear of unpredictable violent attacks.

Pakistan cannot give up the demand for Kashmir because it is now part of their national life. It is like the wallpaper. Any 'solution' has to work its way around that. Very strange, because it is increasingly clear that Pakistan's dream outcome of a total merger of the erstwhile princely state with Pakistan is not going to happen. The cries and slogans persist, one suspects, out of sheer habit.

India will not give up Kashmir because it has become part of its policy of appeasement. This policy is intended to deliver the message that the entire ideological basis for the demand for homelands was unnecessary in the first place. This can be proved by proving that Muslims are as well off as they might have been in Pakistan - or Bangladesh. There is therefore no question of admitting that some sections of present-day political opinion in the Vale want a status for their region outside the Indian polity. Admitting this demand makes nonsense of the claim that Muslims are all happy. Strangely, India has allowed its policy in Kashmir to be guided by the precise parochial model that it professes to reject.

To summarize, one side asks for Kashmir because not asking for it is to play into the hands of those crafty Indians. Not asking for it is to deny the roots of Pakistan. Not asking for it is to declare the past decades of the military diffusion into Pakistani society illegitimate, and based on no concrete threat. Not asking for it is to encourage further India efforts to dismantle Pakistan.

The other side holds on to Kashmir because it cannot do anything else without apparently legitimizing the separation out of the homelands, admitting that some Muslims in India are unhappy, and holding up to question state policy towards the Muslim through the last sixty-five years.

There is really no clean solution.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PakShah

It is no doubt that Mountbatten was "Pro-India", during the time of independence of Pakistan and India, even the Indian newspapers accept that.

'Nehru was a statesman but Indira a politician' - India News - IBNLive


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

PakShah said:


> It is no doubt that Mountbatten was "Pro-India", during the time of independence of Pakistan and India, even the Indian newspapers accept that.
> 
> 'Nehru was a statesman but Indira a politician' - India News - IBNLive



Where in the interview is the Indian newspaper admitting anything ?

The interviewer asks the interviewee if Mountbatten was pro-india as there is a perception among some people and the interviewee denied it by giving an explanation .


----------



## Screambowl

any kind of dialogue or selected resolution between India and Pak can only happen, when some conditions are fulfilled. And those conditions are not accepted by Pakistan. so Let us drop this discussion of Kashmir.


----------



## Samlee

Screambowl said:


> Pakistan is aware that, through Kashmir their Major river flows, and it is a great source of water. So this is one big reason for them to stay in Kashmir.
> 
> Since India has the most economical zones of Kashmir, where tourism plays an important role, Pakistan has terrorized it so that the tourism is reduced to 0.
> 
> next is the 1971 revenge which they looking for by separating Kashmir from India.
> 
> 
> Pakistan is not going to step back, because 90% of their policies, have something to do with Kashmir.




Get Your Facts Straight Kashmir Was A Dispute Long Before 1971


----------



## KRAIT

Kashmir is now out of question, they know they can't get it now.


----------



## Samlee

KRAIT said:


> Kashmir is now out of question, they know they can't get it now.



Honestly You Indians and Your Bollywood Inspired Delusions

INSHALLAH Kashmir Will Be Free of India's Illegal Occupation


----------



## Executioner

Pakistani many generation has been passed out and now is more than 65 yr and they keep shouting Insha Allah will take back. Really how even Allah is not with you ohhh got it Red moneky cap zion Zaid hamid "ghazwa e hind" lol. 

*If the war were arithmetic, the mathematicians would rule the world.*


----------



## ajtr

Stolen????hain ji woh kaise???kashmir kya koi money hay ya jewelry jise koi chura lega!!!!!


----------



## KRAIT

Samlee said:


> Honestly You Indians and Your Bollywood Inspired Delusions
> 
> INSHALLAH Kashmir Will Be Free of India's Illegal Occupation


Kashmir Kashmir kehte kehte East Pakistan kho diya
Kahin aisa na ho Baluchistan bhi haath si nikal jaaye.

Bahar nikalo thoda, Kashmir ko baad main deal karna, pehle apni country to strong karo.

History se history se kuch seekho yaar....Hawa main talwarein chalana band karo. Poori duniya bore ho gayi iss topic se....chahe to Bhutto ka bhaashan sun lo security council ke samne, na tab kuch hua, na ab kuch hoga.


----------



## INDIC

Samlee said:


> Honestly You Indians and Your Bollywood Inspired Delusions
> 
> INSHALLAH Kashmir Will Be Free of India's Illegal Occupation



A must watch for you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Samlee said:


> INSHALLAH Kashmir Will Be Free of India's Illegal Occupation



InshALLAH these wet dream haunted first the GRAND-PAS of todays Pakistani generation & will be inherited by their GRAND-SONS.

India will do everything possible for passing 65 yrs old legacy of Pakistan to hundreds generations to come.


----------



## Samlee

KRAIT said:


> Kashmir Kashmir kehte kehte East Pakistan kho diya
> Kahin aisa na ho Baluchistan bhi haath si nikal jaaye.
> 
> Bahar nikalo thoda, Kashmir ko baad main deal karna, pehle apni country to strong karo.
> 
> History se history se kuch seekho yaar....Hawa main talwarein chalana band karo.





JANAB HAMARI FIKAR CHOR DAIN WO HAMARA MASLA HAI APANE DESH KI FIKAR KARAIN KAHIN RED CORRIDOR AUR SEVEN SISTERS HATH SE NA NIKAL JAE



kumarkumar1867 said:


> InshALLAH these wet dream haunted first the GRAND-PAS of todays Pakistani generation & will be inherited by their GRAND-SONS.
> 
> India will do everything possible for passing 65 yrs old legacy of Pakistan to hundreds generations to come.




Hopes Never Haunt People

Actually These Wet Dreams Haunt India


----------



## third eye

How does one steal something from anyone who never had it in the 1st place ?


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Samlee said:


> Hopes Never Haunt People
> 
> Actually These Wet Dreams Haunt India



Please keep posting pics we will try to pretend like we believe they are from kashmir 
By the way dont you think 65 years is a long a wait, *HOPE *is becoming a *JOKE *now.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## shuntmaster

India History : Myth of 1000 Years of Muslim Rule 

The "effective" rule was precisely from 1206 with the establishment of the Mamluk Dynasty to the year 1707 when Aurangazeb died. So about 500 years.

And even during these years many parts of South India,East India, Marathwada remained out of control of the Islamic Empires whose main power base was the UP region with the Empire extending upto Bihar in the East and Godavari basin down South.
Even during the rule of pre-Mughal Muslim dynasty's, their dominance was mostly in the urban areas like major cities and towns and their writ didn't extend much into the rural areas. At the village grass-roots level, it was always the local landlord or the tax-collector or the village panchayats or community leaders who had control and they were mostly Hindus.

The maximum duration of foreigners (Afghan/central Asian/Persian/Arab) rule in south-Asia was in the regions of the present day Pakistan.

Also, I feel that there must a big self-loathing in the Punjabi-Musalman, that they were the first ones to be conquered and then submit to the foreign invaders and they were under the foreign rule for the past 1500years.. The fact that they were molested over and over and over again by the central Asians, Afghans, Arabs and the Persians, must have got very deep into their psyche. Like a sexually abused child who grows up to being a greater abuser, the Punjabi-Muslaman in the post-independence era wants to be the dominate his country, which was the main reason for their humiliation of 1971.
In the last 1000year history, the Punjabi-Musalman has been a ruler of his nation only since 1947. Before 1947, the last time a Punjabi who ruled the land of 5 rivers, all the way to Kabul, was a Sikh by the name of Rajit Singh.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...ho-saved-india-more-war-10.html#ixzz22wx6crCr

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SpArK

*The first thing to make the dream come true is to wake up. *

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## karan.1970

Samlee said:


> Honestly You Indians and Your Bollywood Inspired Delusions
> 
> INSHALLAH Kashmir Will Be Free of India's Illegal Occupation



INSHALLAH Paksitan's haram dream about Kashmir will never be fulfilled.

Here's some dose of reality for you 

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/44215-monkey-trap.html


----------



## my2cents

Pakistanisage said:


> I would like to open this thread to discuss the circumstances how one single incident took Kashmir away from Pakistan because of Mountbatten's Manipulation. As Punjab was being divided up by the Radcliffe Commission, Gurdaspur District which was Muslim Majority District was awarded to Pakistan by Radcliffe commission, initially. Mountbatten kept the Radcliffe partition plan of Punjab secret till two days after Partition ( August 17th, 1947) and changed the status of Gurdaspur District as an area which was awarded to Pakistan to instead being awarded to India. This had a huge implication as two out of the three roads leading to Kashmir went through Gurdaspur district. These two roads were the shortest route to Kashmir. The third road went through leh and was the longest way to Kashmir.
> 
> Had Gurdaspur District been rightfully awarded to Pakistan being a Muslim majority district ( as decided by Radcliffe ), India could never have taken over Kashmir. I want Pakistanis to be aware of this historical manipulation that ended in a loss of Kashmir to Pakistan and we owe it all to the dastardly act of Lord Mountbatten.
> 
> Lord Mountbatten had requested both Jinnah and Nehru to let him remain the Governor-General of both India and Pakistan after the Partition. Nehru agreed to Mountbatten's request but Mr. Jinnah declined. Mountbatten never forgot that insult and paid back Pakistan by being biased in the partition matters.
> 
> Please research and give your opinions, respectfully.



Actually Pakistan was stolen from India by Mountbatten. You should be thankful to Mountbatten that he agreed for the partition of indian subcontinent, otherwise would not be a Pakistan today.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Samlee said:


> Get Your Facts Straight Kashmir Was A Dispute Long Before 1971


 


Samlee said:


> Honestly You Indians and Your Bollywood Inspired Delusions
> 
> INSHALLAH Kashmir Will Be Free of India's Illegal Occupation



For someone who suggests that facts should be gotten straight, you have an odd way of demonstrating how to follow your own advice.

This might help you to understand that your view of the story is not the only one, and that raising your voice, raising religious slogans and repeating your arguments endlessly do not amount to any convincing argument.

Kashmir Information Network (KIN): A Paradise Turned into Hell

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Samlee

kumarkumar1867 said:


> Please keep posting pics we will try to pretend like we believe they are from kashmir
> By the way dont you think 65 years is a long a wait, *HOPE *is becoming a *JOKE *now.




It Took 90 Years For Pakistanis and Indians to get Freedom from British Raj,It Took 70 Plus Years For 15 Nationalities To Get Freedom From Soviet Yoke Good Things Come To Those Who Wait Patiently


BTW We Don't Want Your Pretending.Actually You Can Live In Your Self Destructive Delusions We Don't Give A Damn


----------



## get straight

Pakistanisage said:


> I would like to open this thread to discuss the circumstances how one single incident took Kashmir away from Pakistan because of Mountbatten's Manipulation. As Punjab was being divided up by the Radcliffe Commission, Gurdaspur District which was Muslim Majority District was awarded to Pakistan by Radcliffe commission, initially. Mountbatten kept the Radcliffe partition plan of Punjab secret till two days after Partition ( August 17th, 1947) and changed the status of Gurdaspur District as an area which was awarded to Pakistan to instead being awarded to India. This had a huge implication as two out of the three roads leading to Kashmir went through Gurdaspur district. These two roads were the shortest route to Kashmir. The third road went through leh and was the longest way to Kashmir.
> 
> Had Gurdaspur District been rightfully awarded to Pakistan being a Muslim majority district ( as decided by Radcliffe ), India could never have taken over Kashmir. I want Pakistanis to be aware of this historical manipulation that ended in a loss of Kashmir to Pakistan and we owe it all to the dastardly act of Lord Mountbatten.
> 
> Lord Mountbatten had requested both Jinnah and Nehru to let him remain the Governor-General of both India and Pakistan after the Partition. Nehru agreed to Mountbatten's request but Mr. Jinnah declined. Mountbatten never forgot that insult and paid back Pakistan by being biased in the partition matters.
> 
> Please research and give your opinions, respectfully.



pakistan is paying up because of the trechery of the ghora angreez(white english) thats why im totally against the common wealth and being cronies to the colony which died a long time ago, we need to discard as much british as we can and be pure pakistanis and embrace our own system and not to be lackeys of these ghora bastards


----------



## vsdoc

Samlee said:


> It Took 90 Years For Pakistanis and Indians to get Freedom from British Raj,It Took 70 Plus Years For 15 Nationalities To Get Freedom From Soviet Yoke Good Things Come To Those Who Wait Patiently



But it took only 24 years for the Bangladeshis to get freedom fom you.

Its taking the Baloch a bit more time.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Joe Shearer

Samlee said:


> It Took 90 Years For Pakistanis and Indians to get Freedom from British Raj,It Took 70 Plus Years For 15 Nationalities To Get Freedom From Soviet Yoke Good Things Come To Those Who Wait Patiently
> 
> 
> BTW We Don't Want Your Pretending.Actually You Can Live In Your Self Destructive Delusions We Don't Give A Damn



Good. 

Now we know your time-frame.

As a social service, could we have an end to this displays of bravado for the next 25 years? You can start the good work after 90 have elapsed. By then you might also have learned to use your keyboard.


----------



## Samlee

Gigawatt said:


> A must watch for you.



Here Is Some Food For Thought


----------



## Joe Shearer

We value freedom of speech. Arundhati Roy is welcome to express her point of view. As it happens, i disagree with her. Tere is no coherence in her arguments; she argues from a different point of view on every issue. 

However, she lives in a country where the legislature of a province is not asked to swear loyalty to the foreign policy of that state. She is more fortunate than Professor Peerbhoy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Samlee

Gigawatt said:


> A must watch for you.



Self Deleted


----------



## Bang Galore

get straight said:


> *pakistan is paying up because of the trechery of the ghora angreez(white engish) *lthats why im totally against the common wealth and being cronies to the colony which died a long time ago, *we need to discard as much british as we can and be pure pakistanis and embrace our own system and not to be lackeys of these ghora bastards*



You can start by stopping your use of their language, something for which both they & we will be eternally grateful.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kurup

Samlee said:


> It Took 90 Years For Pakistanis and Indians to get Freedom from British Raj,It Took 70 Plus Years For 15 Nationalities To Get Freedom From Soviet Yoke Good Things Come To Those Who Wait Patiently
> 
> 
> BTW We Don't Want Your Pretending.Actually You Can Live In Your Self Destructive Delusions We Don't Give A Damn



But it took only 24 years for bangladesh to get freedom .....

The second sentence actually suits pakistanis more ........Because while you are in delusions , we hold kashmir .......


----------



## Joe Shearer

octopus said:


> But it took only 24 years for bangladesh to get freedom .....
> 
> The second sentence actually suits pakistanis more ........Because while you are in delusions , we hold kashmir .......



Not to mention that self-destruction is an art perfected in the neighbourhood, at which we are still rank amateurs.


----------



## get straight

Bang Galore said:


> You can start by stopping your use of their language, something for which both they & we will be eternally grateful.



its not like im using their language as a means to dignify myself, if i dont speak in english how will south indians understand 

by speaking in french perhaps??


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Samlee said:


> It Took 90 Years For Pakistanis and Indians to get Freedom from British Raj,It Took 70 Plus Years For 15 Nationalities To Get Freedom From Soviet Yoke Good Things Come To Those Who Wait Patiently



Be correct & specific :-

It was Indians who dreamt of UNITED INDIA fought for 90 years to get freedom from British. Muslim league leaders & People who formed Pakistan were happy with british & did nothing for freedom but when Brits were ready to free Indian they finally asked British to give muslims a peace of land as they are scared that Hindu will dominate them in future.

So you must say you got freedom from Hindus/Indians with help of British. 

Kashmir mein tumhare British ya American CHACHU bhi nahi help karenge tumhari.... issliye zid chorro... Khaamkha after bangladesh on eastern side we will have 2-3 more islamic nations in western side of India.




> BTW We Don't Want Your Pretending.Actually *You Can Live In Your Self Destructive Delusions We Don't Give A Damn *



I get goosegumps when Pakistani says so 
Now go back & read Spark's post no # 435

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## get straight

Joe Shearer said:


> Not to mention that self-destruction is an art perfected in the neighbourhood, at which we are still rank amateurs.



we arnt the country with so many separatist insurgencies, you maybe amateurs in holding your country united


----------



## vsdoc

post karo page badlo


----------



## karan.1970

vsdoc said:


> post karo page badlo



clear cookies in case you are getting a page flip error


----------



## Black Widow

mr42O said:


> 60+ year , 1 million indian army in Kashmir and despite all problem Kashmiris are not accepting India . KASHMIR BANE GAA PAKISTAN






Is it???? There is a thread running in PDF where I learnt that Kashmiris are running away from Pakistan and illegaly entering to India (Through Nepal) for better life... 


*Myth Busted*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

get straight said:


> *we arnt the country with so many separatist insurgencies, *you maybe amateurs in holding your country united



No.. You are the country where the separatists actually succeeded


----------



## Samlee

vsdoc said:


> But it took only 24 years for the Bangladeshis to get freedom fom you.




And How Funny That They Are Far Closer To Pakistan Than To Their Benefactors




vsdoc said:


> Its taking the Baloch a bit more time.



I Wonder How Long It Would Take The 67 Odd Freedom Movements In Your Country









Oh and Did I Forget Gurkhaland Sorry My Bad


----------



## Joe Shearer

get straight said:


> we arnt the country with so many separatist insurgencies, you maybe amateurs in holding your country united


We still have what we started with, except Aksai Chin. Must work hard to get to your levels of expertise.

In case the paper boy has been too busy to deliver the papers, Gorkhaland started functioning under its own administration yesterday.

The 67 insurgencies include the biggest, the Naga, the Mizo, the Ahom and the Bodo. The Nagas are ruling themselves as a state; many of their ministers are Sainik School boys from my school. The Mizos are also successfully running their own state. The Ahoms have been in and out of power, and seem to prefer polls to the Pakistani ISI subventions they got earlier. The Bodos, like the Gorkhas, have their own piece of land and their own little local administration. 

You need an electron microscope to detect some of the others.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bhairava

get straight said:


> ......and be *pure pakistanis* and embrace our own system



Isnt the bolded part - pure Pakistanis - a bit redundant ?


----------



## Samlee

karan.1970 said:


> No.. You are the country where the separatists actually succeeded




I Wonder How Successful Indians Might Have Been If The Naxalite Movement Was In Indian Territory Separated From Mainland India By 1000 sq Miles Of Pakistani Territory


----------



## karan.1970

Samlee said:


> And How Funny That They Are Far Closer To Pakistan Than To Their Benefactors



Really?? How much is your annual trade with them..?? Dont take the word of few Razakars on this forum as a representative of BD sentiment towards Pakistan

Perpetrators of war crimes should not go unpunished, says Bangladesh rights' activist


----------



## vsdoc

karan.1970 said:


> clear cookies in case you are getting a page flip error



ok chalo woh bhi try kar lete hain


----------



## karan.1970

Samlee said:


> I Wonder How Successful Indians Might Have Been If The Naxalite Movement Was In Indian Territory Separated From Mainland India By 1000 sq Miles Of Pakistani Territory



Yeah.. Thats all you can do.. Wonder and day dream


----------



## K-Xeroid

Joe Shearer said:


> We still have what we started with, except Aksai Chin. Must work hard to get to your levels of expertise.


So, Have you lost your interest in Pakistan's Kashmir and Askai chin, If not then We both are on stalemate interms of Kashmir If you not include Siachin In Ex-Pakistan's territory For personnal Ego Boost.


----------



## Bang Galore

get straight said:


> its not like im using their language as a means to dignify myself, if i dont speak in english how will south indians understand
> 
> by speaking in french perhaps??




Err... I thought you were advising fellow Pakistanis, not South Indians and btw, most people, South Indians or otherwise would have been hard pressed to make a distinction between french & your unique version of the Queen's language.


----------



## $@rJen

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Kashmir is the only state in India who have a large majority of muslims ( also lakshwadeep isles )
> It should belong to pakistan just because of that
> Kashmir valley belongs to a muslim country, hindus killed so many Kashmiris


 
you're out of your mind, just because an indian state has so many Muslims,you can't claom that state???? what the hell is wrong with you, this is India and we welcome all the religions, infact not to mention we've so many already, see you're eyes now even blinded by your politions....there's no problem in kashmir, it your polititions making the problem through terrorism and fake messages,...leave your religious exremism and think like normal human


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Samlee said:


> And How Funny That They Are Far Closer To Pakistan Than To Their Benefactors



Is that Funny??
BD is ruled by RAWamy & Far Closer to Pakistan. Ask any B'Deshi here for information

By the way I remember a funny incident I always laugh at. 
Wasnt your CLOSER B'DESH Cricket team comming to Pakistan for Cricket tour?? What happened to it??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

K-Xeroid said:


> So, Have you lost your interest in Pakistan's Kashmir and Askai chin, If not then We both are on stalemate interms of Kashmir If you not include Siachin In Ex-Pakistan's territory For personnal Ego Boost.



We haven't lost interest in any part of Kashmir, including those kept under illegal occupation, and those annexed through the backdoor. The difference is that we negotiate, rather than sending troops in or arming terrorists from our own brainwashed population. 

Makes a difference, doesn't it? 

And, leaving out Siachen, why don't you look at a map of the countries in 1947 and today? Figure out things for yourself., but ask for help if you get a sinking feeling.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## K-Xeroid

karan.1970 said:


> Really?? How much is your annual trade with them..?? Dont take the word of few Razakars on this forum as a representative of BD sentiment towards Pakistan
> 
> Perpetrators of war crimes should not go unpunished, says Bangladesh rights' activist


Indeed ! At the same Dalals don't obtains the right preception as well. And Bangladeshi right activist should also punished them who supported voilence against non-bengalis at then, also need to focused on Current voilence going on in Assam against Bengalis.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Joe Shearer said:


> *We haven't lost interest in any part of Kashmir, including those kept under illegal occupation, and those annexed through the backdoor.* The difference is that we negotiate, rather than sending troops in or arming terrorists from our own brainwashed population.
> 
> Makes a difference, doesn't it?
> 
> And, leaving out Siachen, why don't you look at a map of the countries in 1947 and today? Figure out things for yourself., but ask for help if you get a sinking feeling.




I doubt this part, if we had genuine interest in parts of Kashmir until Pakistan controls, India would taken greater interest in 1948 war and made a military attempt to obtain P O K from 1948-1970s


----------



## Joe Shearer

Samlee said:


> I Wonder How Successful Indians Might Have Been If The Naxalite Movement Was In Indian Territory Separated From Mainland India By 1000 sq Miles Of Pakistani Territory



I wonder how many children Diana Spencer and I would have had if we had got married. Would they have been my dark brown, or a cream and pink, or an assortment?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Bhairava

Gorkhaland movement (GJM) becomes a separatist movement.

Then arent the Seraikis secessionists too ?


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Bhairava said:


> Gorkhaland movement (GJM) becomes a separatist movement.
> 
> Then arent the Seraikis secessionists too ?



Don't be surprised, some even considered Telengana movement as secession from the nation


----------



## karan.1970

K-Xeroid said:


> Indeed ! At the same Dalals don't obtains the right preception as well. And Bangladeshi right activist should also punished them who supported voilence against non-bengalis at then, also need to focused on Current voilence going on in Assam against Bengalis.



There is either something seriously wrong with your english or your thought process.. Because your post is making no sense..


----------



## Samlee

karan.1970 said:


> Really?? How much is your annual trade with them..?? Dont take the word of few Razakars on this forum as a representative of BD sentiment towards Pakistan
> 
> Perpetrators of war crimes should not go unpunished, says Bangladesh rights' activist




Yes and I Should Take The Word Of One HR Activist

What Say We Cut The Crap and Come To The Topic Kashmir There Are Multiple Other Threads For 1971 and Bangladesh Where We Can Troll Day In Day Out


----------



## karan.1970

shuntmaster said:


> If my aunt had a dik, she would be my uncle.



lol...


----------



## shuntmaster

K-Xeroid said:


> So, Have you lost your interest in Pakistan's Kashmir and Askai chin, If not then We both are on stalemate interms of Kashmir If you not include Siachin In Ex-Pakistan's territory For personnal Ego Boost.



We are contended with the Jammu, Ladakh and the lush green Kashmir valley, the heaven on earth and cradle of Kashmiriyat. You can keep the dry, cold and barren mountains of Gilgit-baltistan


----------



## Hulk

In reality Kashmir is totally lost for Pakistan. When the more than 6 months agitation did not got any result, it broke the moral of most people supporting agitation.

This year tourism was at its peak, a sign of normalcy.

Once you get to normalcy and people start supporting peace its hard to revive insurgency. It is even more difficult if violence level was high and period was long.

The only place this will be alive will be forums.


----------



## K-Xeroid

Joe Shearer said:


> We haven't lost interest in any part of Kashmir, including those kept under illegal occupation, and those annexed through the backdoor. The difference is that we negotiate, rather than sending troops in or arming terrorists from our own brainwashed population.
> 
> Makes a difference, doesn't it?
> 
> And, leaving out Siachen, why don't you look at a map of the countries in 1947 and today? Figure out things for yourself., but ask for help if you get a sinking feeling.


Well Yea We lost a territory which have to be declared Bangalistan and Bangladesh in 1947 , But still character of bangladesh remain same right after Liberation indeed doing really well. An Important Stake holder of Bay of Bengal of ay aggressor don't block it for some prepratory reason.

Really ! Are you sure that you never sended troops In Pakistan "1965"? or never Armed terrorists against us? or never used your institutions to brainwashed your peoples, Plz don't include yourself , But we all knows that exterimism exist in india, If you call it as standard reaction then same can be said for Pakistan.


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Samlee said:


> I Wonder How Successful Indians Might Have Been If The Naxalite Movement Was In Indian Territory Separated From Mainland India By 1000 sq Miles Of Pakistani Territory


 
Well it is said that King of Qalat wanted to merge Balochistan in India, our farsighted leader knew what will follow if it happens. His accession papers were returned back by Nehru.

Chankya ke shahgird Hindu baniye tumhare leadero se iss maamle mein bhi dus kadam aage nikle.


----------



## Samlee

karan.1970 said:


> Yeah.. Thats all you can do.. Wonder and day dream



AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS STILL LIVE IN 1971

FORGET ABOUT IT JUST COME BACK TO THE REAL TOPIC


----------



## K-Xeroid

karan.1970 said:


> There is either something seriously wrong with your english or your thought process.. Because your post is making no sense..


Just highlighting seperate incidents at the sametime? Razakars or Dalals , They both are the part of bangladeshi main stream politics. but both cannot be considered as an authentic one as both are reactive, Even Right activists also works for external purposes.


----------



## Joe Shearer

sarjenprabhu said:


> you're out of your mind, just because an indian state has so many Muslims,you can't claom that state???? what the hell is wrong with you, this is India and we welcome all the religions, infact not to mention we've so many already, see you're eyes now even blinded by your politions....there's no problem in kashmir, it your polititions making the problem through terrorism and fake messages,...leave your religious exremism and think like normal human



He isn't out of his mind, he is misguided and misinformed as every 9 out of 10 Pakistanis are.

They think that the partition of India wad on communal lines and majority Muslim provinces were to go to Pakistan, and conversely. Few of them even know that besides British India, the British colony, there were 562 princes who had treaties with the Crown, but not with British India. The moment the British left, they became free. They were under no obligation to join either side on the basis of the percentage of each religion that they had.

This mistake continues on and on. It was not there in Pakistanis of an older generation, none of the younger people even understand the basics. Kashmir was for the Maharaja to decide; his opposition, the popular opposition to autocratic rule, was the National Conference led by Mohammed Abdullah, who had the support of Congress, opposed the Muslim League and wanted accession to India. 

The commonly-held belief of many young Pakistanis is without foundation.



K-Xeroid said:


> Well Yea We lost a territory which have to be declared Bangalistan and Bangladesh in 1947 , But still character of bangladesh remain same right after Liberation indeed doing really well. An Important Stake holder of Bay of Bengal of ay aggressor don't block it for some prepratory reason.
> 
> Really ! Are you sure that you never sended troops In Pakistan "1965"? or never Armed terrorists against us? or never used your institutions to brainwashed your peoples, Plz don't include yourself , But we all knows that exterimism exist in india, If you call it as standard reaction then same can be said for Pakistan.



You should read in your defence journal, Defence Pakistan, how SSG troops were infiltrated into Kashmir to stir unrest, how they got no support and were rooted out with the help of the local population, and how Major General Akhtar Hussain Mallik mounted an armored attack on India.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## shuntmaster

Joe Shearer said:


> He isn't out of his mind, he is misguided and misinformed as every 9 out of 10 Pakistanis are.
> 
> They think that the partition of India wad on communal lines and majority Muslim provinces were to go to Pakistan, and conversely. Few of them even know that besides British India, the British colony, there were 562 princes who had treaties with the Crown, but not with British India. The moment the British left, they became free. They were under no obligation to join either side on the basis of the percentage of each religion that they had.
> 
> This mistake continues on and on. It was not there in Pakistanis of an older generation, none of the younger people even understand the basics. Kashmir was for the Maharaja to decide; his opposition, the popular opposition to autocratic rule, was the National Conference led by Mohammed Abdullah, who had the support of Congress, opposed the Muslim League and wanted accession to India.
> 
> The commonly-held belief of many young Pakistanis is without foundation.



If the Pakistanis still want to quote the two nation theory as justification for their claim over Kashmir, then this policy has to be implemented 100%. This means Pakistan (and to an extent Bangladesh) should facilitate & accept all the Muslims of the subcontinent, including the Indian Muslims, to migrate to Pakistan. Pakistan would be the homeland for all the Muslims of the subcontinent and India will be a nation of non-Muslims only, when the two nation theory is implemented 100%. India would loose the Kashmir valley in the bargain. 
The Indian Muslims (non-Kashmiri) understand this double-edged sword of the two nation theory, which is why there is no support for the Kashmir secessionist movement among the general masses of Indian Muslims.


----------



## vsdoc

Joe Shearer said:


> I wonder how many children Diana Spencer and I would have had if we had got married. Would they have been my dark brown, or a cream and pink, or an assortment?


 
May her soul rest in peace ....


----------



## Joe Shearer

shuntmaster said:


> If the Pakistanis still want to quote the two nation theory as justification for their claim over Kashmir, then this policy has to be implemented 100%. This means Pakistan (an to an extent Bangladesh) to accept all the Muslims of the subcontinent, including the Indian Muslims. Pakistan would be the homeland for all the Muslims of the subcontinent and India will be a nation of non-Muslims only.
> The Indian Muslims (non-Kashmiri) understand this double-edged sword of the two nation theory, which is why there is no support for the Kashmir secessionist movement among the general masses of Indian Muslims.



Again, I repeat, the Two Nation Theory DID NOT apply to the princes and their territory.


----------



## Joe Shearer

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


----------



## $@rJen

Ha Ha Ha HA......you're a funny man....we loosing to you....its like deer trying to fight tiger,,,Boy don't get yourself killed, i'm a indian and i don't want modi to come , you know why because i'm worried that you won't be on the map if you try to do anymore nasty to indians............you may have nukes more than us..we can take a hit and stand but think about you, our N-sub will fire the nuke from inside the Karachi port.......becarefull what you write.......and i hope you know your history,,,you know how many times you lost...i know these reply of mine may make you angry,i'm so sorry about it but can't help it, pakistani's are the one who start the conflict first.....We'll not elect Modi because our country is know for peace and i'm sure if he comes it'll be opposite, and thats not good for country's economy......


----------



## Samlee

Joe Shearer said:


> He isn't out of his mind, he is misguided and misinformed as every 9 out of 10 Pakistanis are.
> 
> They think that the partition of India wad on communal lines and majority Muslim provinces were to go to Pakistan, and conversely. Few of them even know that besides British India, the British colony, there were 562 princes who had treaties with the Crown, but not with British India. The moment the British left, they became free. They were under no obligation to join either side on the basis of the percentage of each religion that they had.
> 
> This mistake continues on and on. It was not there in Pakistanis of an older generation, none of the younger people even understand the basics. Kashmir was for the Maharaja to decide; his opposition, the popular opposition to autocratic rule, was the National Conference led by Mohammed Abdullah, who had the support of Congress, opposed the Muslim League and wanted accession to India.
> 
> The commonly-held belief of many young Pakistanis is without foundation.
> 
> 
> 
> You should read in your defence journal, Defence Pakistan, how SSG troops were infiltrated into Kashmir to stir unrest, how they got no support and were rooted out with the help of the local population, and how Major General Akhtar Hussain Mallik mounted an armored attack on India.





Then Junagarh Should Have Gone To Pakistan Because The Nawab of Junagarh Had Signed Accession to Pakistan But The Indian Government Did Not Respect His Wishes.They Sent The Army To Occupy The State and Held A Plebiscite.

A Plebiscite Was Held Here and The Hindu Majority Chose India.Here A Plebiscite Was Held But For The Muslim Majority of Kashmir,The Accession (BTW Whose Authenticity Has Been Doubted By Multiple People) Document Of Maharaja Was Enough Justification.

How Convenient


----------



## INDIC

Samlee said:


> AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS STILL LIVE IN 1971
> 
> FORGET ABOUT IT JUST COME BACK TO THE REAL TOPIC



2012:- Kashmir is with India and we are constructing a rail line.


----------



## shuntmaster

Joe Shearer said:


> Again, I repeat, the Two Nation Theory DID NOT apply to the princes and their territory.



If that is the case, Pakistan has no locus-standi (hehe borrowed from sriman AB Vajapayeeji) in J&K, whatsoever.


----------



## INDIC

Samlee said:


> Then Junagarh Should Have Gone To Pakistan Because The Nawab of Junagarh Had Signed Accession to Pakistan But The Indian Government Did Not Respect His Wishes.They Sent The Army To Occupy The State and Held A Plebiscite.



If the invading Pakistanis didn't went idiotic in Kashmir and refrained from plundering the houses of people they came to liberate.


----------



## shuntmaster

Samlee said:


> Then Junagarh Should Have Gone To Pakistan Because The Nawab of Junagarh Had Signed Accession to Pakistan But The Indian Government Did Not Respect His Wishes.They Sent The Army To Occupy The State and Held A Plebiscite.
> 
> A Plebiscite Was Held Here and The Hindu Majority Chose India.Here A Plebiscite Was Held But For The Muslim Majority of Kashmir,The Accession (BTW Whose Authenticity Has Been Doubted By Multiple People) Document Of Maharaja Was Enough Justification.
> 
> How Convenient



There is no proof of instrument of accession from Junagarh to Pakistan. If there was accession, why was there a referendum, isn't it contradictory?
BTW.. in 1948 Pakistan was actually against a plebiscite in J&K, because they were afraid that it would go against them especially since the popularity of Sheikh Abdullah who was very anti-Pakistani and also due to what the Pakistani raiders did to the locals when they invaded J&K. That is the reason why Pakistan refuse to withdraw their forces from parts of J&K state, which was a pre-requisite for conducting the plebiscite as per UN resolutions.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Samlee said:


> Then Junagarh Should Have Gone To Pakistan Because The Nawab of Junagarh Had Signed Accession to Pakistan But The Indian Government Did Not Respect His Wishes.They Sent The Army To Occupy The State and Held A Plebiscite.
> 
> A Plebiscite Was Held Here and The Hindu Majority Chose India.Here A Plebiscite Was Held But For The Muslim Majority of Kashmir,The Accession (BTW Whose Authenticity Has Been Doubted By Multiple People) Document Of Maharaja Was Enough Justification.
> 
> How Convenient



Wrong twice over. Are you trying for a record?

I explained this only a few days ago. Either you don't read very comfortably, or you don't want to believe what was explained there.

The Nawab acceded to Pakistan but he tried to drag along two states which were under his suzerainty, NOT his sovereignty, the city of Mangrol and the state of Babarwadia. They revolted against their being allowed to exercise their rights of accession to either Pakistan or India. The Nawab then sent his troops into those independent states. They appealed to India, which expelled Junagadhi troops from Mangrol and Babarwadia.

INDIAN TROOPS DID NOT ENTER JUNAGADH.

The Nawab left for Karachi. After a few days, the Dewan, whom he had left behind, REVOKED the accession and handed over the administration to the nearest Indian officer, who was not even present, and left for Karachi. The Indian administration then moved in, ran a plebiscite and normalized the situation.

Be sure to look up who the Dewan was.

About Kashmir, the UN Resolution required Pakistan to vacate her intrusion, including the intrusion of tribals, immediately. The Indians were requested to keep enough troops to maintain law and order, and the Plebiscite Commissioner identified by the Security Council, was to have been appointed by the State and to have run the plebiscite in every corner.

SINCE PAKISTAN REFUSED TO VACATE THEIR OCCUPIED TERRITORY, THE UN RESOLUTION COULD NOT BE MET.

Members of the forum will notice how often these half-digested facts emerge, and have to be explained patiently to the new-comer, almost every six months or so.



shuntmaster said:


> There is no proof of instrument of accession from Junagarh to Pakistan. If there was accession, why was there a referendum, isn't it contradictory?



Please look up the correct facts, or refer to my summary.

There was a formal accession, there was a referendum because the accession was revoked by the state itself (by the Dewan, in the absence of the Nawab). Also for the sake of good order.



> BTW.. in 1948 Pakistan was actually against a plebiscite in J&K, because they were afraid that it would go against them especially since the popularity of Sheikh Abdullah who was very anti-Pakistani and also due to what the Pakistani raiders did to the locals when they invaded J&K. That is the reason why Pakistan refuse to withdraw their forces from parts of J&K state, which was a pre-requisite for conducting the plebiscite as per UN resolutions.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## karan.1970

Joe Shearer said:


> Wrong twice over. Are you trying for a record?
> 
> I explained this only a few days ago. Either you don't read very comfortably, or you don't want to believe what was explained there.
> 
> The Nawab acceded to Pakistan but he tried to drag along two states which were under his suzerainty, NOT his sovereignty, the city of Mangrol and the state of Babarwadia. They revolted against their being allowed to exercise their rights of accession to either Pakistan or India. The Nawab then sent his troops into those independent states. They appealed to India, which expelled Junagadhi troops from Mangrol and Babarwadia.
> 
> INDIAN TROOPS DID NOT ENTER JUNAGADH.
> 
> The Nawab left for Karachi. After a few days, the Dewan, whom he had left behind, REVOKED the accession and handed over the administration to the nearest Indian officer, who was not even present, and left for Karachi. The Indian administration then moved in, ran a plebiscite and normalized the situation.
> 
> Be sure to look up who the Dewan was.
> 
> About Kashmir, the UN Resolution required Pakistan to vacate her intrusion, including the intrusion of tribals, immediately. The Indians were requested to keep enough troops to maintain law and order, and the Plebiscite Commissioner identified by the Security Council, was to have been appointed by the State and to have run the plebiscite in every corner.
> 
> SINCE PAKISTAN REFUSED TO VACATE THEIR OCCUPIED TERRITORY, THE UN RESOLUTION COULD NOT BE MET.
> 
> Members of the forum will notice how often these half-digested facts emerge, and have to be explained patiently to the new-comer, almost every six months or so.
> 
> 
> 
> Please look up the correct facts, or refer to my summary below.
> 
> There was a formal accession, there was a referendum because the accession was revoked by the state itself (by the Dewan, in the absence of the Nawab). Also for the sake of good order.
> 
> 
> BTW.. in 1948 Pakistan was actually against a plebiscite in J&K, because they were afraid that it would go against them especially since the popularity of Sheikh Abdullah who was very anti-Pakistani and also due to what the Pakistani raiders did to the locals when they invaded J&K. That is the reason why Pakistan refuse to withdraw their forces from parts of J&K state, which was a pre-requisite for conducting the plebiscite as per UN resolutions.


[/QUOTE]

The problem is not the new comers, but the old timers who have been brought up on a steady dose of fabricated history and madarassa influenced context of India and the state of Jammu and Kashmir.. You can only take the horse to the water.......


----------



## $@rJen

BATMAN said:


> It is col. Prohit type scums... who are the sponsors of all terrorism and indian army supply explosives.
> 
> 
> 
> It was again Indian army doing all those things and arming the terrorists.




you say what...we sponser terrorists........why don't you ask the rest of the world wh does that.....you're the silver medalist after Iran.....

you send terrorists to Kashmir and inside the india...you send terrorists to sfganistan..and you accuse us......can you find one country except your husband(china) telling that we sponser terrorism........


----------



## shuntmaster

Joe Shearer said:


> Be sure to look up who the Dewan was.



Was it Bhutto??



Joe Shearer said:


> Please look up the correct facts, or refer to my summary.
> 
> There was a formal accession, there was a referendum because the accession was revoked by the state itself (by the Dewan, in the absence of the Nawab). Also for the sake of good order.



Thanks for correcting me with the right info.


----------



## Joe Shearer

shuntmaster said:


> Was it Bhutto??
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for correcting me with the right info.



Which Bhutto?


----------



## vsdoc

tok to me man


----------



## INDIC

Joe Shearer said:


> Which Bhutto?



Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's father was the Dewan of Junagarh.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shuntmaster

Joe Shearer said:


> Which Bhutto?



Dewan Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, father of ZA Bhutto and Grandfather of Bibi and the grandfather-in-law of President of Islamic republic of Pakistan, His Excellency Mr. Zardari.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

shuntmaster said:


> Dewan Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, father of ZA Bhutto and Grandfather of Bibi?



Nice.. Pakistani politics is pretty dynasty driven as well.. I thought only India was that way


----------



## angeldude13

Joe Shearer said:


> He isn't out of his mind, he is misguided and misinformed as every 9 out of 10 Pakistanis are.
> 
> They think that the partition of India wad on communal lines and majority Muslim provinces were to go to Pakistan, and conversely. Few of them even know that besides British India, the British colony, there were 562 princes who had treaties with the Crown, but not with British India. The moment the British left, they became free. They were under no obligation to join either side on the basis of the percentage of each religion that they had.
> 
> This mistake continues on and on. It was not there in Pakistanis of an older generation, none of the younger people even understand the basics. Kashmir was for the Maharaja to decide; his opposition, the popular opposition to autocratic rule, was the National Conference led by Mohammed Abdullah, who had the support of Congress, opposed the Muslim League and wanted accession to India.


thanks for clearing my doubts on this issue joe.
i thought the king did not have choice to accede to india as he was the ruler of muslim majority state


----------



## Hulk

Ghaznavi attacks India's rapes and loots he is hero.
India with little force try to get princely states merged are evil.

Hypocrisy of highest level.


----------



## Arav_Rana

i read thread head line and saw that discussion is up to 35 page.. well i did not read even 1 single comment and i am going to say here 

" dude it does not matter what you think that it was stolen or whatever people teach you in pakistan , you guys can never get kashmir, even not n your dreams.. you already fucked up many time because of this matter and look at your condition and see what you guys want, it ll be good to save your country and make it better, rather then dreaming to get another country part. 
and i fully support Indian army in kashmir and also support every action taken by army. people here who talk about human rights, well first deliver human rights to those people who were killed by terrorists ( in pakistani words fighter damm funny you guys are ) and forced people to leave kashmir and live as refuge in own country. 
and you think kashmir may get freedom ? well never.. Indian ll never withdraw army from there, and as you see nobody in world give a damm to the people who are against Indain view.. 
1 more thing you gays thinks that kashmir has muslims majority part so it shd be with you.. and whenever tried to get kashmir your Islamic ideology was behind this but Indian see this kashmir as Motherland .. and Motherland love is always greater then what people think in name of religion. 
and what majority you guys always talk about ? increasing population with out caring people health care and later asking that country to give you that land because now you are in major population. how can you justify that.. this is Indian land. and i'll never give a damm if you are from majority or minority, you are in India , support India or these guys can fu@k them self.. 
when Indian people were fighting for freedom, they were not fighting to see that later people ll enjoy there cake of piece in free cost. 
and whatever i wrote it is not that i want to hate pakistan or i hate pakistan people but the way you guys still trying to manipulate things here and you guys try to show pakistan thinking about India and rest things here and in many lovable threads, and then blame Indian people why they are like this.. well what else you expect. Every thing has reaction..
will be good to develop own country, we both belong to 3rd world and west people even don't give a **** to what happneing here. not even china or any neighbor..


----------



## Joe Shearer

arav said:


> i read thread head line and saw that discussion is up to 35 page.. well i did not read even 1 single comment and i am going to say here
> 
> " dude it does not matter what you think that it was stolen or whatever people teach you in pakistan , you guys can never get kashmir, even not n your dreams.. you already fucked up many time because of this matter and look at your condition and see what you guys want, it ll be good to save your country and make it better, rather then dreaming to get another country part.
> and i fully support Indian army in kashmir and also support every action taken by army. people here who talk about human rights, well first deliver human rights to those people who were killed by terrorists ( in pakistani words fighter damm funny you guys are ) and forced people to leave kashmir and live as refuge in own country.
> and you think kashmir may get freedom ? well never.. Indian ll never withdraw army from there, and as you see nobody in world give a damm to the people who are against Indain view..
> 1 more thing you gays thinks that kashmir has muslims majority part so it shd be with you.. and whenever tried to get kashmir your Islamic ideology was behind this but Indian see this kashmir as Motherland .. and Motherland love is always greater then what people think in name of religion.
> and what majority you guys always talk about ? increasing population with out caring people health care and later asking that country to give you that land because now you are in major population. how can you justify that.. this is Indian land. and i'll never give a damm if you are from majority or minority, you are in India , support India or these guys can fu@k them self..
> when Indian people were fighting for freedom, they were not fighting to see that later people ll enjoy there cake of piece in free cost.
> and whatever i wrote it not because i hate pakistan people but the way you guys still trying to manipulate things here and you guys try to show pakistan thinking about India and rest things here and in many lovable threads, and then blame Indian people why they are like this.. well what else you expect. Every thing has reaction..
> will be good to develop own country, we both belong to 3rd world and west people even don't give a **** to what happneing here. not even china or any neighbor..



Why did you join this forum if you don't want to know what others think, and just want everybody to pay attention to you?

Why do you spout this kind of crap? If you want attention, why don't you just make it simple? Strip, paint your genitals yellow and stroll into the nearest mall at around seven in the evening. You'll get attention.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bhairava

^ Ultimately the discussion is only going to end in the note posted by arav. This must be the 12,34,873th thread on Kashmir and everyone of them have that unmistakable end note.


----------



## Arav_Rana

@Joe Shearer - This is not about getting attention.. what is the point of discussing kashmir here ?? Someone started thread ,that's good . ok .. but some people ll give good point and after that what ? see .. people teaching history here to each other . bringing all war dates, all stupid historical facts that we both learn in our history and blaming each other for everything n blah blah. does it make any sense.. ? 
When both side people knows where they belong then I don't know what is the point of feeling patriotism by arguing here.. ?
And knowing about what other think.. i love to know but not same stuffs again and again..
and painting genitals .. errm is yellow your fav color.. is that color you use to paint your genitals ? i don't care about getting attention at least not here  .. i'm not here to get thanked in thousands and post in thousand or argue here with other country people and later siting alone in my room feel proud.. Who cares about this ? 

@Bhairava - there are a lot of thread i think about everything , some time vs, some time who is better, some time who won and how they ended, it always start with a point, some people will argue but people ll bring all history.. i know my comment is rude and full of anger but whatever how much energy, time, money and life cost we want to waste so rest world can still enjoy this show ? 

btw i edited 1 line .. i wrote " it not because i hate pakistan " damm what a stupid mistake.. how can i hate when i listen their music 
well if this can not edit read this line as " and whatever i wrote it is not that i want to hate pakistan or i hate pakistan "


----------



## Joe Shearer

arav said:


> @Joe Shearer - This is not about getting attention.. what is the point of discussing kashmir here ?? Someone started thread ,that's good . ok .. but some people ll give good point and after that what ? see .. people teaching history here to each other . bringing all war dates, all stupid historical facts that we both learn in our history and blaming each other for everything n blah blah. does it make any sense.. ?
> When both side people knows where they belong then I don't know what is the point of feeling patriotism by arguing here.. ?
> And knowing about what other think.. i love to know but not same stuffs again and again..
> and painting genitals .. errm is yellow your fav color.. is that color you use to paint your genitals ? i don't care about getting attention at least not here  .. i'm not here to get thanked in thousands and post in thousand or argue here with other country people and later siting alone in my room feel proud.. Who cares about this ?
> 
> @Bhairava - there are a lot of thread i think about everything , some time vs, some time who is better, some time who won and how they ended, it always start with a point, some people will argue but people ll bring all history.. i know my comment is rude and full of anger but whatever how much energy, time, money and life cost we want to waste so rest world can still enjoy this show ?
> 
> btw i edited 1 line .. i wrote " it not because i hate pakistan " damm what a stupid mistake.. how can i hate when i listen their music
> well if this can not edit read this line as " and whatever i wrote it is not that i want to hate pakistan or i hate pakistan "



Ah, you have now read two comments on this thread! Any side-effects? Just look down at the yellow patch below; if everything is hanging on, you're safe.

Second lesson: look up the word verbose.


----------



## Arav_Rana

@Joe Shearer - This is not side effort because of any comments  . I just support every actions of my country, we lost a lot of people for this freedom, and i don't think we can let some other people to decide our land future.
i saw below and damm this is not yelow.. this is just same kind of blackish.. you know we brown people does not matter how fair we are still these part  ..

2nd lesson is imp... but i ll suggest you don't use color.. we are brown people can not change color


----------



## IND151

@POST NO. 484> thanks for info.


----------



## Markx

Kashmir is just like one soap free on other soap for Pakistan , We can see how they sold part of their motherland to china for some political benefits Shaksgam Valley (i thought now its part of A.k chin but i am not sure ) .

It wasn't part of Pakistan , and we don't sell our motherland.


----------



## Joe Shearer

arav said:


> @Joe Shearer - This is not side effort because of any comments  . I just support every actions of my country, we lost a lot of people for this freedom, and i don't think we can let some other people to decide our land future.
> i saw below and damm this is not yelow.. this is just same kind of blackish.. you know we brown people does not matter how fair we are still these part  ..
> 
> 2nd lesson is imp... but i ll suggest you don't use color.. we are brown people can not change color



Effect, not effort; reading implies reading accurately.

Unlike us humble folk down in the undergrowth, attention-getters are chrome-yellow in the correct places. Look up Mandrill.

As for the second lesson, work for one line. One word would be better; the fact that such short sentences cannot be printed should not deter you. Just think of the vast improvement in quality you would have achieved single-handed.



IND151 said:


> @POST NO. 484> thanks for info.



You're welcome. I hope you meant me, though I don't know which bit of information stirred you into comment. You're welcome anyway.



Markx said:


> Kashmir is just like one soap free on other soap for Pakistan , We can see how they sold part of their motherland to china for some political benefits now known as "Aksai Chin".
> 
> It wasn't part of Pakistan , and we don't sell our motherland.



I don't know if this is correct. The Pakistanis ceded the Shaksgam Valley. I'm not sure that it forms part of Aksai Chin.


----------



## bronxbull

It is useless,

Like some Brazilian movie dialogue went, the Peace in Kashmir hangs between the economic might of India & the lack of the same in Pakistan.


----------



## vsdoc

post page post


----------



## Samlee

Joe Shearer said:


> Wrong twice over. Are you trying for a record?
> 
> I explained this only a few days ago. Either you don't read very comfortably, or you don't want to believe what was explained there.
> 
> The Nawab acceded to Pakistan but he tried to drag along two states which were under his suzerainty, NOT his sovereignty, the city of Mangrol and the state of Babarwadia. They revolted against their being allowed to exercise their rights of accession to either Pakistan or India. The Nawab then sent his troops into those independent states. They appealed to India, which expelled Junagadhi troops from Mangrol and Babarwadia.
> 
> INDIAN TROOPS DID NOT ENTER JUNAGADH.
> 
> The Nawab left for Karachi. After a few days, the Dewan, whom he had left behind, REVOKED the accession and handed over the administration to the nearest Indian officer, who was not even present, and left for Karachi. The Indian administration then moved in, ran a plebiscite and normalized the situation.
> 
> Be sure to look up who the Dewan was.
> 
> About Kashmir, the UN Resolution required Pakistan to vacate her intrusion, including the intrusion of tribals, immediately. The Indians were requested to keep enough troops to maintain law and order, and the Plebiscite Commissioner identified by the Security Council, was to have been appointed by the State and to have run the plebiscite in every corner.
> 
> SINCE PAKISTAN REFUSED TO VACATE THEIR OCCUPIED TERRITORY, THE UN RESOLUTION COULD NOT BE MET.
> 
> Members of the forum will notice how often these half-digested facts emerge, and have to be explained patiently to the new-comer, almost every six months or so.
> 
> 
> 
> Please look up the correct facts, or refer to my summary.
> 
> There was a formal accession, there was a referendum because the accession was revoked by the state itself (by the Dewan, in the absence of the Nawab). Also for the sake of good order.




1.THE NAWAB NEVER FORMALLY ABDICATED.THE DEWAN HAD NO AUTHORITY LEGAL OR OTHERWISE TO REVOKE THE ACCESSION

Given The Fact That It Was Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto Who Persuaded The Nawab Of That Time To Accede To Pakistan I Even Doubt That His 'revocation' was without a pistol pointed at him

The Biographer Of Mountbatten Phillip Zeigler Wrote Regarding This Issue In Mountbatten Biography"Legally Pakistan Was In The Right"

2.INDIAN TROOPS DID NOT ENTER JUNAGADH:Seriously You Need To Get Your Eyes Tested


Indian integration of Junagadh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@Karan Yes We Even Have Wikipedia At Our Madarsah LOL LOL LOL


3.The Authenticity Of The Accession Document To India By Hari Singh Is Highly Doubtful.You Want Details I Am Ready To Go Over There


----------



## Joe Shearer

Samlee said:


> 1.THE NAWAB NEVER FORMALLY ABDICATED.THE DEWAN HAD NO AUTHORITY LEGAL OR OTHERWISE TO REVOKE THE ACCESSION



True, true. They both handed over power, the Nawab to his Dewan, his Dewan to an obscure Indian officer not even physically present, and both traipsed off to Karachi. So what was supposed to happen next, with everybody at Karachi and at the movies?



> Given The Fact That It Was Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto Who Persuaded The Nawab Of That Time To Accede To Pakistan I Even Doubt That His 'revocation' was without a pistol pointed at him



And this was the man caught in bed with a white man's mistress, with the Sahib ready to horsewhip him, who took the horsewhip away and flogged the Sahib instead! And you think he caved in to physical threats! Can't you think up a better one? 

Who would have pointed a pistol at him? Read the Wiki extract.



> The Biographer Of Mountbatten Phillip Zeigler Wrote Regarding This Issue In Mountbatten Biography"Legally Pakistan Was In The Right"



Of course Pakistan was! Just that true to Mountbatten's predictions, the Nawab lost his head and tried to bully two independents and got his wrist smacked. So he upped and ran, Bhutto found nobody else around, certainly nobody from Pakistan, and wrote to the unsuspecting Indian officer. That was precisely why Mountbatten had cautioned the Government of Pakistan to stick to contiguous territories; they would be easier to manage. It was precisely because of the lack of proximity that chaos broke out.

Something similar happened 23 years later.



> 2.INDIAN TROOPS DID NOT ENTER JUNAGADH:Seriously You Need To Get Your Eyes Tested
> 
> 
> Indian integration of Junagadh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



<sigh>

The kids are gettIng increasingly dumb these days. 

See below (memo to myself: write immediately to the dimwit factory. They must cut back production; it's bad for the market).



> On 8 November, Bhutto sent a letter to Nilam Butch, Provincial Head of the Indian Government in Rajkot, requesting him to help to restore law and order in Junagadh to prevent bloodshed. Harvey Johnson took the message to Rajkot. The head of the Indian administration telephoned V. P. Menon in Delhi and read out the letter. Menon immediately rushed to see Jawaharlal Nehru and explained the situation. After consultation with other ministers and V. B. Patel, the home minister, a formal order was drafted and a notification issued announcing the take-over of Junagadh at the request of its Chief Minister. The notification promised a referendum in due course.
> Bhutto left Junagadh for Karachi on the night of 8 November 1947. On 9 November, the Indian Air Force flew several sorties at low level over Junagadh.[citation needed]
> 
> Soon columns of Indian tanks and other vehicles carrying Indian soldiers entered Junagadh state. At 6 p.m. on 9 November, Captain Harvey Johnson and Chief Secretary Gheewala, a civil servant of Junagadh state, formally handed over the charge of the State to the Indian Government.
> On the same day, Nehru sent a telegram to Liaquat Ali Khan about the Indian take-over of Junagadh. Khan sent a return telegram to Nehru stating that Junagadh was Pakistani territory, and nobody except the Pakistan government was authorised to invite anybody to Junagadh. He also accused the Indian Government of naked aggression on Pakistan's territory and of violating international law. The Government of Pakistan strongly opposed the Indian occupation. Nehru wrote
> In view of special circumstances pointed out by Junagadh Dewan that is the Prime Minister of Junagadh &#8211; our Regional Commissioner at Rajkot has taken temporarily charge of Junagadh administration. This has been done to avoid disorder and resulting chaos. We have, however, no desire to cont and wish to find a speedy solution in accordance with the wishes of the people of Junagadh. We have pointed out to you previously that final decision should be made by means of referendum or plebiscite. We would be glad to discuss this question and allied matters affecting Junagadh with representatives of your Government at the earliest possible moment convenient to you. We propose to invite Nawab of Junagadh to send his representatives to this conference.





> @Karan Yes We Even Have Wikipedia At Our Madarsah LOL LOL LOL



Understandably you are delighted and pleased at this stirring development. Once they get around to teaching how to read it, do drop off a line for general information.
For your information, I first read the original text on these incidents about 52 years ago.




> 3.The Authenticity Of The Accession Document To India By Hari Singh Is Highly Doubtful.You Want Details I Am Ready To Go Over There



That settles it, then. Just send a peon over tomorrow, and he can take over from Omar Abdullah.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Black Widow

Samlee said:


> 3.The Authenticity Of The Accession Document To India By Hari Singh Is Highly Doubtful.You Want Details I Am Ready To Go Over There




What is the Pakistan Version of Kashmir story??? Please educate us with proof. Don't Give some stupid logic.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

real question is, what is Kashmir version

i think they made their version clear....by and large they reject indian footprint (blue print?)


----------



## Joe Shearer

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> real question is, what is Kashmir version
> 
> i think they made their version clear....by and large they reject indian footprint (blue print?)



Since you mentioned their attitude to India with such endearing candour, I hope you will also mention that they want no truck with Pakistan.

What is to be done about Gilgit and Baltistan, which were illegally absorbed into Pakistan?


----------



## Black Widow

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> real question is, what is Kashmir version
> 
> i think they made their version clear....by and large they reject indian footprint (blue print?)




There can't be any Kashmiri Version of story coz :

The actual division of British India between the two new dominions was accomplished according to what has come to be known as the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan. It was announced at a press conference by Mountbatten on 3 June 1947, when the date of independence was also announced &#8211; 15 August 1947. The plan's main points were:
Hindus and Muslims in Punjab and Bengal legislative assemblies would meet and vote for partition. If a simple majority of either group wanted partition, then these provinces would be divided.
Sindh was to take its own decision.
The fate of North West Frontier Province and Sylhet district of Bengal was to be decided by a referendum.
India would be independent by 15 August 1947.
The separate independence of Bengal also ruled out.
A boundary commission to be set up in case of partition.
The Indian political leaders accepted the Plan on 2 June. It did not deal with the question of the princely states, but on 3 June Mountbatten advised them against remaining independent and urged them to join one of the two new dominions.[7]



There is no K word in the Partition plan...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Joe Shearer

An excellent summary.


----------



## Nassr

If one looks at Nehru&#8217;s speech in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952, he said, &#8220;It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there.&#8221; If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict &#8220;and we would change our Constitution about it&#8221;. This he tells his people in the Lok Sabha. 

However, the two faces of India were revealed in Nehru&#8217;s Note of August 25, 1952. He made a startling revelation about his change of mind by the end of 1948. 

He wrote in a Note (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330), &#8220;Towards the end of 1948&#8230;. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite&#8230; so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.&#8221; 

He was lying to his own people, he was lying to the Kashmiris and at the same time he was also lying to the United Nations as well as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) in December 1948. 

The Note, Nehru wrote as some may call, was realpolitik. In that Note, he also mentioned that, Kashmiris &#8220;are not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living&#8221;; &#8220;We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power&#8221;; the U.N. is impotent. &#8220;Doubts in the minds of leaders percolate to their followers and to the people generally&#8230; What is required is a firm and clear outlook, and no debate about basic issues.&#8221;

Lieutenant-General B.M. Kaul in his book The Untold Story (1967), states that, Sheikh Abdullah understood the games being played by Nehru and India and was so disgusted that he decided to declare independence of Kashmir from India in 1949. He says, Bakshi and Dhar knew well in advance that Sheikh Saheb was going there &#8220;in a few days&#8217; time to meet certain &#8216;friends&#8217; from across the border which was only seven miles away&#8221;. He would then arrest Bakshi, Dhar etc and declare Kashmir independent (page 143). Though many Indians do not agree with his version of events. But it makes one thing very very clear, the Indian double face became quite apparent even to Sheikh Abdullah. 

What Nehru then and India even now does not realize that it is the people who move and transform their leaders&#8217; opinion and not the other way around. Sheikh Abdullah couldn&#8217;t go against the will of Kashmirirs. Sheikh Abduallah remained a leader of Kashmiris as long as he voiced their feelings. Nehru expected that Sheikh Abdullah would be able to change the opinion of Kashmiri people, which he couldn&#8217;t. 

Sheikh Abdullah turned a Becket to Jawaharlal Nehru&#8217;s Henry II. He was thus arrested and put in jail for next 11 years.

In Nehru efforts to cheat the whole world, least did he realize that he was wrong and left a legacy, where we still stand at that moment in 1947, where Kashmir still remains unsolved even after 60 years of Indian efforts to retain it, even after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and to what end! 

The same kind of policy followed by Indians elsewhere in India and resultantly, North East India is also in flames, the Naxals have risen against their own government, the Dalits are still untouchables except a few who have become a bit powerful and minorities are killed with impunity to tell them as to who rules India &#8211; the majority Hindus. How many more will the Hindu rulers of India kill to keep India together as a so-called multi-ethnic/religious Union. 

The Muslims were and are being killed to avenge the creation of Pakistan and the Sikhs were paid in kind for willfully joining India (their holiest shrine was destroyed. Over 3000 were killed in Delhi alone in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi&#8217;s murder). People of North East are being persecuted, oppressed and killed for seeking freedom. Muslims of North India are being killed after being wrongfully declared as being illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. 

How long this continued oppression and killing will keep India together?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Black Widow

Nassr said:


> If one looks at Nehru&#8217;s speech in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952, he said, &#8220;It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there.&#8221; If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict &#8220;and we would change our Constitution about it&#8221;. This he tells his people in the Lok Sabha.
> 
> However, the two faces of India were revealed in Nehru&#8217;s Note of August 25, 1952. He made a startling revelation about his change of mind by the end of 1948.
> 
> He wrote in a Note (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330), &#8220;Towards the end of 1948&#8230;. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite&#8230; so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.&#8221;
> 
> He was lying to his own people, he was lying to the Kashmiris and at the same time he was also lying to the United Nations as well as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) in December 1948.
> 
> The Note, Nehru wrote as some may call, was realpolitik. In that Note, he also mentioned that, Kashmiris &#8220;are not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living&#8221;; &#8220;We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power&#8221;; the U.N. is impotent. &#8220;Doubts in the minds of leaders percolate to their followers and to the people generally&#8230; What is required is a firm and clear outlook, and no debate about basic issues.&#8221;
> 
> Lieutenant-General B.M. Kaul in his book The Untold Story (1967), states that, Sheikh Abdullah understood the games being played by Nehru and India and was so disgusted that he decided to declare independence of Kashmir from India in 1949. He says, Bakshi and Dhar knew well in advance that Sheikh Saheb was going there &#8220;in a few days&#8217; time to meet certain &#8216;friends&#8217; from across the border which was only seven miles away&#8221;. He would then arrest Bakshi, Dhar etc and declare Kashmir independent (page 143). Though many Indians do not agree with his version of events. But it makes one thing very very clear, the Indian double face became quite apparent even to Sheikh Abdullah.
> 
> What Nehru then and India even now does not realize that it is the people who move and transform their leaders&#8217; opinion and not the other way around. Sheikh Abdullah couldn&#8217;t go against the will of Kashmirirs. Sheikh Abduallah remained a leader of Kashmiris as long as he voiced their feelings. Nehru expected that Sheikh Abdullah would be able to change the opinion of Kashmiri people, which he couldn&#8217;t.
> 
> Sheikh Abdullah turned a Becket to Jawaharlal Nehru&#8217;s Henry II. He was thus arrested and put in jail for next 11 years.
> 
> In Nehru efforts to cheat the whole world, least did he realize that he was wrong and left a legacy, where we still stand at that moment in 1947, where Kashmir still remains unsolved even after 60 years of Indian efforts to retain it, even after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and to what end!
> 
> The same kind of policy followed by Indians elsewhere in India and resultantly, North East India is also in flames, the Naxals have risen against their own government, the Dalits are still untouchables except a few who have become a bit powerful and minorities are killed with impunity to tell them as to who rules India &#8211; the majority Hindus. How many more will the Hindu rulers of India kill to keep India together as a so-called multi-ethnic/religious Union.
> 
> The Muslims were and are being killed to revenge the creation of Pakistan and the Sikhs were paid in kind for willfully joining India (their holiest shrine was destroyed. Over 3000 were killed in Delhi alone in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi&#8217;s murder). People of North East are being persecuted, oppressed and killed for seeking freedom. Muslims of North India are being killed for being illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.
> 
> How long this continued oppression and killing will keep India together?





We don't believe in Nehru. If you believe in Him, please go and ask him. We have changed our policy in last 50 years.


@ Plebiscite: Why don't you read terms and conditions of plebiscite. First full fill those conditions then talk bout plebiscite .


----------



## rockstarIN

^^Copy - paste from your text book? It seems so.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Joe Shearer said:


> Since you mentioned their attitude to India with such endearing candour, I hope you will also mention that they want no truck with Pakistan.
> 
> What is to be done about Gilgit and Baltistan, which were illegally absorbed into Pakistan?



are you for real? ive spent much time over there when i was either on home leave or had time off and let me tell you that the people there are almost more pro-Pakistan than any others. I have some ancestral origins from maternal side hailing from Kashmir and im in regular touch with close friends on the 'other side'

it's true that across the LoC opinions are mixed but by and large there's a consensus that india is an illegitimate occupier and this is an indisputable fact. You can deny, whitewash, or even sandblast and powdercoat it -- but it wont change ground realities

ive already been through this in great detail sooo many times so i wont delve further

truth hurts though


----------



## Bang Galore

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> *truth hurts though*



Yup, I can see that. We have what we want & you don't. So, cry away !


----------



## SamantK

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> are you for real? ive spent much time over there when i was either on home leave or had time off and let me tell you that the people there are almost more pro-Pakistan than any others. I have some ancestral origins from maternal side hailing from Kashmir and im in regular touch with close friends on the 'other side'


 Every body says the same thing over and over again, does not make it true.. and since you decided to put up some relations on the 'other side' we have some who are sick of your rule in the P.o.K too



> it's true that across the LoC opinions are mixed but by and large there's a consensus that india is an illegitimate occupier and this is an indisputable fact. You can deny, whitewash, or even sandblast and powdercoat it -- but it wont change ground realities
> 
> ive already been through this in great detail sooo many times so i wont delve further
> 
> truth hurts though



By and large in Kashmir there is a feeling that Pakistan has been pushing terrorist (Wanting them to blow up something or the other) in their state and giving reason for India to maintain a iron grip...

Its so damn easy to play a game two ways.. and yeah truth hurts, which is that you guys are still crying after 65 years


----------



## vsdoc

Page stolen post

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

rockstar said:


> ^^Copy - paste from your text book? It seems so.



No. See that all the references are Indian. You can abuse your own and discredit them and their references. You guys do it all the time. Nothing new.


----------



## karan.1970

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> truth hurts though



More so when lies are fed from day 1 to the kids and they grow up believing those lies as the universal truths (as is the case with most Pakistanis on this forum)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Joe Shearer

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> are you for real? ive spent much time over there when i was either on home leave or had time off and let me tell you that the people there are almost more pro-Pakistan than any others. I have some ancestral origins from maternal side hailing from Kashmir and im in regular touch with close friends on the 'other side'
> 
> it's true that across the LoC opinions are mixed but by and large there's a consensus that india is an illegitimate occupier and this is an indisputable fact. You can deny, whitewash, or even sandblast and powdercoat it -- but it wont change ground realities
> 
> ive already been through this in great detail sooo many times so i wont delve further
> 
> truth hurts though



Tell me, how likely is it that you would know or be familiar with the opinions of contrary-minded people, or that knowing such opinions, you would articulate them in this forum? Do we really have to put to the test the normal respect and belief in others that we bear as a default?

My understanding of what is current is not exactly based on wishful thinking. Surely by now, i have given you and others sufficient evidence that when I make a statement, it is a weighed and thought out statement? Be sure that I am in touch with a very large number of people from the Vale itself, including activists who even this morning have received the tender enquiries of anonymous caller concerned about their unfashionable views.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Nassr

Black Widow said:


> We don't believe in Nehru. If you believe in Him, please go and ask him. We have changed our policy in last 50 years.
> 
> 
> @ Plebiscite: Why don't you read terms and conditions of plebiscite. First full fill those conditions then talk bout plebiscite .



Hey @Black Widow

Are you still in mourning for Kashmir being in same state even after 1947 or is it that you are still a widow. 

You guys abuse Nehru for being for one thing and Gandhi for another thing and other leaders for many other things. There is nothing new in it. 

When you don't even show grace for those who helped and fought for creation of India, your own country, I got nothing more to tell you.


----------



## vsdoc

I think its a shame we have not yet re-taken the Gilgit and Baltistan areas. 

Would be really cool to ride my bike in those mountains.

The Srinagar Sonmarg Leh road has become too commercialized and done to death now.

The Kashmiris by and large eager to earn during the summer months when the bikers flock in.

Poor guys. Useless selfish self-styled leaders.


----------



## rockstarIN

Nassr said:


> No. See that all the references are Indian. You can abuse your own and discredit them and their references. You guys do it all the time. Nothing new.



Just plain facts, nothing else. Nothing new too.


----------



## SamantK

Nassr said:


> Hey @Black Widow
> 
> Are you still in mourning for Kashmir being in same state even after 1947 or is it that you are still a widow.
> 
> You guys abuse Nehru for being for one thing and Gandhi for another thing and other leaders for many other things. There is nothing new in it.
> 
> When you don't even show grace for those who helped and fought for creation of India, your own country, I got nothing more to tell you.



Dude, India is a country not under a dictator.. decisions are seldom taken alone.. 

Kashmir was the result of some more too, one important guy named VP Menon 

We are not blind that we do not point out the mistakes done by some whether they be our leaders, its not to discredit them but to make sure those mistakes are not repeated.

I know that concept is difficult for you to understand, but then that is how things stand.


----------



## Black Widow

Nassr said:


> Hey @Black Widow
> 
> Are you still in mourning for Kashmir being in same state even after 1947 or is it that you are still a widow.
> 
> You guys abuse Nehru for being for one thing and Gandhi for another thing and other leaders for many other things. There is nothing new in it.
> 
> When you don't even show grace for those who helped and fought for creation of India, your own country, I got nothing more to tell you.




Cut the crap dude, and answer the big claim u made in older posts.... Its funny, when u are out of answer, you divert the topic.. Prove your big claim here..

I know whom to show grace. Pakistani should show some grace for Nehru and Gandhi, our grace is for Subhash , sardar and others...


----------



## Bang Galore

Joe Shearer said:


> My understanding of what is current is not exactly based on wishful thinking. *Surely by now, i have given you and others sufficient evidence that when I make a statement, it is a weighed and thought out statement? *Be sure that I am in touch with a very large number of people from the Vale itself, including activists who even this morning have received the tender enquiries of anonymous caller concerned about their unfashionable views.



Does not matter. You must be _*wrong *_since _*their reality*_ states otherwise. It is a reality where their soldiers are on Siachen, just about to capture Kashmir, India is just about to disintegrate, where they won all the wars they fought, where they can do without American money and are ready to give them a military thrashing like you wouldn't believe, where their standing in the world is, well out of this world...etc. You live in a plane where all these claims seem fantastic, they live in a plane where that is their reality. You simply can't convince them otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nassr

Joe Shearer said:


> Tell me, how likely is it that you would know or be familiar with the opinions of contrary-minded people, or that knowing such opinions, you would articulate them in this forum? Do we really have to put to the test the normal respect and belief in others that we bear as a default?
> 
> My understanding of what is current is not exactly based on wishful thinking. Surely by now, i have given you and others sufficient evidence that when I make a statement, it is a weighed and thought out statement? Be sure that I am in touch with a very large number of people from the Vale itself, including activists who even this morning have received the tender enquiries of anonymous caller concerned about their unfashionable views.



@Joe Shearer

Increase and decrease of the pain threshold on a set of people does affect. But can continuous infliction and application of pain on a same set of people for over tens of years, kill their desires. I don't think so. What it does is that they become tolerant to more pain and a stage comes where even increased application of pain may not matter. The result is even more popular and more vicious response.



Black Widow said:


> Cut the crap dude, and answer the big claim u made in older posts.... Its funny, when u are out of answer, you divert the topic.. Prove your big claim here..
> 
> I know whom to show grace. Pakistani should show some grace for Nehru and Gandhi, our grace is for Subhash , sardar and others...



What Subash's, Sardar's and others couldn't achieve then - what can they achieve now. You are welcome to bring them back. And, their reincarnation may also not be in the same form!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bronxbull

Nassr said:


> If one looks at Nehrus speech in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952, he said, It just does not matter what your Constitution says. If the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there. If the plebiscite went against India, he would accept the verdict and we would change our Constitution about it. This he tells his people in the Lok Sabha.
> 
> However, the two faces of India were revealed in Nehrus Note of August 25, 1952. He made a startling revelation about his change of mind by the end of 1948.
> 
> He wrote in a Note (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330), Towards the end of 1948. it became clear to me then that we would never get the conditions which were necessary for a plebiscite so I ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes.
> 
> He was lying to his own people, he was lying to the Kashmiris and at the same time he was also lying to the United Nations as well as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) in December 1948.
> 
> The Note, Nehru wrote as some may call, was realpolitik. In that Note, he also mentioned that, Kashmiris are not what are called a virile people. They are soft and addicted to easy living; We are superior to Pakistan in military and industrial power; the U.N. is impotent. Doubts in the minds of leaders percolate to their followers and to the people generally What is required is a firm and clear outlook, and no debate about basic issues.
> 
> Lieutenant-General B.M. Kaul in his book The Untold Story (1967), states that, Sheikh Abdullah understood the games being played by Nehru and India and was so disgusted that he decided to declare independence of Kashmir from India in 1949. He says, Bakshi and Dhar knew well in advance that Sheikh Saheb was going there in a few days time to meet certain friends from across the border which was only seven miles away. He would then arrest Bakshi, Dhar etc and declare Kashmir independent (page 143). Though many Indians do not agree with his version of events. But it makes one thing very very clear, the Indian double face became quite apparent even to Sheikh Abdullah.
> 
> What Nehru then and India even now does not realize that it is the people who move and transform their leaders opinion and not the other way around. Sheikh Abdullah couldnt go against the will of Kashmirirs. Sheikh Abduallah remained a leader of Kashmiris as long as he voiced their feelings. Nehru expected that Sheikh Abdullah would be able to change the opinion of Kashmiri people, which he couldnt.
> 
> Sheikh Abdullah turned a Becket to Jawaharlal Nehrus Henry II. He was thus arrested and put in jail for next 11 years.
> 
> In Nehru efforts to cheat the whole world, least did he realize that he was wrong and left a legacy, where we still stand at that moment in 1947, where Kashmir still remains unsolved even after 60 years of Indian efforts to retain it, even after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and to what end!
> 
> The same kind of policy followed by Indians elsewhere in India and resultantly, North East India is also in flames, the Naxals have risen against their own government, the Dalits are still untouchables except a few who have become a bit powerful and minorities are killed with impunity to tell them as to who rules India  the majority Hindus. How many more will the Hindu rulers of India kill to keep India together as a so-called multi-ethnic/religious Union.
> 
> The Muslims were and are being killed to avenge the creation of Pakistan and the Sikhs were paid in kind for willfully joining India (their holiest shrine was destroyed. Over 3000 were killed in Delhi alone in the aftermath of Indira Gandhis murder). People of North East are being persecuted, oppressed and killed for seeking freedom. Muslims of North India are being killed after being wrongfully declared as being illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.
> 
> How long this continued oppression and killing will keep India together?


 
The last part of the post is random farce which you repeat time and again,so am not getting there.

Regarding Nehru.he was the first PM and we dont have to agree with his views.

We are keeping Kashmir simple as that.


----------



## Nassr

rockstar said:


> Just plain facts, nothing else. Nothing new too.



Thank you. That is what I wanted to highlight - Just Plain Facts.



bronxbull said:


> The last part of the post is random farce which you repeat time and again,so am not getting there.
> 
> Regarding Nehru.he was the first PM and we dont have to agree with his views.
> 
> We are keeping Kashmir simple as that.



You guys don't agree with your leaders and abuse them. 

You guys do not agree to the facts and trash them. 

When the reality would squarely face you, hide your face in the sand and call yourself Ostrich.


----------



## bronxbull

Nassr said:


> @Joe Shearer
> 
> Increase and decrease of the pain threshold on a set of people does affect. But can continuous infliction and application of pain on a same set of people for over tens of years, kill their desires. I don't think so. What it does is that they become tolerant to more pain and a stage comes where even increased application of pain may not matter. The result is even more popular and more vicious response.
> 
> 
> 
> What Subash's, Sardar's and others couldn't achieve then - what can they achieve now. You are welcome to bring them back. And, their reincarnation may also not be in the same form!


 
What did Sardar & Subash not achieve?


----------



## SamantK

Nassr said:


> You guys don't agree with your leaders and abuse them.
> 
> You guys do not agree to the facts and trash them.


 

Read Post# 537


----------



## Black Widow

Nassr said:


> What Subash's, Sardar's and others couldn't achieve then - what can they achieve now. You are welcome to bring them back. And, their reincarnation may also not be in the same form!




WHAT ARE u talking bout???? You asked me to pay grace to ppl like Nehru, I said I don't like him rather I will pay grace to ppl like Subhash and Sardar. 

"grace/gr&#257;s/
Noun:	
Simple elegance or refinement of movement.
"

Am I not understandable??? Ok I will use very simple english now...

In ur post you mentioned Nehru and his plebiscite , I asked you "Do you know what is written in the UN reolustion on Kashmir?"? You started talking sensless issue... 

DO you have any answer?/ Do you know what is precondition for plebiscite??? 



bronxbull said:


> What did Sardar & Subash not achieve?




Don't feed him, he doesn't know what he is talking bout, He is skewing the topic here and there. Finally he will come to banned topics of PDF. Reply to those posts will lead one to bann... Its Honey trap...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

samantk said:


> Dude, India is a country not under a dictator.. decisions are seldom taken alone..



Even dictators seldom take their decisions alone. As in Democracy, they also have cronies around them. 



> Kashmir was the result of some more too, one important guy named VP Menon



VP Menon was a good Indian. He did what he was asked to do. But he failed in his mission. You don't have all of Kashmir and it is still up in flames as it was in 1947, even after over 60 years. So, what has changed, if at all !



> We are not blind that we do not point out the mistakes done by some whether they be our leaders, its not to discredit them but to make sure those mistakes are not repeated.



Then why did you kill Gandhi? Was this done to avoid him being discredited. 



> I know that concept is difficult for you to understand, but then that is how things stand.



Oh no. We do understand you concepts very well here. It is just that we don't want to follow your concepts, which invariably lead to disasters.


----------



## bronxbull

Nassr said:


> Thank you. That is what I wanted to highlight - Just Plain Facts.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys don't agree with your leaders and abuse them.
> 
> You guys do not agree to the facts and trash them.
> 
> When the reality would squarely face you, hide your face in the sand and call yourself Ostrich.


 
Dont get over dramatic now, you decide who respects facts and who dont.

I find it hilarious,that you think kabzaa is done by other people and stop crying.


----------



## Nassr

Self deleted.


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Nassr said:


> Hey @Black Widow
> You guys abuse Nehru for being for one thing and Gandhi for another thing and other leaders for many other things. There is nothing new in it.
> 
> When you don't even show grace for those who helped and fought for creation of India, your own country, I got nothing more to tell you.


 


> You guys don't agree with your leaders and abuse them.
> 
> You guys do not agree to the facts and trash them.
> 
> When the reality would squarely face you, hide your face in the sand and call yourself Ostrich.



Please dont be so sympathetic towards Indian leaders. It was your ancestors too who didnt trusted same Nehrus & Gandhis & hence they created Pakistan.We Indians are not blind believers, we adore our leaders for good deeds & also condemn/abuse them for their mistakes equally. 

Here you can see we disagreeing with Nehru on some points on contrary you can see we are still running the nation with very same constitution with respect which was dreamt by him. We have regards for some of his good deeds but we are not sheeps to follow every thing our leaders do. Same is about Gandhi or any other leader.

On contrary, Pakistanis love Jinnah they never think he was wrong anywhere but see what Jinnah's Secular Democratic Idealistic Dream called Pakistan has become?? You raped his concept with in mere 25 years of his death, threw out the constitution he wanted you to follow.

Jinnah & Liyakat Ali Khan needs more sympathy from you than Nehru & Gandhi do.


----------



## Nassr

Self deleted.


----------



## SamantK

Nassr said:


> Even dictators seldom take their decisions alone. As in Democracy, they also have cronies around them.


 In dictatorship the cronies are chosen by the dictators as well, in democracy it is at-least a larger collective wisdom. 



> VP Menon was a good Indian. He did what he was asked to do. But he failed in his mission. You don't have all of Kashmir and it is still up in flames as it was in 1947, even after over 60 years. So, what has changed, if at all !


 Pakistan is always about black or white, we would not have had even that part of Kashmir but thanks to your Quaid and his tribals.. 



> Then why did you kill Gandhi? Was this done to avoid him being discredited.


 It certainly was not me! Neither that guy took permission from all the Indians.. we still have some who hate him, it is not an uncommon phenomenon if you know what I mean... But how will you know what I mean, you are far from facts and reasoning..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

bronxbull said:


> Dont get over dramatic now, you decide who respects facts and who dont.
> 
> I find it hilarious,that you think kabzaa is done by other people and stop crying.



Laugh yourself all the way to death sir - that is your choice. Just check whether Euthanasia is legal where you seek it.


----------



## kumarkumar1867

samantk said:


> Pakistan is always about black or white, we would not have had even that part of Kashmir but thanks to your Quaid and his tribals..



Sau baat ki ek baat... 
We are also grateful to Jinnah Sahab he locked & took all the radicals from India to other side of present day Indian borders !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

samantk said:


> Pakistan is always about black or white, we would not have had even that part of Kashmir but thanks to your Quaid and his tribals.


Their move went so wrong in Kashmir and the people whom they claimed to be liberating turned against them. One Kashmiri friend told me that people turned too much anti-Pakistan in 1948.



kumarkumar1867 said:


> Sau baat ki ek baat...
> We are also grateful to Jinnah Sahab he locked & *took all the radicals from India* to other side of present day Indian borders !


One of them was Maulana Maududi who was from "princely state of Hyderabad" who pioneered radicalization of Pakistan. Then Ziaul Haq was also from Indian side of Punjab.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Black Widow

Nassr said:


> Self deleted.




Leave all this delete aside, I just want to know your view on UN resolution . As you mention in one of your story, I want to know what do yo know about it??? What is the preconditions for plebiscite???


----------



## SamantK

Gigawatt said:


> Their move went so wrong in Kashmir and the people whom they claimed to be liberating turned against them. One Kashmiri friend told me that people turned too much anti-Pakistan in 1948.


They had to, the tribals which were supposed to seize control started raping and pillaging.. The Kashmiris knew where these tribals were from.. also we have a member here who belongs to one of those tribals and is proud of what they did in Kashmir.. go figure!




> One of them was Maulana Maududi who was from "princely state of Hyderabad" who pioneered radicalization of Pakistan. Then Ziaul Haq was also from Indian side of Punjab.



Even if they remained, they would not have become more than crack head Mullahas giving fatwa's out of their *****..


----------



## Joe Shearer

Nassr said:


> @Joe Shearer
> 
> Increase and decrease of the pain threshold on a set of people does affect. But can continuous infliction and application of pain on a same set of people for over tens of years, kill their desires. I don't think so. What it does is that they become tolerant to more pain and a stage comes where even increased application of pain may not matter. The result is even more popular and more vicious response.



You will permit me to point out that most of the pain has been inflicted by one side, which did the following:

1. Sought to influence the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir unsuccessfully, in the period before independence, partly due to the lack-lustre representation of the Muslim League by the Mirwaiz, whom Jinnah despised and denigrated in caustic terms for his unsuitability; 
2. Took advantage of the emergence of a minority faction in the National Conference and its revolt against the state administration to promote an attack on the state forces;
3. Justified the looting, rape, abduction and killing of Muslims (93.7% of the Vale was Muslim) by the invaders;
4. Refused to abide by the UN Resolution, ironically so, as the public stand of Pakistan always has been to wrap herself in the UN Resolution, glossing over the minor matter of her own non-compliance; this, incidentally, you have yourself brought back into the limelight when you wrung our withers with Nehru's inner conviction that the plebiscite would never happen, because conditions would never be conducive to make it happen, where you cited it as his double-dealing in the teeth of the public fact that Pakistan refused compliance;
5. Made much of Sheikh Abdullah during his 1964 visit, agreed to come in full force to Delhi for detailed and definitive negotiations;
6. Infiltrated SSG troops to attack Indian Army units in the Vale, and on their rejection by the Kashmiris, and elimination by the Army,launched an armoured column at Jammu in 1965;
7. Poured funds into the Vale during the later days of Sheikh Abdullah, continuing after his death in 1982, to those who had been reduced to a minority by the National Conference earlier;
8. Trained, armed and launched nearly 30,000 terrorists from 1989 onwards, continuing today allegedly under the auspices of independent jehadi bodies, in spite of evidence of your own media and your own commentators that the deep state was behind these supposedly independent bodies;
9. Were detected in the act of moving troops to Siachen and unsuccessfully fought Indian troops who had moved there in pre-emotive actions;
10. Occupied Indian positions abandoned for the winter and had to be expelled by force on detection, claiming all the while that the occupants were mujahedeen, even as the regular Army shelled Kashmiri towns in support of the troops occupying positions on the mountains.

Who was responsible for the bloodshed then? The status quo side, or the side that tried for 63 years to reverse the position?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## IND151

Joe Shearer said:


> Effect, not effort; reading implies reading accurately.
> 
> Unlike us humble folk down in the undergrowth, attention-getters are chrome-yellow in the correct places. Look up Mandrill.
> 
> As for the second lesson, work for one line. One word would be better; the fact that such short sentences cannot be printed should not deter you. Just think of the vast improvement in quality you would have achieved single-handed.
> 
> 
> 
> *You're welcome. I hope you meant me, though I don't know which bit of information stirred you into comment. You're welcome anyway.
> *
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is correct. The Pakistanis ceded the Shaksgam Valley. I'm not sure that it forms part of Aksai Chin.



at bolded part> i was referring to your explanation about princely states not having treaty with British India and thus being free to join Pakistan or India on their wish, not religion

i was referring to this part of your post



> They think that the partition of India wad on communal lines and majority Muslim provinces were to go to Pakistan, and conversely. Few of them even know that besides *British India*, the British colony, there were *562 princes who had treaties with the Crown, but not with British India. *The moment the British left, they became free. They were under no obligation to join either side on the basis of the percentage of each religion that they had.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Malik Usman

kumarkumar1867 said:


> Kashmir was not stolen from Pakistan, Infact Raja Harisingh was thinking to join Pakistan. but Pakistan Army showed impateince and attacked it. Harisingh did what any king will do for saving his kingdom he approached to Indian government & signed papers of accession in return of security assurance. No body stoled Kashmir its Pakistan's lust & impateince which cost them the loss.
> 
> About Gurdaaspur given to India & Why was Mountbatten not made governor of Pakistan you can check following link and find some answers yourself.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/cabin...en-and-jinnah-negotiations-on-pakistan-april-



Waooooo....This is really interesting new story, came from nowhere, why would a Hindu would join the Muslim Country....He did what he was supposed to do being a Hindu....he sold the Kashmir and its peoples to India and allowed Indian army to come and capture the Kashmir.


----------



## K-Xeroid

Joe Shearer said:


> He isn't out of his mind, he is misguided and misinformed as every 9 out of 10 Pakistanis are.
> 
> They think that the partition of India wad on communal lines and majority Muslim provinces were to go to Pakistan, and conversely. Few of them even know that besides British India, the British colony, there were 562 princes who had treaties with the Crown, but not with British India. The moment the British left, they became free. They were under no obligation to join either side on the basis of the percentage of each religion that they had.
> 
> This mistake continues on and on. It was not there in Pakistanis of an older generation, none of the younger people even understand the basics. Kashmir was for the Maharaja to decide; his opposition, the popular opposition to autocratic rule, was the National Conference led by Mohammed Abdullah, who had the support of Congress, opposed the Muslim League and wanted accession to India.
> 
> The commonly-held belief of many young Pakistanis is without foundation.


Deja vu! Its not first time that any indian member have used that "Brain washed" term kind of excuse, Reminds me the case of Osmanistan and jungadh . No doubt indian administrative units were matured and supported by Britains, They occupied jungadh knowing that it had already been acceded to Pakistan. Then wat the point of occupying it and Holding referendum, while two Nation theory didn't applied on Princely states according to your preception. Junagadh was a hindu majority state and locals support its accession to india but Interms of Kashmir you are having a different opinion. Isn't that kind of a double standard?




> You should read in your defence journal, Defence Pakistan, how SSG troops were infiltrated into Kashmir to stir unrest, how they got no support and were rooted out with the help of the local population, and how Major General Akhtar Hussain Mallik mounted an armored attack on India.


 Even despite being unsuccesful Gibraltor it have done a lot damage to a force which have consideribly greater experience and numbers , Later , Operation Grand slam with objective of averting the threat to Muzaffarabad , It had achieved its major objects with complete air dominance . Later Indian forces decided to cross the international boundary and capturing Lahore which was infact an unsuccessful attempt and remain unsuccessful in Chawinda tank battle, I accept that all , Even 71 interferance of india and militarizing M.bihani forces was also a point should be noted. Tried same with LTTE May be you are celebrating Victory day again If they would had achieved their objectives during initial days. Kashmir Territory is still undecided and insurgency of 90s still continuing in IOK. If referendum had done in Junagadh then why not in Kashmir?


----------



## Joe Shearer

IND151 said:


> at bolded part> i was referring to your explanation about princely states not having treaty with British India and thus being free to join Pakistan or India on their wish, not religion
> 
> i was referring to this part of your post



If you can, do take a look at the bare act of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. it is vastly interesting. The implications Re momentous. This was the basis for the protracted battle by that great Pakistani legal luminary, Sir Mohammed Zaffrullah Khan, for equal status for Pakistan at the UN. The battle failed because of the wording of the original statute.

From Tudor times, British drafting of their statutes was an art form in itself. It is an education to see how meticulously they structured their law, including the way they structured their preambles. This law was in no way less carefully drafted.



Malik Usman said:


> Waooooo....This is really interesting new story, came from nowhere, why would a Hindu would join the Muslim Country....He did what he was supposed to do being a Hindu....he sold the Kashmir and its peoples to India and allowed Indian army to come and capture the Kashmir.



You are not bothered to read any of the detailed posts on the subject, is it? It satisfies you to say something flippant and embed rolling on the ground with laughter figures? 

I am sure that you play a useful role in the universe. Once I mature and get fuller understanding, perhaps it will dawn on me what that role is.



K-Xeroid said:


> Deja vu! Its not first time that any indian member have used that "Brain washed" term kind of excuse, Reminds me the case of Osmanistan and jungadh . No doubt indian administrative units were matured and supported by Britains, They occupied jungadh knowing that it had already been acceded to Pakistan. Then wat the point of occupying it and Holding referendum, while two Nation theory didn't applied on Princely states according to your preception. Junagadh was a hindu majority state and locals support its accession to india but Interms of Kashmir you are having a different opinion. Isn't that kind of a double standard?



No, it doesn't. I have given a meticulous account, twice. The least you can do is to read them before commenting. It is clear from your remarks that you have not in fact read them, and do not have more than a shadowy knowledge of events.



> Even despite being unsuccesful Gibraltor it have done a lot damage to a force which have consideribly greater experience and numbers , Later , Operation Grand slam with objective of averting the threat to Muzaffarabad , It had achieved its major objects with complete air dominance . Later Indian forces decided to cross the international boundary and capturing Lahore which was infact an unsuccessful attempt and remain unsuccessful in Chawinda tank battle, I accept that all , Even 71 interferance of india and militarizing M.bihani forces was also a point should be noted. Tried same with LTTE May be you are celebrating Victory day again If they would had achieved their objectives initially. Kashmir Territory is still undecided and insurgency of 90s still continuing in IOK. If referendum had done in Junagadh then why not in Kashmir?



To answer your last question first, because the UN laid down conditions for holding the referendum. Are you aware of these conditions? Have you read the resolution itself? If not, how would you know that Pakistan did not comply with the terms laid down?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Infinity

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Kashmir is the only state in India who have a large majority of muslims ( also lakshwadeep isles )
> It should belong to pakistan just because of that
> Kashmir valley belongs to a muslim country, hindus killed so many Kashmiris



Ya Middle East , Indonesia , Malaysia etc, all belong to Pakistan due to there Muslim Majority


----------



## Black Widow

Panjabi Tiger said:


> Kashmir is the only state in India who have a large majority of muslims ( also lakshwadeep isles )
> It should belong to pakistan just because of that
> Kashmir valley belongs to a muslim country, hindus killed so many Kashmiris




Why don't you re-read history????


----------



## SamantK

To some Pakistanis here, please clear this misunderstanding that Pakistan is the only Muslim scion of south-Asia... For god sake... Pakistan was made for Muslims, does not mean it was meant for all of them... We love our *Muslim* brothers enough to not want them to leave India.. For that matter substitute the embolden religion with any other...


----------



## Bhairava

Nassr said:


> The same kind of policy followed by Indians elsewhere in India and resultantly, North East India is also in flames, the Naxals have risen against their own government, the Dalits are still untouchables except a few who have become a bit powerful and minorities are killed with impunity to tell them as to who rules India  the majority Hindus. How many more will the Hindu rulers of India kill to keep India together as a so-called multi-ethnic/religious Union.
> 
> The Muslims were and are being killed to avenge the creation of Pakistan and the Sikhs were paid in kind for willfully joining India (their holiest shrine was destroyed. Over 3000 were killed in Delhi alone in the aftermath of Indira Gandhis murder). People of North East are being persecuted, oppressed and killed for seeking freedom. Muslims of North India are being killed after being wrongfully declared as being illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.
> 
> How long this continued oppression and killing will keep India together?



Seriously ?!


----------



## bronxbull

Nassr said:


> Laugh yourself all the way to death sir - that is your choice. Just check whether Euthanasia is legal where you seek it.


 
ok,thanda pepsi pee lena bhai. senti naa ho ab.


----------



## Nassr

Joe Shearer said:


> 1. Sought to influence the hearts and minds of the people of Kashmir unsuccessfully, in the period before independence, partly due to the lack-lustre representation of the Muslim League by the Mirwaiz, whom Jinnah despised and denigrated in caustic terms for his unsuitability;




Sir,

When you keep one eye shut, you can only see through the other eye. 


When Jinnah visited Kashmir, incidentally on the invitation of Sheikh Abdullah who wanted him to come to Srinagar and help remove the differences between National and Muslim Conference. The overwhelming welcome and the kind of massive reception he was accorded in Srinagar by the Kashmiris is a fact of history. The whole of Srinagar came out to receive him, even people from far flung areas came in large numbers. He stayed there for over a month. 


Contrarily, when Pandit Nehru visited Srinagar, when his procession was moving on boats on Jhelum River, people standing along the river threw dirty shoes and muck at Nehru. 


This was the difference Sir, and it was much before even the announcement of creation of Pakistan. 


When the announcement of creation of Pakistan came, every house in Srinagar and the house boats flew Pakistani flag. Why would they do it if they didn&#8217;t want to join Pakistan. The Maharaja&#8217;s troops had to force the people to take down those flags through acts of oppression. 




> 2. Took advantage of the emergence of a minority faction in the National Conference and its revolt against the state administration to promote an attack on the state forces;




Sir, when Indian leadership did it, you in another response elsewhere called it real-politik. When Muslims League approached the local leaders for support it becomes advantage taking !


When Mountbatten was retained as the Governor General, Hindus named him as Pandit Mountbatten for nothing, did they! It has been proved from historical evidence that Indian advantage taking and scheming had started much earlier between the Congress leaders and Maharaja of Kashmir, much much before the intrusion of Pathans in Kashmir even began and based on which the Indian invasion of Kashmir was blamed on. 

Even Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel wrote a letter to the Maharaja four months before Pathan intrusion. This was clearly in reply to a letter from Maharaja. Through this letter also it has been clearly identified that when Pandit Mountbatten visited the vale of Kashmir, he could not properly explain the reasons for Kashmir&#8217;s accession to Maharaja and therefore, he invited the Maharaja to visit Delhi to meet Pandit Mountbatten again so that the details could be explained to him. These letters have been published and are available for you to read and confirm. 



> 3. Justified the looting, rape, abduction and killing of Muslims (93.7% of the Vale was Muslim) by the invaders;




No Sir, it was justified by Hindu Indians and their leaders much before the Pathan ingresses in to Kashmir to save the Muslims from being completely massacred by marauding Hindu invaders from India. It was all started by and planned in meetings between rulers of Alwar, Kapurthala and Patiala etc with Maharaja of Kashmir. 

And, the intrusion of Pathans has been blamed for everything. However, does any of you even know that after the pogrom in Punjab where Muslims were killed in millions in order to ethnically cleanse the areas and change the demography, where did these marauding Hindu and Sikh hordes were sent to? No you wouldn&#8217;t know or probably wouldn&#8217;t want to acknowledge it &#8211; these hordes were sent to Jammu to loot, rape, abduct and kill Muslims.

As planned, in the initial instance, they intended to ethnically cleanse areas of Jammu where Muslims were in minority. Between July and October 47, over 500,000 Muslims were thrown out of their homes, out of which 200,000 thousand were killed and about 300,000 were forced to emigrate to Pakistan. This was the first stage of this operation. The Pathans came to safeguard the Muslims from hordes of marauding Sikhs and fundamentalist Hindus. 



> 4. Refused to abide by the UN Resolution, ironically so, as the public stand of Pakistan always has been to wrap herself in the UN Resolution, glossing over the minor matter of her own non-compliance; this, incidentally, you have yourself brought back into the limelight when you wrung our withers with Nehru's inner conviction that the plebiscite would never happen, because conditions would never be conducive to make it happen, where you cited it as his double-dealing in the teeth of the public fact that Pakistan refused compliance;




That is indeed interesting. The final resolution of Kashmir had not even been approved by the UN when Pandit Nehru wrote that note. Yet in Lok Sabha he was lying to Kashmiris and his own people telling them that he would accept the results of plebiscite when he much before had made up his mind to not to hold it. 




> 5. Made much of Sheikh Abdullah during his 1964 visit, agreed to come in full force to Delhi for detailed and definitive negotiations;




Which ended with nothing as your PM Nehru had decided in 1948 to not to agree to plebiscite. 


Withdrawal of Pakistani Forces from Kashmir is one big contentious point Indians talk about all the time. Sir, when meetings were sought by Pakistan to decide on the framework, strength of Indian remaining forces etc and timings of withdrawal, the Indians balked out and did not hold any meeting. Pakistan was ready to withdraw the forces in order to hold the plebiscite, but it were the Indians who would not sit down to decide on the framework. 


And then, when Nehru didn&#8217;t intend to allow a plebiscite, withdrawing of Pakistani Forces from Kashmir was not worth it at all. 




> 6. Infiltrated SSG troops to attack Indian Army units in the Vale, and on their rejection by the Kashmiris, and elimination by the Army,launched an armoured column at Jammu in 1965;




Kashmir was and still is a disputed territory declared by the UN. The inviolability of Cease Fire line or Line of Control is based on my view against yours. J.N Dixit in his book wrote that our biggest gain was conversion of CFL in to LOC, as it is easier to convert the LOC in to an international border and not the CFL. 


Pakistan went across the LOC in a disputed territory. India attacked mainland Pakistan across international border. Indian belief that Kashmir is part of India has no locus-standi in international law as it is a declared disputed territory by UN. 


When Indian ingressed across the LOC in Kashmir in Chorbatla in 1972, Qamar in 1988 and Siachen in 1984 it is Kosher, but when Pakistan does it &#8211; ooh la la !




> 7. Poured funds into the Vale during the later days of Sheikh Abdullah, continuing after his death in 1982, to those who had been reduced to a minority by the National Conference earlier;




You fail to remember that a large number of Kashmiris live in AJ&K. When they support their brethren in Indian Occupied Kashmir, which is a disputed territory, it is their right to seek freedom as enshrined in the UN Charter. Please learn to live with it. 




> 8. Trained, armed and launched nearly 30,000 terrorists from 1989 onwards, continuing today allegedly under the auspices of independent jehadi bodies, in spite of evidence of your own media and your own commentators that the deep state was behind these supposedly independent bodies;




Pakistan only provides moral and diplomatic support to the freedom movement in Kashmir. It is the Kashmiris themselves who are fighting for independence from India and it is their right to seek freedom and even pick up arms for this struggle as enshrined in the UN Charter. Please learn to live with it. 




> 9. Were detected in the act of moving troops to Siachen and unsuccessfully fought Indian troops who had moved there in pre-emotive actions;




Your Northern Army Commander recently in an interview published in an Indian Newspaper has openly admitted that India perceived that Pakistan may occupy Siachen and thus moved and occupied it. He accepted the fact that there were no Pakistani troop movement. 




> 10. Occupied Indian positions abandoned for the winter and had to be expelled by force on detection, claiming all the while that the occupants were mujahedeen, even as the regular Army shelled Kashmiri towns in support of the troops occupying positions on the mountains.




When Indian ingressed across the LOC in Kashmir in Chorbatla in 1972, Qamar in 1988 and Siachen in 1984 it is Kosher, but when Pakistan does it &#8211; ooh la la !




> Who was responsible for the bloodshed then? The status quo side, or the side that tried for 63 years to reverse the position?



Definitely India Sir who invaded a people wanted to join Pakistan and still intend to. 

Let me explain your status quo farse as well. India is not a status-quo power. It is a regional hegemon. It invaded and captured Junagarh and Manavadar in 1947, invaded and captured Indian Occupied Kashmir in 1947, invaded and captured Hyderabad in 1948, invaded and captured Goa in 1961 which was an area belonging to Portugal, invaded East Pakistan in 1971, invaded and captured Sikkim as late as 1975, invaded and captured some portions of Siachen in 1988, created Sri Lankan terrorist group LTTE and later invaded Sri Lanka in 1988 till the President of Sri Lanka had to openly ask the Indians to leave, invaded Maldives in 1988 and has continually interfered in internal affairs of Nepal and Bhutan and has spread state sponsored terrorism in all her neighbouring states including Pakistan. 

It is easier to raise questions Sir but indeed very difficult to face the facts. Please open your other eye as well, I assure you, you would indeed see better.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bronxbull

whats wrong with doing all this?

People of these states have no problem with it.Especially the Mainland states.

You think we ll let the Nizam keep Hyderabad right in the middle of India.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

it's a waste of time to talk about it; but we know on which side there is the most unrest and it sure as hell aint this ISI behind it. Kashmiri nationalism is a purely Kashmiri phenomenon and it's a reaction to them being pushed against a wall and a reaction as a direct result of draconian laws and measures imposed on them. 

It's basic human nature. 

but neither do i have the time nor the need to convince y'all coz the writings already on the wall. 

Curiously, amongst the younger generations it's more of a secular nationalist movement religion plays a less dominant role here. Even many of the supposedly oppressed pundits are increasingly vocal, you just wont hear about it in that heavily regulated media of yours


----------



## notsuperstitious

Was Pakistan created for Muslims or Muslims created for Pakistan?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

fateh71 said:


> Was Pakistan created for Muslims *or Muslims created for Pakistan?*



Killer!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ticker

bronxbull said:


> whats wrong with doing all this?
> 
> People of these states have no problem with it.Especially the Mainland states.
> 
> *You think we ll let the Nizam keep Hyderabad right in the middle of India*.



Nope. But if the current environment continue in this manner, the future break-away South Indian states may envelop it.


----------



## bronxbull

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> it's a waste of time to talk about it; but we know on which side there is the most unrest and it sure as hell aint this ISI behind it. Kashmiri nationalism is a purely Kashmiri phenomenon and it's a reaction to them being pushed against a wall and a reaction as a direct result of draconian laws and measures imposed on them.
> 
> It's basic human nature.
> 
> but neither do i have the time nor the need to convince y'all coz the writings already on the wall.
> 
> Curiously, amongst the younger generations it's more of a secular nationalist movement religion plays a less dominant role here. Even many of the supposedly oppressed pundits are increasingly vocal, you just wont hear about it in that heavily regulated media of yours


 

I know many pundits and anyone with common sense would realise the folly of Kashmir being independent.

It would take something very dramatic.

In general for Pakistan to attain parity with India,it needs to be economically much stronger than India and only then will we see something happening in Kashmir.

Else the status quo is here to stay.



Ticker said:


> Nope. But if the current environment continue in this manner, the future break-away South Indian states may envelop it.


 
which south indian state is going to breakaway?

Those south indians who wanted a separate state shut up in no time when the contitution made it criminal to ask for it.


----------



## Ticker

fateh71 said:


> Was Pakistan created for Muslims or Muslims created for Pakistan?



Both were created for each other. That is why a large chunk of India was carved to create this country. And more Muslims were left in India to carve more Pakistan's out of the struggling and bungling Indian remain.



bronxbull said:


> I know many pundits and anyone with common sense would realise the folly of Kashmir being independent.
> 
> It would take something very dramatic.
> 
> In general for Pakistan to attain parity with India,it needs to be economically much stronger than India and only then will we see something happening in Kashmir.
> 
> Else the status quo is here to stay.
> 
> 
> 
> which south indian state is going to breakaway?
> 
> Those south indians who wanted a separate state shut up in no time when the contitution made it criminal to ask for it.



All those South Indian states where the North non-cow eating cow belt people emigrate in large numbers and they would not be able to feed those hungry teeming millions.They can form their own constitution later, no problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bronxbull

Ticker said:


> Both were created for each other. That is why a large chunk of India was carved to create this country. And more Muslims were left in India to carve more Pakistan's out of the struggling and bungling Indian remain.
> 
> 
> 
> All those South Indian states where the North non-cow eating cow belt people emigrate in large numbers and they would not be able to feed those hungry teeming millions.They can form their own constitution later, no problem.




TamilNadu is hard core vegetarian state dude, forget about cow eating.

what do you know? have you been there?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> it's a waste of time to talk about it; but we know on which side there is the most unrest and it sure as hell aint this ISI behind it. Kashmiri nationalism is a purely Kashmiri phenomenon and it's a reaction to them being pushed against a wall and a reaction as a direct result of draconian laws and measures imposed on them.
> 
> It's basic human nature.
> 
> but neither do i have the time nor the need to convince y'all coz the writings already on the wall.
> 
> Curiously, amongst the younger generations it's more of a secular nationalist movement religion plays a less dominant role here. Even many of the supposedly oppressed pundits are increasingly vocal, you just wont hear about it in that heavily regulated media of yours


 

Well, J&K has a bumper tourist season and there has been hardly any noise and unrest.. 


On the contrary, the murmurs from the west of LOC are increasing at a steady pace..

Gilgit violence - thenews.com.pk

Army deployed in Gilgit as violence leaves 10 dead, 40 injured | DAWN.COM

Violence-hit Gilgit faces shortage of essentials | DAWN.COM

13 killed in sectarian violence in Gilgit, Chilas | Pakistan Today | Latest news | Breaking news | Pakistan News | World news | Business | Sport and Multimedia

Gilgit-Baltistan sectarianism: Police chief denies foreign hand in violence &#8211; The Express Tribune

Anti-Militant Protests Rock Kashmir

`Milaap Rally in Neelam Valley opposes Pakistan-backed terrorism , World , Aninews

Strike in Neelum valley against militant activities | DAWN.COM

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

We have had to recite various fundamentals of the freedom struggle and of the events during partition and independence of India and Pakistan, almost as if these were new discoveries, to be announced to an incredulous audience. Unfortunately, these detailed narratives have to be repeated almost on a quarterly basis, as new members come on board, and ask the same old questions, with the same old hackneyed remnants of partisan argument as the answers already known. It would be nice if the detailed sections could be preserved for future use.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kurup

Ticker said:


> All those South Indian states where the North non-cow eating cow belt people emigrate in large numbers and they would not be able to feed those hungry teeming millions.They can form their own constitution later, no problem.



Well south indians don't give a $hit to what a pakistani thinks about us .....

We are loyal Indian citizens and will remain so .......


----------



## INDIC

karan.1970 said:


> Well, J&K has a bumper tourist season and there has been hardly any noise and unrest..
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the murmurs from the west of LOC are increasing at a steady pace..
> 
> Gilgit violence - thenews.com.pk
> 
> Army deployed in Gilgit as violence leaves 10 dead, 40 injured | DAWN.COM
> 
> Violence-hit Gilgit faces shortage of essentials | DAWN.COM
> 
> 13 killed in sectarian violence in Gilgit, Chilas | Pakistan Today | Latest news | Breaking news | Pakistan News | World news | Business | Sport and Multimedia
> 
> Gilgit-Baltistan sectarianism: Police chief denies foreign hand in violence &#8211; The Express Tribune
> 
> Anti-Militant Protests Rock Kashmir
> 
> `Milaap Rally&#8217; in Neelam Valley opposes Pakistan-backed terrorism , World , Aninews
> 
> Strike in Neelum valley against militant activities | DAWN.COM



There was widespread protest in Kargil against the killings in Gilgit. There are lots of videos on youtube.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Nassr said:


> Pakistan *only provides moral and diplomatic support* to the freedom movement in Kashmir. It is the Kashmiris themselves who are fighting for independence from India and it is their right to seek freedom and even pick up arms for this struggle as enshrined in the UN Charter. Please learn to live with it.



Which part of _only moral and diplomatic support_ includes forming militant groups?>



> SPIEGEL: Why did you form militant underground groups to fight India in Kashmir?
> 
> Musharraf: They were indeed formed. The government turned a blind eye because they wanted India to discuss Kashmir.



'Pakistan is Always Seen as the Rogue'



> invaded and captured Goa in 1961 which was an area belonging to Portugal,



Seriously! 



> invaded East Pakistan in 1971,



Of course operation Chengiz had nothing to do with it.




> created Sri Lankan terrorist group LTTE



India created LTTE? source




> invaded Maldives in 1988



Operation cactus = invasion of Maldives? 

Gayoom or Maldivan Govt never appealed

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

Ticker said:


> Both were created for each other. That is why a large chunk of India was carved to create this country. *And more Muslims were left in India to carve more Pakistan's out of the struggling and bungling Indian remain.*



After your experience with North Indians aka Muhajirs in Karachi, no surprise in your comment.


----------



## Ticker

Gigawatt said:


> There was widespread protest in Kargil against the killings in Gilgit. There are lots of videos on youtube.


 
Iranian influence amongst the Kargil Shia population is much more than that of India. I don't know how you guys look at it, but when the Americans were invading Iraq, much more protests were organized by these people.



Gigawatt said:


> After your experience with North Indians aka Muhajirs in Karachi, no surprise in your comment.



My people also emigrated from India during partition. They didn't call themselves muhajirs, neither do I. It is their political struggle and they moved away from this many many years ago and now don't call themselves muhajirs. Although some still do, perticularly those who migrated late and have links with their relatives in India. Over a period of time this is going to fade as younger generation who were born in Pakistan lose their contacts with those across. This is happening at a steady pace. 

Tamils can't be compared with muhajirs of Pakistan as they don't have a muhajir akin state in India.



Syama Ayas said:


> *Which part of only moral and diplomatic support includes forming militant groups?*>
> 
> 'Pakistan is Always Seen as the Rogue'
> 
> Seriously!
> 
> Of course operation Chengiz had nothing to do with it.
> 
> India created LTTE? source
> 
> Operation cactus = invasion of Maldives?
> 
> Gayoom or Maldivan Govt never appealed



All of it. What's your problem. You did and do the same and if you can why can't we. 



octopus said:


> Well south indians don't give a $hit to what a pakistani thinks about us .....
> 
> We are loyal Indian citizens and will remain so .......



hehe ..... OK

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Nassr said:


> Sir,
> 
> When you keep one eye shut, you can only see through the other eye.
> 
> 
> When Jinnah visited Kashmir, incidentally on the invitation of Sheikh Abdullah who wanted him to come to Srinagar and help remove the differences between National and Muslim Conference. The overwhelming welcome and the kind of massive reception he was accorded in Srinagar by the Kashmiris is a fact of history. The whole of Srinagar came out to receive him, even people from far flung areas came in large numbers. He stayed there for over a month.
> 
> 
> Contrarily, when Pandit Nehru visited Srinagar, when his procession was moving on boats on Jhelum River, people standing along the river threw dirty shoes and muck at Nehru.



Truly? Well, well. I find that I am a one-eyed man, being led by the blind.




> Tariq Ali...in his book The Clash of Fundamentalism: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity...in a chapter dedicated to Kashmir titled, The Story of Kashmir,...tells us:
> 
> Sheikh Abdullah promised liberation from Dogra rule and pledges land reform; Nehru perched the virtues of unremitting struggle against the empire and insisted that social reform could come only after the departure of the british; Ghaffar Khan spoke of the need for mass struggle and urged Kashmiris to throw fear to the wind: You who live in the valley must learn to scale the highest peaks.
> 
> In the last week of May 1940, Nehru along with Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan paid a visit to Kashmir on an invitation of Sheikh Abdullah. This was when Nehru talked of Kashmir as a beloved. While Nehru was talking about Kashmir as a beloved, there were certain developments in the political scene of Kashmir that were to sow the seeds of a lasting turmoil.
> 
> In Srinagar, the summer capital of Kashmir, on May 30, 1940 Nehru made an appeal to Kashmiri pandits advising them to support Sheikh Abdullahs party National Conference (NC) in its struggle to assume power. Only recently, some pandit leaders had resigned from National Conference alleging an "oppressive communal atmosphere". In April 1940, on Id Miladun Nabi day, Sheikh Abdullah made a very religious speech that made the pandit members of the party suspicious of the partys secular nature. Prominent Kashmir pandit leaders of the party made strong protests, these inculed Pt. Jia Lal Kilam, Pt. Tarachand Bulbul who was popularly known as Kashyap Bandhu and Prernnath Bazaz, one of Sheikhs closest allies, and a man whose standing is still very dicey even among the preset generation of Kashmiri pandits. The affair took a dramatic turn when Kashyap Bandhu and Jai Lal Kilam resigned from National Conference. But, Rushid Taseer writing in Twarikh-e-Hurriyat Kashmir (pages 90-99 vol II) gives an another reason for their resignation. According to the author, Pt. Nehrus beloved trip was the real reason of discord. On 29th May 1940, Kashyap Bandhu objected to Nehrus visit and asked Sheikh Sahib with whose permission he had invited Pt. Nehru. This little tiff led Kilam and Bandhu to resign from National Conference. They were to later rejoin the partys working committee on June 1943.
> 
> This beloved trip, an enthusiastic crowd welcomed, these were Sheikh Abdullahs followers; as also there were hostile demonstrations by certain people opposed to this alliance between Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah, their numbers yet minuscule.
> 
> Who were these protesters?
> 
> In 1931, Muslim Conference was formed in Srinagar, Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, who had recently returned to Srinagar after doing his Masters in Chemistry, left his Government job as a teacher and became its first President. The party formed in response to Maharajas oppressive rule, among other things was having agendas like land reforms and removal of heavy taxation. This party, a representative of majority Muslim community of Kashmir, also had Hindu members like Pt. Prem Nath Bazaz and Kashap Bandhu and the lone Sikh leader, Sardar Budh Singh*, as its member. The national demands of self-rule were passed unanimously on 27th Aug. 1938. These minority leaders were among the signatories to the demand of self-government. Most of the Pandit community remained indifferent to these developments if not yet opening dismissive. It is pertinent to note here that initially the Pandits were even hostile to the social and cultural changes suggested by Kashyap Bandhu within the Pandit community. +
> 
> The party jumped into a more culturally inclusive politics in early 1938 after Sheikh Abdullahs chance meeting with Pandit Nehru at Lahore railway station when the latter was on his way to North West Frontier Province (NWFP). Nehru was on his way to meet the Punjab President of the Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC) Mian Iftikharuddin and incidentally, Sheikh Abdullah and Bakhshi Ghulam Muhammad were the personal guests of Mian Iftikharuddin at that time. They accompanied Mina to meet Nehru at the railway station. The two Kashmiris, Abdullah and Nehru, formed an instant bond andNehru asked Abdullah to accompany him to the NWFP. The Sheikh agreed while G. M. Bakhshi got off at Shahadra station. In NWFP, they met Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan where Abdullah invited both Nehru and Ghaffar Khan for a visit to Kashmir.
> 
> The outcome of this chance meeting was: In March 11, 1939, Sheikh in his address to the standing committee of the state's Peoples Conference, declared his support of the Indian National Congress. On the 26th March, the Kashmiri delegation lead by the Sheikh met Gandhi in Delhi. On his return to Srinagar, for the first time the flag of Indian National Congress was hoisted at the roof of the headquarters of Muslim Conference at Mujahid Manzil Srinagar. *Many of the Muslim Conference members were mystified by the decision that was ratified by the partys General Council on April 26, 1939. Some Muslim Conference leaders including Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas, a man with considerable clout over the party, opposed this move. Later, these very people and their supporters were to voice their dissent during Nehrus visit. They were the protesters who couldnt understand why religion was being kept out of the agenda.*



A later visit showed that the communal element had organised.



> "I can say with certainty that he [Sheikh Abdullah] is in the wrong. Having got himself ensnared by the Congress, which is thoroughly a Hindu organisation, he has put the ship of his community in a whirlpool. I understand that he is doing this out of ignorance and some misunderstanding. But I am fully satisfied that he will soon realise his mistake and will return to the right path, and will come to know that those whom he is considering his friends and at whose beck and call he is acting, are not his true friends but his enemies."
> Yet, in his 1936 private visit to Kashmir, Jinnah in his liberal avatar, had almost ceremoniously advised harmony between Hindus and Muslims.
> 
> Another significant visitor to Kashmir in the year 1944 was V.D.Savarkar, the man behind Hindutva ideology. It is equally interesting to note that Pandit S.N.Fotedar, the President of Yuvak Sabha told Savarkar that Hindu Fundamentalism was as alien a culture to Kashmir as Muslim Fundamentalism was. Much later in 1953, a point man of Hindutva, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, was to loose his life in Kashmir.
> 
> In the changed political scenario post Quit India Movement of 1945, Nehru along with Azad and Gaffar Khan, all recently released from prison, paid a visit to Kashmir and was given a rousing reception by NC, the reception included a splendid river procession. There were threats of disruption issued by the MC, and disruptions there were. This time the voice of dissent was stronger than ever, and on his arrival in Srinagar, the people took to streets in large numbers shouting slogans like "Go back Nehru". The Kashmiri society started to segregate along religious lines.
> 
> On 7th August 1945, Nehru advised Kashmiri Pandits (reported in the Hindu of 10 August) [] to join it (NC) in much larger numbers and thereby influence its decisions." Nehru was counting on Sheikh and he expected a broad support for him and did all he could to make it possible.




And we were informed in solemnly intoned words about a contrasting visit; let us re-visit that as well.



> This decision also widened the rift between Jinnah and Abdullah; the rift that was etched out during Jinnah's visit to the Valley in May 1944. There was war of words between Mr. Jinnah who called the leaders of NC as 'a gang of goondas' and Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah who retorted by saying "If Mr. Jinnah does not give up his habit of interfering in our politics, it will be difficult for him to go back in an honourable manner." The long visit that lasted two months and a week was quite eventful, *in one incident at a public meeting in Baramullas Masjid Lawns, the crowd almost heckled Jinnah when he got up on dais to speak. People rose up, unfolding banners with slogans: 'Hindu Muslim Sikh Itihad - Zindabad' and 'Qaid-e-Azam Sheri Kashmir, Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah - Zindabad'. The event further rattled wary Jinnah.* It is interesting to note that Alastair Lamb in his book Kashmir Disputed Legacy (Page 97) sums up this long visit of Jinnah writing:
> 
> " M.A. Jinnah, unlike Jawaharlal Nehru was extremely reluctant at this period of time to involve himself directly (or the Muslim League which he headed) in the internal affairs of the Princely State; such action would in his eyes have been constitutionally improper.
> 
> *Instead it seems more likely that Jinnah found himself struggling against the Kashmiri leadership of the time, its private resolve and Congress influence on it. His talk about "Muslims have one platform, one Kalima and one God... All Muslims must come under one flag" found no appreciation.*
> 
> Lines were going to be drawn and the process had started.
> 
> Earlier in April 1, 1939, Jinnah, in his reply to an address presented by Kashmiri students at the Aligarh Muslim University, declaimed:
> 
> "I can say with certainty that he [Sheikh Abdullah] is in the wrong. Having got himself ensnared by the Congress, which is thoroughly a Hindu organisation, he has put the ship of his community in a whirlpool. I understand that he is doing this out of ignorance and some misunderstanding. But I am fully satisfied that he will soon realise his mistake and will return to the right path, and will come to know that those whom he is considering his friends and at whose beck and call he is acting, are not his true friends but his enemies."
> 
> Yet, in his 1936 private visit to Kashmir, Jinnah in his liberal avatar, had almost ceremoniously advised harmony between Hindus and Muslims.



I leave it to those blessed with better sight to decide who is one-eyed and who is blind in this matter. But we linger and tarry; it is still a long way to St. Dunstan's.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

Ticker said:


> Iranian influence amongst the Kargil Shia population is much more than that of India. I don't know how you guys look at it, but when the Americans were invading Iraq, much more protests were organized by these people.



Your point here. Even Shias in Pakistan are more inclined to Iran and hate Arabs. 



Ticker said:


> My people also emigrated from India during partition. They didn't call themselves muhajirs, neither do I. It is their political struggle and they moved away from this many many years ago and now don't call themselves muhajirs. Although some still do, perticularly those who migrated late and have links with their relatives in India. Over a period of time this is going to fade as younger generation who were born in Pakistan lose their contacts with those across. This is happening at a steady pace.
> 
> Tamils can't be compared with muhajirs of Pakistan as they don't have a muhajir akin state in India.




The fact is friend before 1947 you considered all Muslims of subcontinent as one people but look at your your mentality now you guys talk of separate nation for Indian Muslims instead of talking of rejoining them. Your experience with Muhajirs has took you to this position, most recent example is disowning of Biharis. Now you consider them as three Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis even trying to prove the difference with Skin color.


----------



## Joe Shearer

What next? Oh, the split in the National Conference, and the departure of a grumpy, sulking Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas.





> 2. Took advantage of the emergence of a minority faction in the National Conference and its revolt against the state administration to promote an attack on the state forces;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, when Indian leadership did it, you in another response elsewhere called it real-politik. When Muslims League approached the local leaders for support it becomes advantage taking !
> 
> When Mountbatten was retained as the Governor General, Hindus named him as Pandit Mountbatten for nothing, did they! It has been proved from historical evidence that Indian advantage taking and scheming had started much earlier between the Congress leaders and Maharaja of Kashmir, much much before the intrusion of Pathans in Kashmir even began and based on which the Indian invasion of Kashmir was blamed on.
> 
> Even Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel wrote a letter to the Maharaja four months before Pathan intrusion. This was clearly in reply to a letter from Maharaja. Through this letter also it has been clearly identified that when Pandit Mountbatten visited the vale of Kashmir, he could not properly explain the reasons for Kashmirs accession to Maharaja and therefore, he invited the Maharaja to visit Delhi to meet Pandit Mountbatten again so that the details could be explained to him. These letters have been published and are available for you to read and confirm.
Click to expand...



First, I would like you to reproduce the passage where i called this, that or the other real-politik.

Second, every point of the argument that you have put forward has been methodically refuted. If you have nothing new to add, nor have any response to the points presented by me, then stating what you have stated becomes a cut-and-paste job, you Re invited either to say something new, say something to refute the counter-arguments or to lead a discussion - elsewhere - on the aerodynamic qualities of HMS Ark Royal.


----------



## Joe Shearer

We come now from our statistics and history lessons to geography.

Webmaster, as I am an educated man in distressed financial circumstances, could I be paid a small fee for these classes that are being conducted at such regular intervals?

For this part, please have ready before we start (I) a map of the J&K state; (II) compasses and a scale, to measure distance; (III) soft cushions, four to six in number.



> 3. Justified the looting, rape, abduction and killing of Muslims (93.7% of the Vale was Muslim) by the invaders;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Sir, it was justified by Hindu Indians and their leaders much before the Pathan ingresses in to Kashmir to save the Muslims from being completely massacred by marauding Hindu invaders from India. It was all started by and planned in meetings between rulers of Alwar, Kapurthala and Patiala etc with Maharaja of Kashmir.
> 
> And, the intrusion of Pathans has been blamed for everything. However, does any of you even know that after the pogrom in Punjab where Muslims were killed in millions in order to ethnically cleanse the areas and change the demography, where did these marauding Hindu and Sikh hordes were sent to? No you wouldnt know or probably wouldnt want to acknowledge it  these hordes were sent to Jammu to loot, rape, abduct and kill Muslims.
> 
> As planned, in the initial instance, they intended to ethnically cleanse areas of Jammu where Muslims were in minority. Between July and October 47, over 500,000 Muslims were thrown out of their homes, out of which 200,000 thousand were killed and about 300,000 were forced to emigrate to Pakistan. This was the first stage of this operation. The Pathans came to safeguard the Muslims from hordes of marauding Sikhs and fundamentalist Hindus.
Click to expand...


Again, this has been answered, and nowhere refuted.

However, the geography needs examination. 

There was devastation in Jammu, a town closer to the plains of the Punjab. The protective measures were extended to Baramula, Srinagar and other towns in the Vale.

Even more curious is the form the protection took ( to be continued).


----------



## EzioAltaïr

You guys make me laugh. Kashmiri nationalism is a Kashmiri phenomenon? Yet when I (a Hindu) went there, they treated me as their brother and didn't pelt me with stones? Kashmiris don't want to be a part of Pakistan (they may have wanted independence once, but since their neighbours won't give 'em that right, they have left it alone), they speak of the so called "freedom fighters" as ****, they only want peace, nothing else.


----------



## SamantK

Joe Shearer said:


> We come now from our statistics and history lessons to geography.
> 
> Webmaster, as I am an educated man in distressed financial circumstances, could I be paid a small fee for these classes that are being conducted at such regular intervals?
> 
> For this part, please have ready before we start (I) a map of the J&K state; (II) compasses and a scale, to measure distance; (III) soft cushions, four to six in number.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this has been answered, and nowhere refuted.
> 
> However, the geography needs examination.
> 
> There was devastation in Jammu, a town closer to the plains of the Punjab. The protective measures were extended to Baramula, Srinagar and other towns in the Vale.
> 
> Even more curious is the form the protection took ( to be continued).



Sir, I see you toiling against these ignorants to show them right from wrong, do they even care? I do not think so, so why exert yourself.. Let it be! 


Now I have to listen to the Beatles.. Damn!


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Gigawatt said:


> There was widespread protest in Kargil against the killings in Gilgit. There are lots of videos on youtube.



i heard about even more widespread rioting after Shopian rapes, and the uncovering of more mass graves (what was the final body count?)


to even juxtapose the level of unrest of east side of LoC with west side is basically ignoring ground realities. No matter how much you try to spin it.


as for economy -- Kashmir isnt a conflict of economics; and even though there is a sectarian dimension to it that has kept Kashmiris somewhat divided at times -- the younger generations see it more as a secular nationalist movement. 

the whole pundits oppression thing has been exaggerated though it is true that there were crimes against pundits (as there were against Muslims by the occupation forces)


Kashmiri Pandits: Why we never fled Kashmir - Kashmir: The forgotten conflict - Al Jazeera English


----------



## SamantK

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> i heard about even more widespread rioting after Shopian rapes, and the uncovering of more mass graves (what was the final body count?)



Atleast you know of the mass graves and then people say that media is heavily regulated.. India would not have like that news to come out..




> to even juxtapose the level of unrest of east side of LoC with west side is basically ignoring ground realities. No matter how much you try to spin it.



How did you compare, did you invent a new device to measure unrest keeping all the factors constant, removing the insurgency angle Pakistan has actively supported?



> as for economy -- Kashmir isnt a conflict of economics; and even though there is a sectarian dimension to it that has kept Kashmiris somewhat divided at times -- the younger generations see it more as a secular nationalist movement.



The younger generations are more educated, they know what is the reality and have the means... I will challenge you that once the insurgency is removed completely your assertions will be nullified..


----------



## INDIC

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> to even juxtapose the level of unrest of east side of LoC with west side is basically ignoring ground realities. No matter how much you try to spin it.



Even a Pakistani citizen need government permission to visit the Pakistani side of Jammu and Kashmir and everything is well censored. So, how will I know the comparison. Freedom house rate Pakistan controlled J&K as "Not Free". Pakistan just applied Soviet-Afghan war tactics in Kashmir which causes more bloodshed but the tactic failed.




Abu Zolfiqar said:


> as for economy -- Kashmir isnt a conflict of economics; and even though there is a sectarian dimension to it that has kept Kashmiris somewhat divided at times -- the younger generations see it more as a secular nationalist movement.



Its a lost cause.


----------



## Nassr

Joe Shearer said:


> Truly? Well, well. I find that I am a one-eyed man, being led by the blind.
> 
> A later visit showed that the communal element had organised.
> 
> And we were informed in solemnly intoned words about a contrasting visit; let us re-visit that as well.
> 
> I leave it to those blessed with better sight to decide who is one-eyed and who is blind in this matter. But we linger and tarry; it is still a long way to St. Dunstan's.



Sir,
The title of the book says it all. The author&#8217;s orientation is towards religion and fundamentalism etc leading to the present time. He for obvious reasons could not explain the Kashmiri movement in other details which are necessary in order to look at it objectively. 

One cannot explain everything in detail but in the limited space that one can, let me highlight certain aspects. Sheikh Abdullah, since 1930 when he emerged on the political scene, swung like a pendulum between representing the oppressed Kashmiri Muslims, liberalistic thoughts and inclination towards Congress. Incidently, I hope you agree that the majority Kashmiri Muslims were terribly oppressed under the Maharaja rule, as so much has been written on this by independent observers that it is difficult to deny it. Sheikh Abdullah&#8217;s liberal views were needed for support of Hindu Pandits and Congress. But when he would cross certain lines, he would tend to lose his stature amongst his Muslim followers. 

He also wanted to become famous. Gandhi was known as Mahatma, Ghaffar Khan was known as Sarhaddi Gandhi, Abdus Samad Achakzai was known as Gandhi of Balochistan and he wanted to become Kashmiri Gandhi. This would also tend to lose his Muslim support which was his base. So, for Muslim support he would make certain speeches and for the rest, he would make conciliatory statements to suit their needs. 

In one such mode, in 1940 on Eide-e-Miladun Nabi, while addressing a Muslim gathering he identified Islam as the rising of sun and other religions as stars which would lose their spark as the sun would rise. This put him squarely against his liberal credentials and resulted in his falling apart with his Hindu Pandit friends. In a National Conference meeting when he was asked about his statement, he got angry and said he believed in what he said. Yet when he realized that this went against him in Congress he retracted. Later, when he felt that his Muslims supporters were getting annoyed he once again in a gathering said the same thing. This further alienated the Hindu and Congress allies. 

Pandit Premnath Bazaz was Sheikh Abdullah&#8217;s friend and had served 3 year&#8217;s jail sentence with him. But on his statement about Islam being a sun, he and others went against him. Bazaz, also wrote a book titled Inside Kashmir in which he crtisized National Conference. Sheikh who also befriended the Prime Minister of Kashmir, Iyenger, a fundamentalist leaning Hindu helped to ban the book in Kashmir. But Bazaz went on speaking against Sheikh and made damaging revelations against him, which alienated His Muslim supporters. 

By the time Nehru visited Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah&#8217;s Muslim Conference was broken in to National Conference and its liberal constitution was re-written. This had further alienated Muslims and it were mostly Hindu traders, Pandits and limited Muslims remained to welcome him in Srinagar. 

Sir to know who is blind and who is blessed with 20/20, please read Blind Men of Hindoostan by General Sunderjee &#8211; not for this topic indeed. 

Indeed it is long way to St Dunstan&#8217;s and offcourse Hanuz Dilli Door Ast

Please tell me when I start irritating you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Nassr said:


> Sir,
> The title of the book says it all. The author&#8217;s orientation is towards religion and fundamentalism etc leading to the present time.
> 
> ....
> 
> Indeed it is long way to St Dunstan&#8217;s and offcourse Hanuz Dilli Door Ast
> 
> Please tell me when I start irritating you.



It will be a snowy day in hell when you start irritating me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nassr

Joe Shearer said:


> What next? Oh, the split in the National Conference, and the departure of a grumpy, sulking Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas.
> 
> First, I would like you to reproduce the passage where i called this, that or the other real-politik.
> 
> Second, every point of the argument that you have put forward has been methodically refuted. If you have nothing new to add, nor have any response to the points presented by me, then stating what you have stated becomes a cut-and-paste job, you Re invited either to say something new, say something to refute the counter-arguments or to lead a discussion - elsewhere - on the aerodynamic qualities of HMS Ark Royal.


 
Sir,

I am sorry but No, you have not methodically refuted anything I have written so far. I have not done a cut and paste job as well. I've given my honest opinion as I have read in so many places and have quoted these on many occasions as well. I have repeatedly presented counter arguments and new ones as well. 

Regarding aerodynamic qualities of HMS Ark Royal or sea worthiness of Minuteman missile, we can certainly have many more discussions 

In another thread probably, I had requested that discussions on such topics are never-ending really. You have a viewpoint which you feel is correct and I have my viewpoint which I feel is the right one. The opposite banks of a river never meet, but these can be happily co-joined by the peaceful flow of the river in between occasionally overflowing during floods. 

So can we.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Nassr said:


> Sir,
> 
> I am sorry but No, you have not methodically refuted anything I have written so far. I have not done a cut and paste job as well. I've given my honest opinion as I have read in so many places and have quoted these on many occasions as well. I have repeatedly presented counter arguments and new ones as well.
> 
> Regarding aerodynamic qualities of HMS Ark Royal or sea worthiness of Minuteman missile, we can certainly have many more discussions
> 
> In another thread probably, I had requested that discussions on such topics are never-ending really. You have a viewpoint which you feel is correct and I have my viewpoint which I feel is the right one. The opposite banks of a river never meet, but these can be happily co-joined by the flow of the peaceful flow of the river in between occasionally overflowing during floods.
> 
> So can we.



Hmmm. You have a way with words, and have done your homework, no bad things in this crowd of young scalawags. You remind me of the best of the members about five years ago. The quality of discussion was far better. 

I am forced to be intermittent, part because of the limitations of working with a touchscreen keyboard, ameliorated to some extent by being a touch typist, part because of living alone after a recent bereavement and having to deal with unexpected domestic issues, which my wife can counsel me about only on the trunk line. Bear with me.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nassr

Joe Shearer said:


> It will be a snowy day in hell when you start irritating me.



And a jungle fire at the Pole, if I have to stop reading the beauty that your touch screen throws through the ether-net.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

Nassr said:


> And a jungle fire at the Pole, if I have to stop reading the beauty that your touch screen throws through the ether-net.



And I can sit and read you 2 chatting all day

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

samantk said:


> Atleast you know of the mass graves and then people say that media is heavily regulated.. India would not have like that news to come out..



locals reported it to the media; it sure as hell wasnt indian media

why do you think foreign press is BANNED from reporting there 

you dotheads believe your own lies


----------



## notsuperstitious

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> locals reported it to the media; it sure as hell wasnt indian media
> 
> why do you think foreign press is BANNED from reporting there
> 
> you dotheads believe your own lies


 
Talking of numbskulls believing their own lies...







Riyaz Masroor, BBC World Correspondent, Srinagar, India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ticker

fateh71 said:


> Talking of numbskulls believing their own lies...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riyaz Masroor, BBC World Correspondent, Srinagar, India.



This guy has a towel on placed on his chair so that his chair doesn't get dirty with his sweat or the oil in his hair. Good God and he is BBC World Correspondent in Srinagar. No wonder the moron can not report anything from there. Probably this is still the norm in India and their babus behave this way. Yuck.

But @Abu Zolfiqar is correct. The information about discovery of mass graves was reported first by New York Times and not an Indian news outlet or an Indian working for a foreign news outlet, like the tauliyay wala moron sitting above.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

fateh71 said:


> Talking of numbskulls believing their own lies...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riyaz Masroor, BBC World Correspondent, Srinagar, India.



It's a vicious cycle, Fateh

Kashmiri journalists have been deprived of presenting true political picture of events in indian occupied Kashmir. It is one of the most unreported regions of the global world. Number of your forces present in the Kashmir region is more than half a million. AFSPA erodes media freedom and rights of journalists. Your forces (sissies) hush up the damaging details of events from the community of journalists. Hell -- why do you think even SMS service is banned there?

It was 11 June 2010 when your security forces (sissies) killed a youth in Sri Nagar. The schoolboy was returning home from tuitions. Incidents like these -- or raping and dumping of Kashmiri teenage girls or the killing and dumping of men in fake encounters is what causes these vicious cycles. Naturally people will resist.


as for Riyaz Masroor -- this BBC reporter -- we know what happened to him already. Many others been through the same treatment.




> Police on Friday beat up the senior journalist, Riyaz Masroor, working with Urdu service of BBC, outside his residence at Alocha Bagh in Srinagar.
> 
> &#8220;I received a phone call from the Information department this morning asking me come and collect the new curfew passes. As soon as I reached near the main road, policemen deployed there beat me up mercilessly,&#8221; Masroor said.
> 
> Masroor had received multiple injuries and his left arm had been fractured.



Curfew enforce strictly on call for Hazratbal Chalo, Police beat up journalist « Agence India Press

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EzioAltaïr

Kashmiris *DON'T* want Pakistan. Half wanna remain with India others wanna seperate, but no one wants to join Pakistan. If they really wanted to join, why did they report the insurgency when Pakistan launched Operation Gibraltar? Get real guys.

And you want a referendum? We agreed to it long ago, in 1947, and UN agreed that it could only be done if Pakistan vacated *** completely, to allow for a fair referendum. Pakistan denied, and lost its chance, don't blame us now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> locals reported it to the media; it sure as hell wasnt indian media
> 
> why do you think foreign press is BANNED from reporting there
> 
> you dotheads believe your own lies



Say what you want but he was able to put the news out.. Also the human rights India played its part in uncovering these graves... We will deal with them... Obviously many in those graves are crack heads which had been given the promise of 72 hoors...

India did not do all those without any reason, if Pakistan would not have had those ****** training camps right from 1989 all this would not have happened... So, it will not be wrong to say that the *root cause for the mass graves is Pakistan*. It's a shame



Abu Zolfiqar said:


> It's a vicious cycle, Fateh
> 
> Kashmiri journalists have been deprived of presenting true political picture of events in indian occupied Kashmir. It is one of the most unreported regions of the global world. Number of your forces present in the Kashmir region is more than half a million. AFSPA erodes media freedom and rights of journalists. Your forces (sissies) hush up the damaging details of events from the community of journalists. Hell -- why do you think even SMS service is banned there?
> 
> It was 11 June 2010 when your security forces (sissies) killed a youth in Sri Nagar. The schoolboy was returning home from tuitions. Incidents like these -- or raping and dumping of Kashmiri teenage girls or the killing and dumping of men in fake encounters is what causes these vicious cycles. Naturally people will resist.
> 
> 
> as for Riyaz Masroor -- this BBC reporter -- we know what happened to him already. Many others been through the same treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curfew enforce strictly on call for Hazratbal Chalo, Police beat up journalist « Agence India Press



They have been deprived cause the events are influenced by Pakistani insurgents and terrorists..


----------



## zynga

pak should handover the regions they are occupying like GB, NWFP and P0K back to india and resolve the conflict. they should also compensate ind for giving AC to chine


----------



## Samlee

zynga said:


> pak should handover the regions they are occupying like GB, NWFP and P0K back to india and resolve the conflict. they should also compensate ind for giving AC to chine




OH JUST SHUT UP



samantk said:


> Say what you want but he was able to put the news out.. Also the human rights India played its part in uncovering these graves... We will deal with them... Obviously many in those graves are crack heads which had been given the promise of 72 hoors...
> 
> India did not do all those without any reason, if Pakistan would not have had those ****** training camps right from 1989 all this would not have happened... So, it will not be wrong to say that the *root cause for the mass graves is Pakistan*. It's a shame
> 
> 
> 
> They have been deprived cause the events are influenced by Pakistani insurgents and terrorists..





Great!!!!!!!! Now Blame Pakistan For Your Crimes


----------



## Yeti

How can you steal something which never belonged to you? the word 'Kashmir' is from Sanskrit "Kashyapa + Mira" which means the sea lake or the mountain of sage Kashyapa. Kashyapa was the originator of Kashmir.


----------



## SamantK

Samlee said:


> OH JUST SHUT UP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great!!!!!!!! Now Blame Pakistan For Your Crimes



That is a fact, if there were no terrorism and infiltration by Pakistan there would not have been the need for AFSPA.. 
We do not like AFSPA ourselves but it is needed to stop Pakistan or the guys who set out to hack an Integral part of India..


----------



## nair

*All those South Indian states where the North non-cow eating cow belt people emigrate in large numbers and they would not be able to feed those hungry teeming millions.They can form their own constitution later, no problem.[/QUOTE]...*

My dear friend... It doesnt matter south, north, east or west... every one of us will be under the constitution what we have today... My friend im from south and in the last 3 years im in living the 3rd state in south... so I know for sure what u said is nothing but CRAP!!!!..
@ Topic... we can discuss as much as we want... but Kashmir is going to remain part of india you like it or not... When u friends talk about kashmir it always remind me of the dialogue of AB in Lakshya.... Apna ghar tho samal nahiin paya... Lekin Nikla duniya par raj karne!!!!


----------



## Samlee

samantk said:


> We do not like AFSPA ourselves but it is needed to stop Pakistan or the guys who set out to hack an Integral part of India..



INTEGRAL MY FOOT KASHMIR IS A DISPUTED TERRITORY


----------



## SamantK

Samlee said:


> INTEGRAL MY FOOT KASHMIR IS A DISPUTED TERRITORY



Increase the font some more and cry me a river!


----------



## Joe Shearer

Samlee said:


> INTEGRAL MY FOOT KASHMIR IS A DISPUTED TERRITORY



Only by one loser.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Samlee

Joe Shearer said:


> Only by one loser.



OH REALLY NOW Iran,Pakistan,China and OIC are All Losers and India Half Which Is Under A Maoist Rebellion Are Winners Real Funny Lol



samantk said:


> Increase the font some more and cry me a river!



Ha The Only People Who Cry Are Indian Trolls Like Yourself Who Yap About "Cross Border Terrorism" to Justify Their Misdeeds.And That Too Crocodile Tears


----------



## SamantK

Samlee said:


> Ha The Only People Who Cry Are Indian Trolls Like Yourself Who Yap About "Cross Border Terrorism" to Justify Their Misdeeds.And That Too Crocodile Tears



Oh please, it is a world accepted fact that Pakistan is at the epi-center of terrorism.. and thanks for making your argument less irritating..


----------



## Executioner



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ticker

AnuragEzio said:


> Kashmiris *DON'T* want Pakistan. Half wanna remain with India others wanna seperate, but no one wants to join Pakistan. If they really wanted to join, why did they report the insurgency when Pakistan launched Operation Gibraltar? Get real guys.
> 
> *And you want a referendum? We agreed to it long ago, in 1947, and UN agreed that it could only be done if Pakistan vacated *** completely, to allow for a fair referendum. Pakistan denied, and lost its chance, don't blame us now*.



Quote from Nassrs post earlier 

Withdrawal of Pakistani Forces from Kashmir is one big contentious point Indians talk about all the time. Sir, when meetings were sought by Pakistan to decide on the framework, strength of Indian remaining forces etc and timings of withdrawal, the Indians balked out and did not hold any meeting. Pakistan was ready to withdraw the forces in order to hold the plebiscite, but it were the Indians who would not sit down to decide on the framework. 

And then, when Nehru didnt intend to allow a plebiscite, withdrawing of Pakistani Forces from Kashmir was not worth it at all. 

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...en-pakistan-mountbatten-38.html#ixzz238rF1IXv

Nehru in his Note, stated that towards the end of 1948 that he ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330). 

Please read the discussion before you opine through the little grayish matter left in your ankles.


----------



## karan.1970

Samlee said:


> INTEGRAL MY FOOT KASHMIR IS A DISPUTED TERRITORY



aawaz mein dum woh laata hai, jiski baat mein dum nahin hota

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ticker

Joe Shearer said:


> Only by one loser.



Yes Sir, the other loser doesn't agree.



karan.1970 said:


> aawaz mein dum woh laata hai, jiski baat mein dum nahin hota



ya wo jo kisi behray ko akal ki baat batana chahta ho


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> Yes Sir, the other loser doesn't agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ya wo jo kisi behray ko akal ki baat batana chahta ho



Really, we had Kashmir last time I checked... Does you knowledge come from your text books, indeed it must have!


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> That is a fact, if there were no terrorism and infiltration by Pakistan there would not have been the need for AFSPA..
> We do not like AFSPA ourselves but it is needed to stop Pakistan or the guys who set out to hack an Integral part of India..



What about North East India and the Naxals. Who are the hackers in this case.


----------



## karan.1970

Ticker said:


> What about North East India and the Naxals. Who are the hackers in this case.



No one.. The Naxals/Maoists now do not want to separate from India. They want to establish their govt in the center.. They are like TTP and not like BLA


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> Really, we had Kashmir last time I checked... Does you knowledge come from your text books, indeed it must have!



Oh you do, please check again. There are some missing integrals in the algorithms.


----------



## DarkPrince

if u guys cant give kashmir 2 pakistan make it an independent state

u guys slaughtering those people in their own land


----------



## illusion8

Ticker said:


> What about North East India and the Naxals. Who are the hackers in this case.



LOL your Muslims minorities are being slaughtered and fleeing, the Gilgit/ Baltistan people want freedom so do the Baloch and the Pashtuns, The Bengali's wanted it and got it and got a genocide in return but achieved it in the end, The Indian Kashmiri's and Indian Muslims do not want anything to do with Pakistan, The Hindu's and Christians want to flee from Pakistan and here you seem worried about the Naxals of India.


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> What about North East India and the Naxals. Who are the hackers in this case.


 A movement which started due to the lack of development and now is supported by foreign elements.. Including Pakistan..


----------



## Ticker

nair said:


> *All those South Indian states where the North non-cow eating cow belt people emigrate in large numbers and they would not be able to feed those hungry teeming millions.They can form their own constitution later, no problem.*


*...*

My dear friend... It doesnt matter south, north, east or west... every one of us will be under the constitution what we have today... My friend im from south and in the last 3 years im in living the 3rd state in south... so I know for sure what u said is nothing but CRAP!!!!..
@ Topic... we can discuss as much as we want... but Kashmir is going to remain part of india you like it or not... When u friends talk about kashmir it always remind me of the *dialogue of AB in Lakshya.... Apna ghar tho samal nahiin paya... Lekin Nikla duniya par raj karne*!!!![/QUOTE]



He was talking about his own people. Dunya par raj to Hindustan hi karna chahta hai, ham nahin. Who is following the fallacy of great emerging super power syndrome.


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> Oh you do, please check again. There are some missing integrals in the algorithms.


 Yeah the least important bits, you can keep them, however there seems plenty of unrest we will take them in if there is a need and opportunity..


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> A movement which started due to the lack of development and now is supported by foreign elements.. Including Pakistan..




dialogue of AB in Lakshya.... Apna ghar tho samal nahiin paya... Lekin Nikla duniya par raj karne

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...en-pakistan-mountbatten-41.html#ixzz2391NAcfO


----------



## INDIC

Samlee said:


> INTEGRAL MY FOOT KASHMIR IS A DISPUTED TERRITORY



Who declared it disputed territory, as Pakistan based terrorist group always urging India to declare Kashmir as disputed territory.


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> Yeah the least important bits, you can keep them, however there seems plenty of unrest we will take them in if there is a need and opportunity..




dialogue of AB in Lakshya.... Apna ghar tho samal nahiin paya... Lekin Nikla duniya par raj karne

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...en-pakistan-mountbatten-41.html#ixzz2391NAcfO



Gigawatt said:


> Who declared it disputed territory, as Pakistan based terrorist group always urging India to declare Kashmir as disputed territory.



tumharay chacha mian, the UNO


----------



## INDIC

Ticker said:


> dialogue of AB in Lakshya.... Apna ghar tho samal nahiin paya... Lekin Nikla duniya par raj karne
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...en-pakistan-mountbatten-41.html#ixzz2391NAcfO



Tumne adha mulq khoya, hmne kuch nahi khoya.


----------



## CZAR

I don't know why this holier than thou approach from our pakistani friends. It doesn't matter if you can prove on PDF that the cause of "azadi" enjoys greater credibility and legitimacy. How does it matter if what india does in kashmir is "sinister" and "hegemonic"? What matters is if you guys can do something about it. Pak's short history is testament to a long list of failed attempts. 

Developments on the international stage are almost always motivated by ulterior motives and are rarely inspired by morals and goodwill. It's for us to say that Kashmir is and integral part of india and for you guys to convince us otherwise, through application of force, not empty moral rhetorical rantings. 

And judging by the tilting balance of power - pak is growing increasingly ill equipped to compel india to reverse its long standing position.


----------



## karan.1970

Ticker said:


> dialogue of AB in Lakshya.... Apna ghar tho samal nahiin paya... Lekin Nikla duniya par raj karne



You do know who he was referring to though.. Right??? 

and hey, you one of those Pakistanis who watch Bollywood and admit it too  ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> dialogue of AB in Lakshya.... Apna ghar tho samal nahiin paya... Lekin Nikla duniya par raj karne
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...en-pakistan-mountbatten-41.html#ixzz2391NAcfO



I said *if* did not say we will try as hard as you guys have done to get Kashmir.. there is a difference between *trying* and *opportunity*. Just like Bangladesh


----------



## INDIC

Ticker said:


> tumharay chacha mian, the UNO



So why everyone in Pakistan always requesting India to declare Kashmir as disputed territory.


----------



## KRAIT

Ticker said:


> ...[/B]
> 
> My dear friend... It doesnt matter south, north, east or west... every one of us will be under the constitution what we have today... My friend im from south and in the last 3 years im in living the 3rd state in south... so I know for sure what u said is nothing but CRAP!!!!..
> @ Topic... we can discuss as much as we want... but Kashmir is going to remain part of india you like it or not... When u friends talk about kashmir it always remind me of the *dialogue of AB in Lakshya.... Apna ghar tho samal nahiin paya... Lekin Nikla duniya par raj karne*!!!!



He was talking about his own people.[/QUOTE]Sir actually the same dialogue is said by intellectuals of your own country. They always said it, and they got more weight in their point after debacle of 1971. Still they are telling you to do so. 

As far as Kashmir is concerned, its going normal, do you hear any news of frequent bomb attacks or terrorist incidents. Now don't bring poor excuse that now Indian Army is doing what those terrorists used to do. Things are getting quite normal.

As my suggestion, first try reviving your economy and tackling insurgencies, then you can come and talk about Kashmir. Kashmir has already cost you a lot. Take a break for atleast a decade, and then bring this issue on the table when you get more authority and weight in your words with strong economy and significant voice in the world.

We already put Kashmir behind as our priority and focused more on other things. Now no country will take side of yours as they can get more from India.


----------



## Ticker

karan.1970 said:


> You do know who he was referring to though.. Right???
> 
> and hey, you one of those Pakistanis who watch Bollywood and admit it too  ??



I don't know what AB is. This guys @nair quoted it. Is it from a movie.


----------



## Ticker

Gigawatt said:


> So why everyone in Pakistan always requesting India to declare Kashmir as disputed territory.




You misunderstood. They are telling Indians to wake up to the realities from the make believing dreams.


----------



## SamantK

Read this and do not go off topic


> ISLAMABAD / SUKKUR: Taking notice of large-scale migration of Hindu families to India because of security concerns, the government has decided to beef up security for religious minorities.
> Talking to reporters after an Iftar here on Thursday, Interior Minister Rehman Malik said visas had been issued to 250 Hindu families under a conspiracy without checking facts.




Malik sees conspiracy behind issuing 250 visas | DAWN.COM

Rehman Malik says that Hindu's will not be allowed to even go to India.. now minorities cannot even travel?

And instead of taking care of their minorities your Minister says it is a conspiracy.. this is sick man

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-n...-Aug-2012/hindus-migration-a-conspiracy-malik


----------



## INDIC

Ticker said:


> You misunderstood. They are telling Indians to wake up to the realities from the make believing dreams.



I am not agreed. Getting Kashmir declared as disputed territory is also one of Pakistan's headache.


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> Read this and do not go off topic
> 
> 
> 
> Malik sees conspiracy behind issuing 250 visas | DAWN.COM
> 
> Rehman Malik says that *Hindu's will not be allowed to even go to India*.. now minorities cannot even travel?





Pakistan is concerned about the safety of its people. There are over 140 armed secessionist groups operating in India, the largest in the world. That is why these people may not be allowed in a country which is infested with such groups, have massive law and order problems, Assam riots are a recent example and lot of people are getting killed. That's the reason.


----------



## karan.1970

Ticker said:


> Pakistan is concerned about the safety of its people. There are over 140 armed secessionist groups operating in India, the largest in the world. That is why these people may not be allowed in a country which is infested with such groups, have massive law and order problems, Assam riots are a recent example and lot of people are getting killed. That's the reason.



Anyplace would be safer, specially for people who are non sunnis than Pakistan.. Probably even Kabul


----------



## INDIC

Ticker said:


> Pakistan is concerned about the safety of its people.* There are over 140 armed secessionist groups operating in India, the largest in the world.* That is why these people may not be allowed in a country which is infested with such groups, have massive law and order problems, Assam riots are a recent example and lot of people are getting killed. That's the reason.



Funniest fact in the world. 



Ticker said:


> Pakistan is concerned about the safety of its people.* There are over 140 armed secessionist groups operating in India, the largest in the world.* That is why these people may not be allowed in a country which is infested with such groups, have massive law and order problems, Assam riots are a recent example and lot of people are getting killed. That's the reason.



Funniest fact in the world.


----------



## Ticker

Gigawatt said:


> I am not agreed. Getting Kashmir declared as disputed territory is also one of Pakistan's headache.




na na . India took it to the UN, we didn't. 

In Punjabi they say ....... Hor Chupo


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> Pakistan is concerned about the safety of its people. There are over 140 armed secessionist groups operating in India, the largest in the world. That is why these people may not be allowed in a country which is infested with such groups, have massive law and order problems, Assam riots are a recent example and lot of people are getting killed. That's the reason.



Pretty sad the reasoning you have presented..

he is saying it is a conspiracy not what you said... yuck you cant even read news now?


----------



## Ticker

Gigawatt said:


> Funniest fact in the world.
> 
> Funniest fact in the world.



You can laugh yourself to death if you wish. Just check if euthanasia is legal in India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

Ticker said:


> na na . India took it to the UN, we didn't.
> 
> In Punjabi they say ....... Hor Chupo



But India never declared Kashmir as disputed territory.


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> Pretty sad the reasoning you have presented..
> 
> he is saying it is a conspiracy not what you said... yuck you cant even read news now?




He is Rehman Malik. Even we don't understand what he is saying.


----------



## KRAIT

Ticker said:


> Pakistan is concerned about the safety of its people. There are over 140 armed secessionist groups operating in India, the largest in the world. That is why these people may not be allowed in a country which is infested with such groups, have massive law and order problems, Assam riots are a recent example and lot of people are getting killed. That's the reason.


O dear, Assam riots are nothing in comparison with your ethnic violence and Karachi situation. In past few years around 35000 Pakistanis are killed in terrorist, ethnic violence, suicide attacks like incidents. Stats are there. 

Let us be worried about our situation and you worry about yours. No one has right to lecture each other as both are struggling. Pakistan a bit more.


----------



## Ticker

Gigawatt said:


> But India never declared Kashmir as disputed territory.




Yes India did agree to UN resolutions which declared IOK as disputed. Then they went to sleep and started dreaming.



KRAIT said:


> O dear, Assam riots are nothing in comparison with your ethnic violence and Karachi situation. In past few years around 35000 Pakistanis are killed in terrorist, ethnic violence, suicide attacks like incidents. Stats are there.
> 
> *Let us be worried about our situation and you worry about yours. No one has right to lecture each other as both are struggling. Pakistan a bit more.*




I agree with you on this count.


----------



## karan.1970

Ticker said:


> Yes India did agree to UN resolutions which declared IOK as disputed. Then they went to sleep and started dreaming.



India dissed that resolution in 1950's.. End of story..


----------



## INDIC

Ticker said:


> Yes India did agree to UN resolutions which declared IOK as disputed. Then they went to sleep and started dreaming.



It said Pakistan should demilitarize Pakistan administered J&K while Indian army will stay in Srinagar and there will be referendum in Kashmir. But Pakistan didn't do that because the looting and killings done by invading Pakistanis made whole of Jammu and Kashmir anti-Pakistan.


----------



## Ticker

karan.1970 said:


> India dissed that resolution in 1950's.. End of story..



You can't just diss a UNSC resolution and then say we want to be a permanent member. The story has not ended yet!


----------



## karan.1970

Ticker said:


> You can't just diss a UNSC resolution and then say we want to be a permanent member. The story has not ended yet!



Yes you can.. Look at Hafiz Saeed, a UN declared terrorist who may well become prime minister of Pakistan in next few years..

btw, it was a non binding resolution


----------



## Ticker

Gigawatt said:


> It said Pakistan should demilitarize Pakistan administered J&K while Indian army will stay in Srinagar and there will be referendum in Kashmir. But Pakistan didn't do that because the looting and killings done by invading Pakistanis made whole of Jammu and Kashmir anti-Pakistan.



Quote from Nassr&#8217;s post earlier &#8230;&#8230;

Withdrawal of Pakistani Forces from Kashmir is one big contentious point Indians talk about all the time. Sir, when meetings were sought by Pakistan to decide on the framework, strength of Indian remaining forces etc and timings of withdrawal, the Indians balked out and did not hold any meeting. Pakistan was ready to withdraw the forces in order to hold the plebiscite, but it were the Indians who would not sit down to decide on the framework. 

And then, when Nehru didn&#8217;t intend to allow a plebiscite, withdrawing of Pakistani Forces from Kashmir was not worth it at all. 

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...en-pakistan-mountbatten-38.html#ixzz238rF1IXv

Nehru in his Note, stated that towards the end of 1948 that he ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330). 

Please read the discussion before you opine through the little grayish matter left in your ankles.


----------



## INDIC

Ticker said:


> You can't just diss a UNSC resolution and then say we want to be a permanent member. The story has not ended yet!



Pakistan is responsible because it never followed the initial conditions of resolution.



Ticker said:


> Quote from Nassr&#8217;s post earlier &#8230;&#8230;
> 
> Withdrawal of Pakistani Forces from Kashmir is one big contentious point Indians talk about all the time. Sir, when meetings were sought by Pakistan to decide on the framework, strength of Indian remaining forces etc and timings of withdrawal, the Indians balked out and did not hold any meeting. Pakistan was ready to withdraw the forces in order to hold the plebiscite, but it were the Indians who would not sit down to decide on the framework.
> 
> And then, when Nehru didn&#8217;t intend to allow a plebiscite, withdrawing of Pakistani Forces from Kashmir was not worth it at all.
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...en-pakistan-mountbatten-38.html#ixzz238rF1IXv
> 
> Nehru in his Note, stated that towards the end of 1948 that he ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330).
> 
> Please read the discussion before you opine through the little grayish matter left in your ankles.



Show me the proof for that.


----------



## Ticker

karan.1970 said:


> Yes you can.. Look at Hafiz Saeed, a UN declared terrorist who may well become prime minister of Pakistan in next few years..
> 
> btw, it was a non binding resolution



Pakistan will continue providing moral and diplomatic support to Kashmiri Freedom Fighters. 



Gigawatt said:


> Pakistan is responsible because it never followed the initial conditions of resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the proof for that.




Get yourself educated. Read various proceedings of different UN commissions and reports tendered to the UN by Pakistan and India. 

Proof about Nehru's Note of not accepting Plebiscite in 1848 has been referenced. Read the book.


----------



## INDIC

Ticker said:


> Get yourself educated. Read various proceedings of different UN commissions and reports tendered to the UN by Pakistan and India.



I didn't ask for your logic, I want proofs, name of some books or website etc.


----------



## K-Xeroid

KRAIT said:


> He was talking about his own people.Sir actually the same dialogue is said by intellectuals of your own country. They always said it, and they got more weight in their point after debacle of 1971. Still they are telling you to do so.
> 
> As far as Kashmir is concerned, its going normal, do you hear any news of frequent bomb attacks or terrorist incidents. Now don't bring poor excuse that now Indian Army is doing what those terrorists used to do. Things are getting quite normal.
> 
> As my suggestion, first try reviving your economy and tackling insurgencies, then you can come and talk about Kashmir. Kashmir has already cost you a lot. Take a break for atleast a decade, and then bring this issue on the table when you get more authority and weight in your words with strong economy and significant voice in the world.
> 
> We already put Kashmir behind as our priority and focused more on other things. Now no country will take side of yours as they can get more from India.


Well ! Bangladesh or Bangalistan only belongs to bangladeshi peoples , their liberation forces killed millions of non-bengalis with help of indian establishment to clearly imposed the basic lesson that its even not for india niether for Pakistan. So Nor they were our people before partition , niether they were same before liberation. We even don't share similar culture niether we had linked bordar so we could communicate and understand each others traditions. Well ! we had faced similar insurgencies in western part too but does it succeded? Leave everything indian forces even not managed to liberate Pakistan's Kashmir on western front. 
As far as Kashmir is concerned I don't support militancey against unarmed public, But peaceful protest is their right and you know better why you have to implement curfew everytime on your part of Kashmir. and , I personnally think that people of Kargil mostly Shia are more nearer to Iran then india or Pakistan


----------



## Ticker

I told you where this information resides. Read it. References are meant for this.


----------



## illusion8

K-Xeroid said:


> Well ! Bangladesh or Bangalistan only belongs to bangladeshi peoples , their liberation forces killed millions of non-bengalis with help of indian establishment to clearly imposed the basic lesson that its even not for india niether for Pakistan. So Nor they were our people before partition , niether they were same before liberation. We even don't share similar culture niether we had linked bordar so we could communicate and understand each others traditions. Well ! we had faced similar insurgencies in western part too but does it succeded? Leave everything indian forces even not managed to liberate *** on western front.
> As far as Kashmir is concerned I don't support militancey against unarmed public, But peaceful protest is their right and you know better why you have to implement curfew everytime on your part of Kashmir. and , I personnally think that people of Kargil mostly Shia are more nearer to Iran then india or Pakistan



Bangladeshi's were on the forefront of making Pakistan so India would never have wanted them in India anyway


----------



## Ticker

K-Xeroid said:


> Well ! Bangladesh or Bangalistan only belongs to bangladeshi peoples , their liberation forces killed millions of non-bengalis with help of indian establishment to clearly imposed the basic lesson that its even not for india niether for Pakistan. So Nor they were our people before partition , niether they were same before liberation. We even don't share similar culture niether we had linked bordar so we could communicate and understand each others traditions. Well ! we had faced similar insurgencies in western part too but does it succeded? Leave everything indian forces even not managed to liberate Pakistan's Kashmir on western front.
> As far as Kashmir is concerned I don't support militancey against unarmed public, But peaceful protest is their right and you know better why you have to implement curfew everytime on your part of Kashmir. and , I personnally think that people of Kargil mostly Shia are more nearer to Iran then india or Pakistan



The right of freedom, even an armed struggle for freedom is enshrined in the UN charter. Subash Chander Bhose was a freedom fighter for India - The Brits called him a traitor and some called him a terrorist. 

One man's freedom fighter is other man's terrorist. 

For us Kashmirirs fighting for freedom from India are freedom fighters and we don't have to be apologetic about this to anyone. 

Pakistan will offcourse provide moral and diplomatic support to them indefinitely till they achieve their aim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

Ticker said:


> The right of freedom, even an armed struggle for freedom is enshrined in the UN charter. Subash Chander Bhose was a freedom fighter for India - The Brits called him a traitor and some called him a terrorist. .



Same logic failed for State of Kalat, annexed and 4 revolts suppressed.


----------



## Ticker

illusion8 said:


> You should try and say on the face of any West Bengali that they are not Indians and see what happens after!



What will happen! More Bangladeshis will settle in West Bengal till the desired demographic change occurs.



Gigawatt said:


> Same logic failed for State of Kalat, annexed and 4 revolts suppressed.



Yes. Any problem with that.


----------



## ares

Ticker said:


> Pakistan is concerned about the safety of its people. There are over 140 armed secessionist groups operating in India, the largest in the world. That is why these people may not be allowed in a country which is infested with such groups, have massive law and order problems, Assam riots are a recent example and lot of people are getting killed. That's the reason.



Really!!?? 
You are the epicenter of Global terrorism ..worlds most wanted terrorists flourish in your land ..you have terrorist attack/bombing/beheading every second day in your country.
Your allies bomb you on a regular basis..just because they believe you to be harboring terrorists.

And you think India is unsafe compared to yours??!!


----------



## KRAIT

K-Xeroid said:


> Well ! Bangladesh or Bangalistan only belongs to bangladeshi peoples , their liberation forces killed millions of non-bengalis with help of indian establishment to clearly imposed the basic lesson that its even not for india niether for Pakistan. So Nor they were our people before partition , niether they were same before liberation. We even don't share similar culture niether we had linked bordar so we could communicate and understand each others traditions. Well ! we had faced similar insurgencies in western part too but does it succeded? Leave everything indian forces even not managed to liberate Pakistan's Kashmir on western front.
> As far as Kashmir is concerned I don't support militancey against unarmed public, But peaceful protest is their right and you know better why you have to implement curfew everytime on your part of Kashmir. and , I personnally think that people of Kargil mostly Shia are more nearer to Iran then india or Pakistan


...Why the hell did I read this, its gibberish.....

You are against all popular beliefs even of Pakistanis. Even they will laugh at you. Read some history.


----------



## K-Xeroid

Agreed with your previous post , Thats why Peoples of disputed territory continued their struggle against occupiers in srinagar section. 



Ticker said:


> What will happen! More Bangladeshis will settle in West Bengal till the desired demographic change occurs.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Any problem with that.


Well ! this same poster seems more worried in Threads related to Bangladeshi Immigrants, Here his typical cheers reflects that term "Akhir dushman ku bhi tu dekhana hey k sub theek hey".


----------



## Ticker

ares said:


> Really!!??
> You are the epicenter of Global terrorism ..worlds most wanted terrorists flourish in your land ..you have terrorist attack/bombing/beheading every second day in your country.
> Your allies bomb you on a regular basis..just because they believe you to be harboring terrorists.
> 
> And you think India is unsafe compared to yours??!!



Yes I do. You have any problem with that.


----------



## karan.1970

Ticker said:


> Pakistan will continue providing moral and diplomatic support to Kashmiri Freedom Fighters.



Exactly.. so UNSC resolution can go into the dustbin... FTW the moral and diplomatic support for the freedom fighters everywhere in the world.. Kashmir, Balochistan etc etc..


----------



## ares

Ticker said:


> Yes I do. You have any problem with that.



Offcourse!! Cause I believe Schizophrenia should not go untreated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

karan.1970 said:


> Exactly.. so UNSC resolution can go into the dustbin... FTW the moral and diplomatic support for the freedom fighters everywhere in the world.. Kashmir, Balochistan etc etc..



Yeah, some of these chaps don't seem to understand. We can give the same _"moral & diplomatic support" _to freedom fighters in Baluchistan with the added advantage that we don't have to worry about any reduction in water due to that _"support", _if you get my drift......


----------



## Ticker

karan.1970 said:


> Exactly.. so UNSC resolution can go into the dustbin... FTW the moral and diplomatic support for the freedom fighters everywhere in the world.. Kashmir, Balochistan etc etc..



Moral and diplomatic support will continue. UN resolutions will also stay.



ares said:


> Offcourse!! Cause I believe Schizophrenia should not go untreated.



Agreed. Please get yourself treated.



Bang Galore said:


> Yeah, some of these chaps don't seem to understand. We can give the same _"moral & diplomatic support" _to freedom fighters in Baluchistan with the added advantage that we don't have to worry about any reduction in water due to that _"support", _if you get my drift......



Aren't you already providing such a support. Please continue. 

Yes you will have to worry about reduction of water, in your knees.


----------



## MandarK

DarkPrince said:


> if u guys cant give kashmir 2 pakistan make it an independent state
> 
> u guys slaughtering those people in their own land



Will you apply the same logic if Burma disputes some BD territory??


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> He is Rehman Malik. Even we don't understand what he is saying.



 but you did not restrain yourself from giving reasons for his statement and decision.. You see that is what is wrong with your country... With nationalism you guys loose your bearings...


----------



## EzioAltaïr

Ticker said:


> Quote from Nassrs post earlier
> 
> Withdrawal of Pakistani Forces from Kashmir is one big contentious point Indians talk about all the time. Sir, when meetings were sought by Pakistan to decide on the framework, strength of Indian remaining forces etc and timings of withdrawal, the Indians balked out and did not hold any meeting. Pakistan was ready to withdraw the forces in order to hold the plebiscite, but it were the Indians who would not sit down to decide on the framework.
> 
> And then, when Nehru didnt intend to allow a plebiscite, withdrawing of Pakistani Forces from Kashmir was not worth it at all.
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...en-pakistan-mountbatten-38.html#ixzz238rF1IXv
> 
> Nehru in his Note, stated that towards the end of 1948 that he ruled out the plebiscite for all practical purposes (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru; volume 19, pages 322-330).
> 
> Please read the discussion before you opine through the little grayish matter left in your ankles.



United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as I've read, Pakistan refused to leave P0K (<---Why is the word blacklisted again?). We wanted an excuse to not hold a plebiscite, you guys gave it to us, . And still Kashmiris prefer India over Pakistan any day.


----------



## toxic_pus

Ticker said:


> Withdrawal of Pakistani Forces from Kashmir is one big contentious point Indians talk about all the time. Sir, when meetings were sought by Pakistan to decide on the framework, strength of Indian remaining forces etc and timings of withdrawal, the Indians balked out and did not hold any meeting. Pakistan was ready to withdraw the forces in order to hold the plebiscite, but it were the Indians who would not sit down to decide on the framework.


Rubbish.

Pakistan was was demanding something that they were not entitled to. I am quoting one of my earlier posts with minor adaptation.

Part II/B(1) of Cease Fire Agreement (13th August, 1948) reads:


_When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, *the Government of India agrees* to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be *agreed upon with the Commission*_​

Nehru, while seeking clarifications on the resolution of 13th Aug, 1948, had sought to identify the parties to the negotiation concerning demilitarization. He wrote to Joseph Korbel, the Chairman of the Commission, on 20th Aug, 1948 (UNCIPs 1st Report):


_...the paramount need for security is recognized by the Commission, and *the time* when the withdrawal of Indian forces from the State is to begin, *the stages* in which it is to be carried out and *the strength* of Indian forces to be retained in the State, are *matters for settlement between the Commission and the Government of India*. _(para 4)​

Joseph Korbel, wrote back, on 25th Aug, 1948, confirming Nehrus interpretation (UNCIPs 1st Report):


_The Commission requests me to convey to Your Excellency its view that the *interpretation of the Resolution as expressed in paragraph 4 of your letter coincides with its own interpretation*..._​

Pakistan, too, had sought clarification on this very issue. Joseph Korbel, in his letter to Zafarulla Khan, dated 3rd Sept, 1948, stated (UNCIPs 1st Report):


_As regards paragraphs B 1 and 2 of Part II, the Commission, while recognizing the paramount need for security of the State of Jammu ad Kashmir, confirms that the minimum strength required for the purpose of assisting the local authorities in the observance of law and order, would be *determined by the Commission and the Government of India*. The Commission considers that it is free to hear the views of the Government of Pakistan on the subject._​

In other words, India was neither obliged to negotiate with Pakistan nor to share information about demilitarization with anyone other than UN Commission. Neither did Pakistan have any right to dictate terms and conditions for its own withdrawal or seek information from India, about Indias withdrawal. Pakistans role was relegated to that of someone who Commission may hear, and not that of a party to the negotiation. As far as India was concerned, UN was free to hear views of whoever UN decided.

UNCIPs 3rd Report, clarifies the positions of the two countries on this issue of demilitarization and the process of negotiations.


_''...the Pakistan delegation held (a) that the objective of the truce agreement is to create a military balance between the forces on each side and (b) that the withdrawal of her regular forces depended upon plans acceptable to the Pakistan Government for the synchronization of this withdrawal that of the bulk of the Indian forces. (para 229)

India, on the other hand, has (a) never accepted the claim of Pakistan to equality of rights in a military or any other sphere, but considers that the presence of Pakistan troops in Kashmir constitutes an act of aggression and a violation of international law; and (b) has refused to discuss with Pakistan any feature of the withdrawal of Indian forces, maintaining that the timing and staging of the Indian withdrawals and the strength of Indian forces to be retained in the State were matters for settlement between the Commission and the Government of India. The Government of India at this time also made it clear that the fulfillment by the Government of Pakistan of the conditions of withdrawal was a condition precedent to the implementation by the Government of India of any arrangement regarding the withdrawal of its own forces."_ (para 230)​

The Truce Agreement is clear that Pakistan would have to evacuate the territories captured by it and the local authority will be looking after the administration of the evacuated territory under the direct supervision of the UN Commission.


_Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission._ [Part II/A(3)]​

By no stretch of imagination can this be construed that the objective of the truce agreement is to create a military balance between the forces on each side. This deliberately flawed position of (a) led to (b). From Pakistans point of view, if it could be established that the withdrawal was about bringing in a military balance, it would then naturally mean that Pakistan got to decide what, for them, was an acceptable military balance. This in turn would mean that Pakistans withdrawal was contingent upon its agreement with Indian plan of withdrawal. It would then be very easy for Pakistan to weasel out of its own obligation by simply citing its disagreement with Indian plan of demilitarization. Thats exactly what they did eventually.

The Commission had on several occasions, clarified, that Pakistan had to completely withdraw from the occupied part. The evacuated land was then to become UNs concern and Pakistan had absolutely no role to play in it (not even in the subsequent plebiscite). Pakistans argument, based on its flawed premise, deliberate in any case, was in complete contradiction with the Commissions clarifications. For example, UNCIPs 3rd Report states:



_...the Resolution [], as has been pointed out, *draws a distinction between the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistan forces. Pakistan troops are to begin to withdraw in advance of the Indian troops and their withdrawal is not conditioned on Pakistan's agreement to the plan of the Indian withdrawal.* (para 242)

That *Resolution does not suggest that Pakistan should be entitled to make her withdrawals conditional upon the consultations envisaged between the Commission and the Government of India *having led to an agreed schedule of withdrawal of Indian troops. What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities._ (para 243)​


To summarise, (a) negotiations regarding demilitarization was very much a bipartite affair, where Pakistan had limited role to play, if at all it had any role to play, and (b) Pakistans withdrawal was unconditional and unilateral, in the sense that it didnt depend on Indias plan for demilitarization.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ticker

I will quote your post .........

UNCIPs 3rd Report, clarifies the positions of the two countries on this issue of demilitarization and the process of negotiations.

''...the Pakistan delegation held (a) that the objective of the truce agreement is to create a military balance between the forces on each side and (b) *that the withdrawal of her regular forces depended upon plans acceptable to the Pakistan Government for the synchronization of this withdrawal that of the bulk of the Indian forces*. (para 229)

*India, on the other hand*, has (a) never accepted the claim of Pakistan to equality of rights in a military or any other sphere, but considers that the presence of Pakistan troops in Kashmir constitutes an act of aggression and a violation of international law; and (b) has *refused to discuss with Pakistan any feature of the withdrawal of Indian forces*, maintaining that the timing and staging of the Indian withdrawals and the strength of Indian forces to be retained in the State were matters for settlement between the Commission and the Government of India. The Government of India at this time also made it clear that the fulfillment by the Government of Pakistan of the conditions of withdrawal was a condition precedent to the implementation by the Government of India of any arrangement regarding the withdrawal of its own forces." (para 230)

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...en-pakistan-mountbatten-45.html#ixzz23A3CNRON


To say that Pakistan did not want to withdraw its forces stands denied from your own post. Pakistan agreed to withdraw its forces and wanted to discuss the withdrawal plan with India. Indians did not agree. Period. 

The reason they did not agree becomes secondary. 

I thank @Nassr for bringing out the farce of Indian claim and argument that it was because Pakistan did not agree to withdraw its forces from IOK and Plebiscite could not be held. 

Thank you @Nassr.


----------



## SamantK

^^ You need to read carefully dude, it says that Pakistan held despite the committee making it crystal clear that there was no relation between the withdrawal of Pakistan to Indian forces withdrawal..

See the emboldened part for clarification



> &#8220;As regards paragraphs B 1 and 2 of Part II, the Commission, while recognizing the paramount need for security of the State of Jammu ad Kashmir,* confirms that the minimum strength required for the purpose of assisting the local authorities in the observance of law and order, would be determined by the Commission and the Government of India.* The Commission considers that it is free to hear the views of the Government of Pakistan on the subject.&#8221;



and



> &#8220;That Resolution *does not suggest that Pakistan should be entitled to make her withdrawals conditional upon the consultations envisaged between the Commission and the Government of India* having led to an agreed schedule of withdrawal of Indian troops. What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.&#8221; (para 243)




Pakistan can hold anything, like it holds that there is no state sponsored terrorism inside Pakistan -the facts speak otherwise - does not mean that it is correct!


Please do not puke without reading completely..


----------



## MandarK

Ticker said:


> I will quote your post .........
> 
> UNCIPs 3rd Report, clarifies the positions of the two countries on this issue of demilitarization and the process of negotiations.
> 
> ''...the Pakistan delegation held (a) that the objective of the truce agreement is to create a military balance between the forces on each side and (b) *that the withdrawal of her regular forces depended upon plans acceptable to the Pakistan Government for the synchronization of this withdrawal that of the bulk of the Indian forces*. (para 229)



What you are stating is the position of pakistan. India was not bound to accept your propositions.


----------



## Ticker

*What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.&#8221; (para 243)*

The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also. *Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces. *

Selective cut-pasting of points which go in Indian favour will not take you away from the reality.


----------



## karan.1970

Ticker said:


> *What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.&#8221; (para 243)*
> 
> The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also. *Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces. *
> 
> Selective cut-pasting of points which go in Indian favour will not take you away from the reality.



Either go for the whole resolution or none of it.. Resolution did not talk of any assurances.. It was supposed to be an unconditional withdrawal of Pakistani forces followed by reduction of Indian forces..Didnt happen .. So there goes the resolution in the dustbin of history

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## EzioAltaïr

Ticker said:


> *What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.&#8221; (para 243)*
> 
> The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also. *Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces. *
> 
> Selective cut-pasting of points which go in Indian favour will not take you away from the reality.



Well then by the same logic, Pakistan didn't want it either right? Since they created a condition that no one would agree to? They were the ones who started hostilities, it was their burden to withdraw for the safety of the people. They put the condition that we withdraw, possibly so they could stage another surprise attack.


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> ^^ You need to read carefully dude, it says that Pakistan held despite the committee making it crystal clear that there was no relation between the withdrawal of Pakistan to Indian forces withdrawal..
> 
> See the emboldened part for clarification
> 
> and
> 
> Pakistan can hold anything, like it holds that there is no state sponsored terrorism inside Pakistan -the facts speak otherwise - does not mean that it is correct!
> 
> Please do not puke without reading completely..



#hit head, you need to read carefully to understand the reality and also know the reality to open a piles-filled stinking mouth. Half backed viewpoints without knowing complete picture will sicken your other places with piles like substances. 

Yeah I am puking just looking at your face.


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> *What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.&#8221; (para 243)*
> 
> The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also. *Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces. *
> 
> Selective cut-pasting of points which go in Indian favour will not take you away from the reality.



Prove the underline that it was mandatory for India to give assurance, it states that "Pakistan could", not will..

Also the underlined portion, where is it taken from, any link?


----------



## Ticker

karan.1970 said:


> Either go for the whole resolution or none of it.. Resolution did not talk of any assurances.. It was supposed to be an unconditional withdrawal of Pakistani forces followed by reduction of Indian forces..Didnt happen .. So there goes the resolution in the dustbin of history




_What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.&#8221; (para 243)
_
*The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also*. Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces. 

Therefore, please do not blame the non-withdrawal of Pakistani forces for not holding the plebiscite. Nehru's Note cited above is sufficient to justify the end. 

Lets move on.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ticker said:


> *What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.&#8221; (para 243)*
> 
> The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also. *Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces. *
> 
> Selective cut-pasting of points which go in Indian favour will not take you away from the reality.



There is no need for "selective" cut and paste at all.

The UN Resolution was very clear, unambiguous. Pakistan to withdraw all troops; in fact, she was to try to do more; but read for yourself!



> 1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.
> 
> 2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
> 
> 3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.
> 
> B.
> 
> 1.When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, hereof *have withdrawn*, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of mIndia agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from
> that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.



How much blunter should the language be? About what happened after Pakistan raised these mischievous points, re-read #673.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Ticker

Joe Shearer said:


> There is no need for "selective" cut and paste at all.
> 
> The UN Resolution was very clear, unambiguous. Pakistan to withdraw all troops; in fact, she was to try to do more; but read for yourself!
> 
> 
> 
> How much blunter should the language be?



Sir,
The only thing I am saying is that the assurance of not creating a situation which might have constituted an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities, could only have been granted by both the parties and not Pakistan only. 

The Indians did not provide such an assurance to the commission, which could be conveyed to Pakistan. What was the reason for such non-provision of sought assurance. The commission could not have given this assurance independently, as they did not have the resources to do so. So when the assurance was sought from Indians they did not provide it.


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> Sir,
> The only thing I am saying is that the assurance of not creating a situation which might have constituted an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities, could only have been granted by both the parties and not Pakistan only.
> 
> The Indians did not provide such an assurance to the commission, which could be conveyed to Pakistan. What was the reason for such non-provision of sought assurance. The commission could not have given this assurance independently, as they did not have the resources to do so. So when the assurance was sought from Indians they did not provide it.



Hello, you did not read this properly too..

The assurances if any were to be given after Pakistan started withdrawing the troops..



> *When the commission shall have notified the Government of India *that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, hereof *have withdrawn*, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the *Government of mIndia agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from
> that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission*.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## illusion8

The resolution was super clear, Pk withdraws unilaterally and completely, transfers power to local bodies informs India after withdrawal, India verifies and if satisfactory informs the security council and then pulls the bulk of its troops out in batches that also means India can leave some troops behind after consulting with the UN.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ticker said:


> Sir,
> The only thing I am saying is that the assurance of not creating a situation which might have constituted an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities, could only have been granted by both the parties and not Pakistan only.
> 
> The Indians did not provide such an assurance to the commission, which could be conveyed to Pakistan. What was the reason for such non-provision of sought assurance. The commission could not have given this assurance independently, as they did not have the resources to do so. So when the assurance was sought from Indians they did not provide it.



Sir,

You have, perhaps inadvertently, misread the Commission's report. 

India never failed the commission by refusing to give it an assurance of the kind that you have mentioned. Such an assurance was never sought by the commission. It was clear that the level of troops to be retained by India was purely between the commission and India, so neither the question of satisfying Pakistan on that score, nor the question of extending an assurance to Pakistan prior to its compliance ever arose.

These questions are interpolations into the actual record, your personal surmises and reconstructions, very creative reconstructions. The commission wanted to get on with its job, India wanted to get on with the whole show, it was just the attritional methods of the Pakistani delegation that obstructed movement.



samantk said:


> Hello, you did not read this properly too..
> 
> The assurances if any were to be given after Pakistan started withdrawing the troops..



That is precisely correct.

In addition, @Ticker's thanks to @Nassr for pointing out the hypocrisy of Nehru's stance on Kashmir was premature. Just a simple comparison of dates will show that Nehru's despairing note was written long after these obviously dilatory tactics by one side had emerged in August.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jinx1

samantk said:


> Hello, you did not read this properly too..
> 
> The assurances if any were to be given after Pakistan started withdrawing the troops..



Those of us who have remained at positions where MOUs etc are drafted and signed would know that there is much more to be done between signing and implementation of the agreement. All things can not be added in the MOUs etc. 

I have read what @Ticker has been trying to explain. I agree with his views. The assurance which Pakistan was seeking was justified and the commission was ready to provide that. But to seek such an assurance the commission would have to go to the other party for confirmation. If the other party would not provide such a confirmation; it either means that they want to take advantage of Pakistani withdrawal or don't trust the Pakistanis or even the commission to keep their side of the bargain. The onus in such a case would lie with the party which is refusing to provide such a confirmation. 

These are indeed very interesting resolutions to analyse. Different analysts or lawyers would analyse all these differently in order to justify their points of view. And they may never agree with each other. 

A problem in perpetuity indeed unless both parties agree to a mutually agreed viewpoint. In such intractable cases, it may never happen.


----------



## SamantK

Jinx1 said:


> Those of us who have remained at positions where MOUs etc are drafted and signed would know that there is much more to be done between signing and implementation of the agreement. All things can not be added in the MOUs etc.
> 
> I have read what @Ticker has been trying to explain. I agree with his views. The assurance which Pakistan was seeking was justified and the commission was ready to provide that. But to seek such an assurance the commission would have to go to the other party for confirmation. If the other party would not provide such a confirmation; it either means that they want to take advantage of Pakistani withdrawal or don't trust the Pakistanis or even the commission to keep their side of the bargain. The onus in such a case would lie with the party which is refusing to provide such a confirmation.
> 
> These are indeed very interesting resolutions to analyse. Different analysts or lawyers would analyse all these differently in order to justify their points of view. And they may never agree with each other.
> 
> A problem in perpetuity indeed unless both parties agree to a mutually agreed viewpoint. In such intractable cases, it may never happen.



You are right that everyone has a different point of view, since India went to the UN first on this dispute India obviously was favored in the wording and as such had to be accepted.. If Pakistan wants assurances despite what the resolution says then they should have completely rejected the resolution.. then there would have been no question of plebiscite  

What irks is that many in Pakistan blame India, that it did not follow the UN resolution which is completely incorrect.. keeping in mind the wording of the resolution, India has been correct in this matter..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Ticker said:


> Sir,
> The only thing I am saying is that the assurance of not creating a situation which might have constituted an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities, could only have been granted by both the parties and not Pakistan only.
> 
> The Indians did not provide such an assurance to the commission, which could be conveyed to Pakistan. What was the reason for such non-provision of sought assurance. The commission could not have given this assurance independently, as they did not have the resources to do so. So when the assurance was sought from Indians they did not provide it.



You don't seem to have read/or understood the Resolution (that Joe has reproduced here) which formed the mandate and the basis of existence of the Commission. So lets look at it again:




> 1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.
> 
> 2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
> 
> 3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.
> 
> B.
> 
> 1.When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of mIndia agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from
> that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.


Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...en-pakistan-mountbatten-46.html#ixzz23ASkgZ6F

Re-reading that, its readily apparent that the Resolution was enjoining upon the two parties: *ACTIONS* not *ASSURANCES.*
It even indicates the sequence of those actions:

FIRST-
*1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.*
Viz. Govt. of Pakistan AGREES to "withdraw its troops from that state" since "the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council"
In other words, GoP agrees (or commits) to restore "status quo ante".

THEN-
*2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.*
Only here, some latitude may inferred to be extended to GoP by virtue of the use of "use its best endeavour", but does not absolve or mitigate the obligation on GoP "to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting."

AFTER THAT-
*3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.*

Here the Resolution not only makes GoP liable to vacate the territory but also places the power of administration of the territory on "Local Authorities" under surveillance (i.e. monitoring) of the Commission NOT GoP.

FINALLY-
*B.

1.When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from 
that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.*

This clearly specifies that when GoP has effected the withdrawal of its Nationals and Tribesmen and "further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir" then only "the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission."
SINCE (and this is important); thus "terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir".

Things cannot be any more clearly described as in this part of the Resolution, that Joe has reproduced.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Joe Shearer

As already pointed out, the commission never agreed to extend such an assurance. The report contains no mention of such an intention. The report contains no mention of any binding on India prior to Pakistani withdrawal. On the contrary, it was clear that such issues were bilateral. Such an explicit written mention must surely supersede any surmise 64 years after the fact. In fact, to assume that Pakistan's views had any impact on the Commission's proceedings also ignores the commission's written view that it was free to hear the views of the Pakistani side on the matter. Not use it to guide its proceedings but to give it a hearing. 

The mistake made again and again is to assume that since these views were given a hearing, they and their ramifications were in any way binding on the commission. This mistake compounds the other mistake, assuming that the commission, unreported anywhere but visualized by current surmise and creative reconstruction, then went on to realize these binding demands by making corresponding demands on the Indian side.

The written record could not be clearer.

Neither did the commission agree to provide any assurance to Pakistan, it also did not seek such assurance from India, nor was there any rejection of such a request by India for the simple reason that such a request was never made.

Why should all this have happened, when the record clearly shows that the commission clearly understood and stated that Pakistan's role was confined to withdrawal of troops, and that any arrangements for withdrawal of Indian troops were internal to its discussions and arrangements with India?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## toxic_pus

Ticker said:


> I will quote your post .........
> 
> UNCIPs 3rd Report, clarifies the positions of the two countries on this issue of demilitarization and the process of negotiations.
> 
> ''...the Pakistan delegation held (a) that the objective of the truce agreement is to create a military balance between the forces on each side and (b) *that the withdrawal of her regular forces depended upon plans acceptable to the Pakistan Government for the synchronization of this withdrawal that of the bulk of the Indian forces*. (para 229)
> 
> *India, on the other hand*, has (a) never accepted the claim of Pakistan to equality of rights in a military or any other sphere, but considers that the presence of Pakistan troops in Kashmir constitutes an act of aggression and a violation of international law; and (b) has *refused to discuss with Pakistan any feature of the withdrawal of Indian forces*, maintaining that the timing and staging of the Indian withdrawals and the strength of Indian forces to be retained in the State were matters for settlement between the Commission and the Government of India. The Government of India at this time also made it clear that the fulfillment by the Government of Pakistan of the conditions of withdrawal was a condition precedent to the implementation by the Government of India of any arrangement regarding the withdrawal of its own forces." (para 230)
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...en-pakistan-mountbatten-45.html#ixzz23A3CNRON
> 
> 
> To say that Pakistan did not want to withdraw its forces stands denied from your own post. Pakistan agreed to withdraw its forces and wanted to discuss the withdrawal plan with India. Indians did not agree. Period.
> 
> The reason they did not agree becomes secondary.


So basically when you can't provide an argument you just stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes tight and sing 'La-la-la-I-can't-hear-you-la-la-la'.




Ticker said:


> *What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities. (para 243)*
> 
> The Indians were not ready to provide such an assurance to the UN commission also. *Because they did not want the plebiscite to be held, they refused to provide this assurance to the commission and therefore, the Indians refused to withdraw their forces. *
> 
> Selective cut-pasting of points which go in Indian favour will not take you away from the reality.


I am quoting one of my earlier posts with minor adaptations. 

'Assurance' was never a problem. The Commission was there precisely to see that the demilitarization wasn't being carried on in a manner that might create an '_opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities_'. That was its job. For instance, in the words of Mr Robert van de Karchove, the UN rapporteur (UNCIP's 3rd Interim Report):


"_It was feasible [...] that *the arrangements could be coordinated and supervised by the mediation party, namely, the Commission*, so as to cause the two withdrawals to represent a dual operation which would be coordinated in timing and would result in a military situation in the State which was not such as to place either side at a disadvantage._" (para 242)​

Further,


"_*It*_* (the Commission)repeatedly assured the Pakistan Government that this would be evident in the agreement itself, and it must be noted that the terms were to be published in full immediately upon the acceptance of the Governments. The withdrawal plan for the Indian forces [...] was consequently, to be published in advance of implementation by either side."* (para 244)​

Besides, India had given plenty of 'assurance' that there would be no unilateral reopening of hostilities on its part, unless provoked.

In spite of all that Pakistan deliberately maintained an absurd stance,


"_...(a) that the objective of the truce agreement is to create a military balance between the forces on each side and (b) that the withdrawal of her regular forces depended upon plans acceptable to the Pakistan Government for the synchronization of this withdrawal that of the bulk of the Indian forces"_ (para 230)​

Regarding 'synchronization' Mr Karchove observed:


"*The Commission was not able to share the view of the Government of Pakistan that the only method of assuring this form of synchronization was by the full and free exchange of information between the Indian and Pakistan Governments regarding withdrawal plans.*" (para 242)​

Hence,

_"*The Pakistan Government could not in reason expect, nor could the Commission have granted, a "synchronization" which would have been incompatible with the terms of the Resolution of 13 August.*"_ (para 243)​

Clearly Pakistan was just looking for ways to shrug off its own responsibilities in a way that would enable it to blame India for all the failures.

'Assurance' was never a problem. Pakistan had plenty of it. From the Commission itself, no less.

Now try a little harder.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## karan.1970

Joe Shearer said:


> As already pointed out, the commission never agreed to extend such an assurance. The report contains no mention of such an intention. The report contains no mention of any binding on India prior to Pakistani withdrawal. On the contrary, it was clear that such issues were bilateral. Such an explicit written mention must surely supersede any surmise 64 years after the fact. In fact, to assume that Pakistan's views had any impact on the Commission's proceedings also ignores the commission's written view that it was free to hear the views of the Pakistani side on the matter. Not use it to guide its proceedings but to give it a hearing.
> 
> The mistake made again and again is to assume that since these views were given a hearing, they and their ramifications were in any way binding on the commission. This mistake compounds the other mistake, assuming that the commission, unreported anywhere but visualized by current surmise and creative reconstruction, then went on to realize these binding demands by making corresponding demands on the Indian side.
> 
> The written record could not be clearer.
> 
> Neither did the commission agree to provide any assurance to Pakistan, it also did not seek such assurance from India, nor was there any rejection of such a request by India for the simple reason that such a request was never made.
> 
> Why should all this have happened, when the record clearly shows that the commission clearly understood and stated that Pakistan's role was confined to withdrawal of troops, and that any arrangements for withdrawal of Indian troops were internal to its discussions and arrangements with India?



Those whose whole ideology (about Kashmir) is based on a lie have no option but to keep repeating that lie in a hope that the proverb about people believing a lie if its repeated enough number of times is correct..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jinx1

samantk said:


> You are right that everyone has a different point of view, *since India went to the UN first on this dispute India obviously was favored in the wording and as such had to be accepted.*. If Pakistan wants assurances despite what the resolution says then they should have completely rejected the resolution.. then there would have been no question of plebiscite
> 
> What irks is that many in Pakistan blame India, that it did not follow the UN resolution which is completely incorrect.. keeping in mind the wording of the resolution, India has been correct in this matter..



I am sorry, It does not happen this way. Yes Indian diplomats and the staff at the UN, would have had to work hard to get the desired wordings in their favour. Pakistan being a new country, would have certainly found it difficult, without the support of UK, whose representative was retained as Viceroy in India and UK's influence with other UNSC members. This fact incidentally has been amplified in historical records. Still, after the resolutions had been agreed to and signed, the implementation phase would have need definite clarifications to avoid differing understandings of various elements of resolutions. I wish it could all be clear cut for implementation, but in certain cases it is not. The US and UK even in recent cases have deciphered certain elements of resolution differently than other countries and the generally perceived or accepted understandings within the ambit of international law. 

Such things happen all the time and therefore need to be understood in the manner.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Regarding #692, that is correct, what is stated is the equivalent of the assurances being sought, the commission being willing to arrange things that the final effect sought by Pakistan would be achieved. Pakistan, however, stuck to demanding direct discussions with the Indian side.

This position, incidentally, points to outstanding hypocrisy on Pakistan's side. Until 1971,she insisted on multilateral discussions. On the UN Resolutions, in fact, refusing any bilateral discussion. Yet on this occasion, to illustrate, once the multilateral implementation began, it was torpedoed by insisting on bilateral discussions.

In summary, it was shocking that the UN Resolution was not being implemented. It was even more shocking when Pakistan's clear and forthright right to determine how it was to be interpreted and executed was not acknowledged!



Jinx1 said:


> I am sorry, It does not happen this way. Yes Indian diplomats and the staff at the UN, would have had to work hard to get the desired wordings in their favour. Pakistan being a new country, would have certainly found it difficult, without the support of UK, whose representative was retained as Viceroy in India and UK's influence with other UNSC members. This fact incidentally has been amplified in historical records. Still, after the resolutions had been agreed to and signed, the implementation phase would have need definite clarifications to avoid differing understandings of various elements of resolutions. I wish it could all be clear cut for implementation, but in certain cases it is not. The US and UK even in recent cases have deciphered certain elements of resolution differently than other countries and the generally perceived or accepted understandings within the ambit of international law.
> 
> Such things happen all the time and therefore need to be understood in the manner.



The clarifications were there. The Commission explained what was to happen, and how. Pakistan did not accept that, and wanted direct discussions with India. This was violently against the wording of the resolution, not a varying interpretation.



karan.1970 said:


> Those whose whole ideology (about Kashmir) is based on a lie have no option but to keep repeating that lie in a hope that the proverb about people believing a lie if its repeated enough number of times is correct..



I do not agree that it was a lie, in the normal sense of the term.

Instead, I see it as a manifestation of the basic premise of the Pakistani position: that Indian Muslims were superior to all other Indians; that as a concession, they would accept absolute and mathematically defined parity, nothing less; and the world owed it to Pakistan to compensate her for not achieving parity in various fields, a sort of country affirmative action programme.

This thinking pervades everything. Everything.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nassr

Joe Shearer said:


> As already pointed out, the commission never agreed to extend such an assurance. The report contains no mention of such an intention. The report contains no mention of any binding on India prior to Pakistani withdrawal. On the contrary, it was clear that such issues were bilateral. Such an explicit written mention must surely supersede any surmise 64 years after the fact. In fact, to assume that Pakistan's views had any impact on the Commission's proceedings also ignores the commission's written view that it was free to hear the views of the Pakistani side on the matter. Not use it to guide its proceedings but to give it a hearing.
> 
> The mistake made again and again is to assume that since these views were given a hearing, they and their ramifications were in any way binding on the commission. This mistake compounds the other mistake, assuming that the commission, unreported anywhere but visualized by current surmise and creative reconstruction, then went on to realize these binding demands by making corresponding demands on the Indian side.
> 
> The written record could not be clearer.
> 
> Neither did the commission agree to provide any assurance to Pakistan, it also did not seek such assurance from India, nor was there any rejection of such a request by India for the simple reason that such a request was never made.
> 
> Why should all this have happened, when the record clearly shows that the commission clearly understood and stated that Pakistan's role was confined to withdrawal of troops, and that any arrangements for withdrawal of Indian troops were internal to its discussions and arrangements with India?



Sir,

I agree with @Jinx1s comments that there is so much more that needs to be done between signing of an agreement and its implementation. We can continue giving our viewpoint and counter arguments and we will continue almost forever, without agreeing with each other. I am convinced that before implementation of the withdrawal plan of forces, necessary coordination was needed for its implementation. The Indian accusation that because Pakistan did not withdraw its forces, Plebiscite could not be held in Kashmir is completely and utterly unfounded, and can not stand the rigors of arguments. 

Lets agree to disagree and move on. 

When the UN appointed Commission was unable to establish a cooperative arrangement between India and Pakistan it returned without any agreement. Before returning, it suggested appointment of Admiral Chester Nimitz, who had confidence of both India and Pakistan to administer the plebiscite. Pakistan agreed to his appointment, however India did not agree. The commission returned without getting an agreement between the two countries. 

The situation was again presented to UNSC. On 14 March 1950, UNSC ratified the resolution it passed on 13 August 1948. According to this resolution, immediate demilitarization was recommended. 

Instead of UNCIP, Owen Dixon was made the UN representative. He arrived in India and held a conference with Indian and Pakistani PM on 20 Jul, which lasted for five days. It finished without an agreement. 

Own Dixon then made his own recommendations and suggested that forces of both countries should vacate Kashmir before the plebiscite. Pakistan agreed, India did not agree. 

He then presented what is now known as Owen Dixon Plan. It was rejected by both countries. 

He then made further recommendations; the area be given under complete UN control; and no force from any country should remain in Kashmir for a plebiscite to be held under UN auspices. Pakistan agreed, India did not. 

India wanted that her army should stay, her administrative echelons should stay, the plebiscite, though organized by the UN, should be administered by her own civil administration. Pakistan obviously could not accept all this and rejected Indian suggestions.

He failed in his objective and left. 

Frank P. Graham came next. 

In order to seek Indian acceptance, he suggested to increase the number of Indian Army presence from earlier suggested 18000 to 21000, as compared to local Kashmiri Force of 6000 in AJ&K. India did not agree. 

The matter rested there.

When Sheikh Abdullah was arrested, in order to placate the Kashmiri population, Nehru met with Pakistan Prime Minister and a joint statement was issued at the end of the meeting. It indicated an agreement between India and Pakistan to announce the date of plebiscite before April 1954. 

Nehru later refused citing US  Pakistan agreement and stated that this agreement has disturbed the regional balance of power and therefore, plebiscite in Kashmir cannot be held. He though had made his mind in 1948, to not to hold the plebiscite and only announced it at this moment. 

India later announced through the newly created Kashmir Constituent Assembly that Kashmir has now become part of India. 

After deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, Kashmir still remain unresolved.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## bronxbull

Ticker said:


> Pakistan is concerned about the safety of its people. There are over 140 armed secessionist groups operating in India, the largest in the world. That is why these people may not be allowed in a country which is infested with such groups, have massive law and order problems, Assam riots are a recent example and lot of people are getting killed. That's the reason.


 
If they want to go,then how does it matter?



Ticker said:


> You can laugh yourself to death if you wish. Just check if euthanasia is legal in India.


 
I heard Euthanasia is free on the streets of KPK.


----------



## Nassr

bronxbull said:


> If they want to go,then how does it matter?



They have already left and are in India. They should have been allowed in the first place and should never have been stopped. 



> I heard Euthanasia is free on the streets of KPK.



ha ha ha ha ...... good one indeed. But it still is not legal. ha ha ha


----------



## ajtr




----------



## Samlee

Self Deleted



toxic_pus said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> Pakistan was was demanding something that they were not entitled to. I am quoting one of my earlier posts with minor adaptation.
> 
> Part II/B(1) of Cease Fire Agreement (13th August, 1948) reads:
> 
> 
> _&#8220;When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, *the Government of India agrees* to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be *agreed upon with the Commission*_&#8221;​
> 
> Nehru, while seeking clarifications on the resolution of 13th Aug, 1948, had sought to identify the parties to the negotiation concerning demilitarization. He wrote to Joseph Korbel, the Chairman of the Commission, on 20th Aug, 1948 (UNCIP&#8217;s 1st Report):
> 
> 
> _&#8220;...the paramount need for security is recognized by the Commission, and *the time* when the withdrawal of Indian forces from the State is to begin, *the stages* in which it is to be carried out and *the strength* of Indian forces to be retained in the State, are *matters for settlement between the Commission and the Government of India*.&#8221; _(para 4)​
> 
> Joseph Korbel, wrote back, on 25th Aug, 1948, confirming Nehru&#8217;s interpretation (UNCIP&#8217;s 1st Report):
> 
> 
> _&#8220;The Commission requests me to convey to Your Excellency its view that the *interpretation of the Resolution as expressed in paragraph 4 of your letter coincides with its own interpretation*...&#8221;_​
> 
> Pakistan, too, had sought clarification on this very issue. Joseph Korbel, in his letter to Zafarulla Khan, dated 3rd Sept, 1948, stated (UNCIP&#8217;s 1st Report):
> 
> 
> _&#8220;As regards paragraphs B 1 and 2 of Part II, the Commission, while recognizing the paramount need for security of the State of Jammu ad Kashmir, confirms that the minimum strength required for the purpose of assisting the local authorities in the observance of law and order, would be *determined by the Commission and the Government of India*. The Commission considers that it is free to hear the views of the Government of Pakistan on the subject.&#8221;_​
> 
> In other words, India was neither obliged to negotiate with Pakistan nor to share information about demilitarization with anyone other than UN Commission. Neither did Pakistan have any right to dictate terms and conditions for its own withdrawal or seek information from India, about India&#8217;s withdrawal. Pakistan&#8217;s role was relegated to that of someone who Commission may &#8216;hear&#8217;, and not that of a party to the negotiation. As far as India was concerned, UN was &#8216;free to hear views&#8217; of whoever UN decided.
> 
> UNCIP&#8217;s 3rd Report, clarifies the positions of the two countries on this issue of demilitarization and the process of negotiations.
> 
> 
> _''...the Pakistan delegation held (a) that the objective of the truce agreement is to create a military balance between the forces on each side and (b) that the withdrawal of her regular forces depended upon plans acceptable to the Pakistan Government for the synchronization of this withdrawal that of the bulk of the Indian forces. (para 229)
> 
> India, on the other hand, has (a) never accepted the claim of Pakistan to equality of rights in a military or any other sphere, but considers that the presence of Pakistan troops in Kashmir constitutes an act of aggression and a violation of international law; and (b) has refused to discuss with Pakistan any feature of the withdrawal of Indian forces, maintaining that the timing and staging of the Indian withdrawals and the strength of Indian forces to be retained in the State were matters for settlement between the Commission and the Government of India. The Government of India at this time also made it clear that the fulfillment by the Government of Pakistan of the conditions of withdrawal was a condition precedent to the implementation by the Government of India of any arrangement regarding the withdrawal of its own forces."_ (para 230)​
> 
> The Truce Agreement is clear that Pakistan would have to evacuate the territories captured by it and the local authority will be looking after the administration of the evacuated territory under the direct supervision of the UN Commission.
> 
> 
> _&#8220;Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.&#8221;_ [Part II/A(3)]​
> 
> By no stretch of imagination can this be construed that &#8216;the objective of the truce agreement is to create a military balance between the forces on each side&#8217;. This deliberately flawed position of (a) led to (b). From Pakistan&#8217;s point of view, if it could be established that the withdrawal was about bringing in a &#8216;military balance&#8217;, it would then naturally mean that Pakistan got to decide what, for them, was an acceptable &#8216;military balance&#8217;. This in turn would mean that Pakistan&#8217;s withdrawal was contingent upon its agreement with Indian plan of withdrawal. It would then be very easy for Pakistan to weasel out of its own obligation by simply citing its disagreement with Indian plan of demilitarization. That&#8217;s exactly what they did eventually.
> 
> The Commission had on several occasions, clarified, that Pakistan had to &#8216;completely&#8217; withdraw from the occupied part. The evacuated land was then to become UN&#8217;s concern and Pakistan had absolutely no role to play in it (not even in the subsequent plebiscite). Pakistan&#8217;s argument, based on its flawed premise, deliberate in any case, was in complete contradiction with the Commission&#8217;s clarifications. For example, UNCIP&#8217;s 3rd Report states:
> 
> 
> 
> _&#8220;...the Resolution [&#8230;], as has been pointed out, *draws a distinction between the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistan forces. Pakistan troops are to begin to withdraw in advance of the Indian troops and their withdrawal is not conditioned on Pakistan's agreement to the plan of the Indian withdrawal.*&#8221; (para 242)
> 
> &#8220;That *Resolution does not suggest that Pakistan should be entitled to make her withdrawals conditional upon the consultations envisaged between the Commission and the Government of India *having led to an agreed schedule of withdrawal of Indian troops. What Pakistan could expect would be that assurance be made that the withdrawals of the two armed forces be arranged and carried out in such a way as to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities.&#8221;_ (para 243)​
> 
> 
> To summarise, (a) negotiations regarding demilitarization was very much a bipartite affair, where Pakistan had limited role to play, if at all it had any role to play, and (b) Pakistan&#8217;s withdrawal was &#8216;unconditional&#8217; and &#8216;unilateral&#8217;, in the sense that it didn&#8217;t depend on India&#8217;s plan for demilitarization.




Toxic Jee,
First of All It Is Nice To Know That Instead Of Trolling like The Other Indian Members You Have Put Up Sound Technical Argueme
nts.This Is What We Should Have.Unfortunately The Kashmir Topic By It's Very Nature Inflames Passions On Both Sides.People Forget Logic and Jump To Trolling.It Is My Misfortune That I Have To Sometimes Stoop To Their Level.Am A Patriotic Pakistani Just Can't Help It.Let Us Have A Civilised Discussion Based Upon Merit and and Agree To Disagree _Kya Khyal Hai_


I Would Like To Give You A Glimpse of Pakistan's Side Of The Story



Here Is The Dispassionate Pakistani Viewpoint




1.INDIAN OFFICIAL STANCE:India Claims That It's Claim Upon The State of Jammu and Kashmir Is Based Upon The Article Of Accession Of Maharaja Hari Singh.

India holds that the Instrument of Accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Union of India, signed by Maharaja Hari Singh (erstwhile ruler of the State) on 25 October 1947 & executed on 27 October 1947 between the ruler of Kashmir and the Governor General of India was a legal act, was completely valid in terms of the Government of India Act (1935), Indian Independence Act (1947) and international law and was total and irrevocable. There is no evidence of any deceit practiced by India on Kashmir. The Government of India had no right to question the right of the Maharaja to sign the Instrument of Accession, as he alone had the right and power to take a decision for his state. To have asked the ruler to establish his right to sign the Instrument of Accession would have meant that the Government of India was going to meddle with the internal policies of the state. Law does not permit any such intervention in the affairs of another state.


*Q1.Then Who Gave India To Question The Right Of The Nawab of Junagarh to Accede to Pakistan?Why Meddle In The Internal Policy of Junagarh?
*

September, 17, 1947, V.P. Menon, the then Secretary of States rushed to Junagarh with a special message from the Government of India that advised the Nawab to withdraw his accession to Pakistan. However, Menon could not meet the Nawab as he was indisposed, but construed this ruse to avoid him and expressed his displeasure to the Dewan of the State of Junagarh, Shah Nawaz Bhutto.

Bhitto explained to Menon that since the Instrument of Accession was duly signed, and the accession was complete and cannot be withdrawn, the proper course could be to talk to the Government of Pakistan on this issue.

Menon left Junagarh fuming and warned the Dewan of dire consequences. He went to Bombay from there and called for a press conference to announce the formation of Provisional Government of Junagarh that was formally formed on September, 25 1947 with Saamar Das Gandhi, a relative of Mahathma Gandhi, as its president.

Meanwhile, the Government of India made preparations for the annexation of Junagarh asking the army of the States in Kathaiwar to be suitably dispersed around Junagarh. On the 4th of October, the Chiefs of Staff were directed to instruct the Commander of the Kathiawar Defence Forces to prepare a plan for the occupation of Babariawad and Mangrol, the two pockets inside Junagarh state but outside its suzerainty and had acceded to the Indian Union.(The Princely State of Junagarh Dead or Alive. SM Pasha) 

(BTW This Man Is An Indian Historian Do Not Go For His Name He Is Not Pakistani)



*BUT THE BIGGEST QUESTIONID THE MAHARAJA SIGN THIS INSTRUMENT??????????????????
*

The formal overt Indian intervention in the internal affairs of the State of Jammu and Kashmir began on about 9.00 a.m. on 27 October 1947, when Indian troops started landing at Srinagar airfield. India has officially dated the commencement of its claim that the State was part of Indian sovereign territory to a few hours earlier, at some point in the afternoon or evening of 26 October. 


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

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

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

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

(d) a letter from Lord Mountbatten to the Maharajah, dated 27 October 1947, acknowledging the above and noting that, once the affairs of the State have been settled and law and order is restored, &#8220;the question of the State&#8217;s accession should be settled by a reference to the people."


In both pairs of documents it will be noted that the date of the communication from the Maharajah, be it the alleged Instrument of Accession or the letter to Lord Mountbatten, is given as 26 October 1947, that is to say before the Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State&#8217;s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947. It has been said that Lord Mountbatten insisted on the Maharajah&#8217;s signature as a precondition for his approval of Indian intervention in the affairs of what would otherwise be an independent State. 



It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. His Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the traveling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October, and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister&#8217;s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. (Excerpts from 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU AND KASHMIR &#8211;&#8211;A REAPPRAISAL by Alistair Lamb)



a research from British sources quoted by Victoria Schofield, author of Kashmir in Conflict has indicated that Hari Singh did not reach Jammu until the evening of October 26 and that due to poor flying conditions, V P Menon was unable to get to Jammu until the morning of October 27, by which time Indian troops were already arriving in Srinagar....(Victoria Schofield Kashmir In Conflict)

Here is an excerpt from Alastair Lamb&#8217;s book Kashmir&#8230; A Disputed Legacy. (Capitalization emphasis is mine)

MAHAJAN&#8217;S NARRATIVE ALSO CONTAINS THE FASCINATING SUGGESTION THAT THE FIRST INDIAN TROOPS WERE LANDING AT SRINAGAR AIRFIELD BEFORE THE PROCESS OF ACCESSION HAD BEEN COMPLETED.

If so, then the intervention of the Indian Army in the Kashmir dispute could well be another of those episodes, of which Pearl Harbour is the supreme example, where the military course of events resulted in the opening act of war taking place before the politicians and diplomats were able to organize its formal legitimisation.

Even more intriguing, in this context, is the fact that Indian troops arriving at Srinagar airport on 27 Oct. 1947 found other Indian troops, in the shape of Patiala men, already established there and elsewhere in the State.

The Patiala forces had arrived, it seems, on about 17 Oct. 1947, that is to say before the tribal crossing of the bridge at Domel on 22 Oct.

These two questions, the timing of the precise moment of accession and the date of the arrival of the Patiala men, have for some reason not been touched upon by the Pakistani side in the Kashmir debate over all these years; and, not surprisingly, the Indian side has not gone out of its way to draw attention to the matter.

The chronology and interpretation of the events leading up to accession which have been set out in Chapter 7 above lead to a number of conclusions which certainly differ from the received opinion, at least as interpreted by Indian diplomats. We will confine ourselves here to two issues, the status of Azad Kashmir and the question of who were the &#8220;aggressors&#8221; in those crucial days from 21 to 27 Oct. 1947.

On 15 Aug. 1947 the State of Jammu and Kashmir became to all intents and purposes an independent state.

There is no other possible interpretation of the lapse of Paramountcy. On 24 Oct. 1947 the independence of the State of Azad Kashmir was declared, relating to the territory mainly in the old Poonch jagir in which the control of the Maharaja, apart from Poonch city itself, had completely disappeared. Azad Kashmir&#8217;s first president, Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim Khan, as an elected member of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly for a constituency in Poonch, could certainly be said to enjoy some measure of popular mandate, as least as much as the later claimed for Sheikh Abdullah.

On 26 or 27 Oct. 1947 the Maharaja formally acceded to India. Did he bring, even in theory, Azad Kashmir with him? This is certainly an interesting question which ought to occupy the minds of international lawyers.


Wolpert writes that Menon returned from Srinagar on 26 October &#8216;with no Instrument of Accession&#8217; to report on the perilous condition in Kashmir to the Defence Committee. Only after Mountbatten had allowed the airlift of Indian troops on 27 October, did Menon and Mahajan set out for Jammu &#8216;to get the Instrument of Accession&#8217;. The Maharaja signed the Instrument after the Indian troops had assumed control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir&#8217;s summer capital, Srinagar.(Nehru:A Tryst With Destiny Stanley Wolpert)


The Above Facts Are Seconded By Andrew Whitehead:A Mission in Kashmir and Victoria Schofield:Kashmir in Conflict

Conclusion:As There Was No Accession When The Indian Airlift Of Soldiers Began Thus Rendering A Big Question Mark Over The Legal and Moral Pretext Of The Indian Invasion


*Now We Come To The UN Resolutions*

Q1.India Claims That Pakistan Has Delayed The Plebiscite It Demands By Not Withdrawing Troops From Jammu and Kashmir.Fair Enough.But The Words Are Not Backed By Actions.India Should Have Kept Status Quo.In This Way She Could Have Told The World That Look "We Are Prepared But Pakistan Is Not Cooperating By Removing Her Troops".On The Other Hand She Started The Process of Integration of Jammu and Kashmir

Mr. Josef Karbel India&#8217;s nominee on UNCIP made very sincere efforts solution of Kashmir problem. His study was through and unbiased. His studied views on the dispute including responsibility of UNO, portents, and his prophetic judgment &#8211; is a verdict indeed o the whole perspective. He surveyed the situation and concluded: 
&#8220;In 1956 Nehru proceeded to negate the United Nations Resolutions, first by integrating Kashmir step by step with India and finally by openly rejecting the idea of a plebiscite.(Danger In Kashmir Joseph Karbel)


Q2.According To UN RESOLUTION 47 2b(i)

That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of
intimidation to the inhabitants of the State;

Then Why Do We Receive These Kinds Of Reports 



A top-ranking police official permitted ConGen officer to see a highly classified intelligence report from sources supposedly in Indian-occupied Kashmir. The report detailed atrocities perpetrated by Indian troops on Kashmiri Muslims and participation of Indian troops in suppression of pro-Abdullah and pro-Pakistan demonstrations in Srinagar. The report also contained statements alleging an increase in communist infiltration from India into Kashmir and a growth of communist influence supposedly sponsored by the present Kashmir government. Weekly Summary of Political and Economic Events, Oct. 22-28, 1953, Oct. 29, 1953(U.S. National Archives)


Prem Nath Bazaz, a Kashmiri Pandit disillusioned with Sheikh Abdullah and still opposed to the autocracy of the maharaja, believed the motives of the tribesmen should be considered. 'They wanted to liberate Kashmir from the tyranny of the Maharaja and nationalist renegades. And we should not forget that some members of the Indian army did no less of looting and molesting.'[Prem Nath Bazaz, Azad Kashmir, Lahore, p.33.]


Q3.Putting Aside UN Resolutions In One Place,What About The Commitments Of Pundit Nehru To Pakistan and The People Of Kashmir

Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Second Series, Vol. 4, New Delhi 1986, p.288a

Cable to C.R. Attlee from Nehru : New Delhi, 28 October 1947.

12. We are always ready to discuss any issue in dispute with representatives of Pakistan. We have laid down the principle that accession of every State, whether Junagadh or Kashmir or Hyderabad, should depend on ascertained wishes of the people concerned.


and



We have fought the good fight about Kashmir on the field of battle... (and) ...in many a chancellery of the world and in the United Nations, but, above all, we have fought this fight in the hearts and minds of men and women of that State of Jammu and Kashmir. Because, ultimately - I say this with all deference to this Parliament - *the decision will be made in the hearts and minds of the men and women of Kashmir;neither in this Parliament, nor in the United Nations nor by anybody else*," Jawaharlal Nehru in the Lok Sabha on August 7, 1952.
- Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19 pp. 295-

I Highly Doubt This Promise Is Ever Going To Be Fulfild Because You Guys May Not Like The Consequences


http://www.pakistantoday.com....dian-ministry/ 

These Are Just Two Of Many Of Nehru's Statements Regarding The Kashmir Dispute



P.S Some Of My Previous Posts Give The Impression That I Am Some Anti India Bigot or A Follower Of Zaid Hamid.In Actual Fact I Am Not.Many A Times I Have Had Discussions and Debates With Indians On Many Topics In The Friendliest and Candid Of Environments.I Also Find India's Socio-Economic Growth To Be Very Admirable.It Is Just When Certain Fellow Country Men Of Yours Make Sweeping Statements Like "Pakistan's Illegal Occupation" and Kashmir Is "Integral Part" of India Without Giving A Proper Meritocratic Justification.Such Arrogance Just Doesn't Sit Down Well With Me.

Granted There May Be Some Weight In Your Arguments.There May Be Some Weight In Mine.Personal Experience Indicates That The Truth Lies Somewhere In The Middle.

Personally I Think That The Chenab Formula Couples With Certain Non Kashmir Concessions On Pakistan's Part or The KSG Formula of a Smaller Independent Kashmir Are The Best Steps To Moderation and A Permanent and Durable Peace


----------



## Vitamin_C

nick_indian said:


> I find it extremely disturbing that India got no part of sindh . The 4 million sindhis of India lost their native state . Each state that was partitioned - Punjab , Bengal , Jammu & Kashmir has been divided between both Pakistan and india but India got no part of Sindh . India should have got atleast a small part of Sindh .



Sindh was a princely state when it was invaded by the British somewhere around 1842 just like Kashmir and Kalat. It was not possible to cut it, it had to go whole either to India or Pakistan and unlike Punjab it had the option to stay independent. 
Sindh joined Pakistan not because of religion as Sindhi culture binds Sindhis stronger than religion. Hinduism also originated in Sindh, Sindhi culture is still influenced by Hindu culture. At time of partition Sindh was Muslim majority but the urban areas were Hindu majority.
Today Sindh is 15% population of Pakistan and 70% of revenue of Pakistan comes from Sindh. But the Punjabi dominated army is obsessed with Kashmir and are wasting our resources. 
Just imagine if Sindh was independent state Pakistans Military budget would have been $1.9billion instead of $6.5billion that also without a navy. =)


----------



## toxic_pus

Samlee said:


> These two questions, the timing of the precise moment of accession and the date of the arrival of the Patiala men, have for some reason not been touched upon by the Pakistani side in the Kashmir debate over all these years; and, not surprisingly, the Indian side has not gone out of its way to draw attention to the matter.


This should have been your first clue. If someone like Sir Zafarullah Khan, whose legal acumen matched that of Jinnah, didn't touch upon these two 'questions', then these are probably not relevant. Indeed, these are inconsequential.

What you are trying to say is that since the Instrument was probably signed after the arrival of Indian troops, then (a) the entry of Indian troops into the sovereign territory of J & K is itself illegal and (b) the accession was acquired at gun point. Both are false.

Following the tribal invasion on 22 Oct, the Maharaja had formally asked for Military aide from India. The request was received on 24th Oct. Entry of Indian troops, on 27th Oct, can be legally validated by this request alone, even if you consider the Instrument to be invalid. Meher Chand Mahajan, the Prime Minisiter of the Maharaja, who was present in Delhi from 25th Oct, with full authority to negotiate accession, in his autobiography, 'Looking Back' writes,


"I was, however, adamant in my submission; the Prime Minister also was sticking to his own view. As a last resort I said, *Give us the military force we need. Take the accession and give whatever power you desire to the popular party*" [pg-151]​

Point (a), therefore is legally not tenable. 

Since you have quoted Victoria Schofield, let me quote her as well.


"Whether or not the Instrument of Accession was signed before or after Indian troops landed, *the Maharaja had agreed to accession in principle upon the terms outlined by Mountbatten*'' [pg-58, Kashmir in Conflict by Victoria Schofield]​

As with the presence of Patiala Force, it was still a militia and was not yet absorbed into Indian Army. Their presence was of no consequence.




> Conclusion:As There Was No Accession When The Indian Airlift Of Soldiers Began Thus Rendering A Big Question Mark Over The Legal and Moral Pretext Of The Indian Invasion


It is irrelevant if the accession was incomplete when the Indian airlift of soldiers began or when they landed. What is relevant is the question, if GoI had legally valid authority to do so, even without the Instrument. As you can see, argument can be made successfully that India was merely responding to the Maharaja's formal request for military help. 

[...to be continued]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Vitamin_C said:


> Sindh was a princely state when it was invaded by the British somewhere around 1842 just like Kashmir and Kalat. It was not possible to cut it, it had to go whole either to India or Pakistan and unlike Punjab it had the option to stay independent.
> Sindh joined Pakistan not because of religion as Sindhi culture binds Sindhis stronger than religion. Hinduism also originated in Sindh, Sindhi culture is still influenced by Hindu culture. At time of partition Sindh was Muslim majority but the urban areas were Hindu majority.
> Today Sindh is 15% population of Pakistan and 70% of revenue of Pakistan comes from Sindh. But the Punjabi dominated army is obsessed with Kashmir and are wasting our resources.
> Just imagine if Sindh was independent state Pakistans Military budget would have been $1.9billion instead of $6.5billion that also without a navy. =)



I liked your comment, but was troubled at the ignorance displayed in assuming that the Hindu religion originated in Sindh.

Not a capital offence, but troubling in its implications.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Samlee said:


> OH REALLY NOW Iran,Pakistan,China and OIC are All Losers and India Half Which Is Under A Maoist Rebellion Are Winners Real Funny Lol


 
From when did you get hallucination that Pakistan can join in any league with countries like Iran & China??? Placing looser in league of winners doesnt make him look different.




Ticker said:


> The right of freedom, even an armed struggle for freedom is enshrined in the UN charter. Subash Chander Bhose was a freedom fighter for India - The Brits called him a traitor and some called him a terrorist.
> 
> One man's freedom fighter is other man's terrorist.



Yes like always, a man who was behind freedom of British India & probably behind freedom of today's Pakistan can be a terrorist to you by someone's definition.
In India such remarks about great person who did good for my country are called BS.



Ticker said:


> Moral and diplomatic support will continue. UN resolutions will also stay.


 
With no options left, if you dont support / pretend to support them they will beat back their master's a$$

Peace in Kashmir will cost Pakistan: Hizbul Mujahideen chief | Deccan Chronicle

Bas ab yahii zillat baaki reh gayi thi !!


----------



## toxic_pus

Samlee said:


> Q1.India Claims That Pakistan Has Delayed The Plebiscite It Demands By Not Withdrawing Troops From Jammu and Kashmir.Fair Enough.But The Words Are Not Backed By Actions.India Should Have Kept Status Quo.In This Way She Could Have Told The World That Look "We Are Prepared But Pakistan Is Not Cooperating By Removing Her Troops".On The Other Hand She Started The Process of Integration of Jammu and Kashmir
> 
> Mr. Josef Karbel Indias nominee on UNCIP made very sincere efforts solution of Kashmir problem. His study was through and unbiased. His studied views on the dispute including responsibility of UNO, portents, and his prophetic judgment  is a verdict indeed o the whole perspective. He surveyed the situation and concluded:
> In 1956 Nehru proceeded to negate the United Nations Resolutions, first by integrating Kashmir step by step with India and finally by openly rejecting the idea of a plebiscite.(Danger In Kashmir Joseph Karbel)



By the end of 1950 it was clear to all and sundry that Pakistan was using literally childish excuses to ensure that they wouldn't have to withdraw and it was clear that as a consequence, the plebiscite couldn't be organised almost indefinitely. What could India do? Keep Kashmir in a perpetual administrative limbo or extend the rights and privileges of the Constitution, while adequately safeguarding Kashmir's interest via Article 370?

Nevertheless, India's integration of Kashmir was inconsequential to the UN resolutions, and had absolutely no bearing on Pakistan's obligation to vacate the occupied land. 

So, what stopped Pakistan from living upto it's own responsibilities till 1956?




> Q2.According To UN RESOLUTION 47 2b(i)
> 
> That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of
> intimidation to the inhabitants of the State;
> 
> Then Why Do We Receive These Kinds Of Reports
> 
> 
> 
> A top-ranking police official permitted ConGen officer to see a highly classified intelligence report from sources supposedly in Indian-occupied Kashmir. The report detailed atrocities perpetrated by Indian troops on Kashmiri Muslims and participation of Indian troops in suppression of pro-Abdullah and pro-Pakistan demonstrations in Srinagar. The report also contained statements alleging an increase in communist infiltration from India into Kashmir and a growth of communist influence supposedly sponsored by the present Kashmir government. Weekly Summary of Political and Economic Events, Oct. 22-28, 1953, Oct. 29, 1953(U.S. National Archives)
> 
> 
> Prem Nath Bazaz, a Kashmiri Pandit disillusioned with Sheikh Abdullah and still opposed to the autocracy of the maharaja, believed the motives of the tribesmen should be considered. 'They wanted to liberate Kashmir from the tyranny of the Maharaja and nationalist renegades. And we should not forget that some members of the Indian army did no less of looting and molesting.'[Prem Nath Bazaz, Azad Kashmir, Lahore, p.33.]


Two reports, one from anonymous source and the other from a disillusioned individual. Not enough.




> Q3.Putting Aside UN Resolutions In One Place,What About The Commitments Of Pundit Nehru To Pakistan and The People Of Kashmir
> 
> Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Second Series, Vol. 4, New Delhi 1986, p.288a
> 
> Cable to C.R. Attlee from Nehru : New Delhi, 28 October 1947.
> 
> 12. We are always ready to discuss any issue in dispute with representatives of Pakistan. We have laid down the principle that accession of every State, whether Junagadh or Kashmir or Hyderabad, should depend on ascertained wishes of the people concerned.
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> We have fought the good fight about Kashmir on the field of battle... (and) ...in many a chancellery of the world and in the United Nations, but, above all, we have fought this fight in the hearts and minds of men and women of that State of Jammu and Kashmir. Because, ultimately - I say this with all deference to this Parliament - the decision will be made in the hearts and minds of the men and women of Kashmir;neither in this Parliament, nor in the United Nations nor by anybody else," Jawaharlal Nehru in the Lok Sabha on August 7, 1952.
> - Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, vol. 19 pp. 295-
> 
> I Highly Doubt This Promise Is Ever Going To Be Fulfild Because You Guys May Not Like The Consequences
> 
> 
> http://www.pakistantoday.com....dian-ministry/


All these commitments came with one simple condition - withdrawal of Pakistan. How do you suppose India would hold plebiscite in 'Northern Areas'?

[...concluded]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ticker

Oh here comes the cut-paste horde with their one liners.


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> Oh here comes the cut-paste horde with their one liners.



Often when one cannot comprehend what is written, they simply declare it as rubbish..


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> Often when one cannot comprehend what is written, they simply declare it as rubbish..



The rubbish not only can be seen, it stinks also. 

Comprehension of rubbish can only be done by rubbish picking cut-pasters and offcourse their non-justifying one liners. They cannot analyse themselves and write more because their comprehension ends after the one liners.


----------



## bronxbull

Nassr said:


> They have already left and are in India. They should have been allowed in the first place and should never have been stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> ha ha ha ha ...... good one indeed. But it still is not legal. ha ha ha


 

yeah,it is good that they have left.


----------



## Ticker

bronxbull said:


> yeah,it is good that they have left.



The sarcasm notwithstanding, they are from a free, independent and sovereign state and are visiting a foreign country. 

You should be more worried about the tens of thousands of your own still living in the refugee camps in Assam and other places. 

Express sarcasm when you finish settling those poor human beings who are looking for their own to help them.


----------



## bronxbull

I wasn't being sarcastic at all,i am genuinely happy that the ex-pakistani hindus have come back to their own land.

regarding Assam,my own people the Bodo people are standing firm and ll finish their job soon.


----------



## Ticker

bronxbull said:


> I wasn't being sarcastic at all,i am genuinely happy that the ex-pakistani hindus have come back to their own land.
> 
> regarding Assam,my own people the Bodo people are standing firm and ll finish their job soon.



Their land is the land of Sindhu and it does not belong to India. 

The last time some went to India to settle, had to toil for almost 20 years to get some recognition. You guys have so many teeming millions that most forget that they exist, how could you look after these people.


----------



## bronxbull

well,it looks like even after all the hardship they feel India is better for them than their own native land,we just give them a chance.


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> The rubbish not only can be seen, it stinks also.
> 
> Comprehension of rubbish can only be done by rubbish picking cut-pasters and offcourse their non-justifying one liners. They cannot analyse themselves and write more because their comprehension ends after the one liners.


Stop your diatribe, you are guilty of that one liner before me. if you could comprehend you would have listed why it was rubbish.. But you didn't and fired off an one liner, for which you wanted a response running into atleast a few sentences?

Stupid!


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> Stop your diatribe, you are guilty of that one liner before me. if you could comprehend you would have listed why it was rubbish.. But you didn't and fired off an one liner, for which you wanted a response running into atleast a few sentences?
> 
> Stupid!



Because people like you don't deserve more than that.


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> Because people like you don't deserve more than that.



C'mon do better, respond to the points.. If you can understand the serious discussion going on otherwise excuse this thred... At least don't spoil it for me and others who are able to learn something here..


----------



## Ticker

bronxbull said:


> well,it looks like even after all the hardship they feel India is better for them than their own native land,we just give them a chance.



Watch the TV News before they left for India. They said that they were Pakistanis to the core and would remain so. Don't try and put words in their mouth and become representative of Hindus all over the world. 

Hindus live in different parts of the world. All are not Indians and don't give a fig about India. India is not by any set of imagination a representative of Hindus of the world.


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> Watch the TV News before they left for India. They said that they were Pakistanis to the core and would remain so. Don't try and put words in their mouth and become representative of Hindus all over the world.
> 
> Hindus live in different parts of the world. All are not Indians and don't give a fig about India. India is not by any set of imagination a representative of Hindus of the world.



It does not matter if we represent or not.. We will stand for them no matter what, same way Indian Muslims stand for other Muslims world over. Pakistan is one country loosing appeal even among the muslims though..


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> C'mon do better, respond to the points.. If you can understand the serious discussion going on otherwise excuse this thred... At least don't spoil it for me and others who are able to learn something here..



That's what I am trying to tell you. There are people here who understand the thing and have posted marvelous insight of the matter under discussion. Learn from the likes of Nassr, Joe Shearer and Jinx1, instead of spoiling the discussion through cut-pasting your non-ideas through one liners. 

I am not better than the names I have quoted above and I respect their acumen and knowledge. Therefore, don't unnecessarily jump in with spoilers that you and some others are pushing through.


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> It does not matter if we represent or not.. We will stand for them no matter what, same way Indian Muslims stand for other Muslims world over. Pakistan is one country loosing appeal even among the muslims though..



I am a Pakistani and I am not concerned about your Indian Muslims. Keep them.


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> It does not matter if we represent or not.. We will stand for them no matter what, same way Indian Muslims stand for other Muslims world over. Pakistan is one country loosing appeal even among the muslims though..



I am a Pakistani and I am not concerned about your Indian Muslims. Keep them.


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> That's what I am trying to tell you. There are people here who understand the thing and have posted marvelous insight of the matter under discussion. Learn from the likes of Nassr, Joe Shearer and Jinx1, instead of spoiling the discussion through cut-pasting your non-ideas through one liners.
> 
> I am not better than the names I have quoted above and I respect their acumen and knowledge. Therefore, don't unnecessarily jump in with spoilers that you and some others are pushing through.



I will add toxic_pus to those names. why put up the one liner in the first place? Please tell me what spoilers have I pushed through?


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> I will add toxic_pus to those names. why put up the one liner in the first place? Please tell me what spoilers have I pushed through?



Mr. toxic_pus is just like you, a cut-paste pusher. He can't even analyse what he cut-paste's. Forget it. There are other Indian posters who are much better.


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> Mr. toxic_pus is just like you, a cut-paste pusher. He can't even analyse what he cut-paste's. Forget it. There are other Indian posters who are much better.



Shows your ignorance... The thing what he cut and paste was the actual resolution not the delusioned one you have imagined, do us all a favour don't even respond to me any more..



Ticker said:


> I am a Pakistani and I am not concerned about your Indian Muslims. Keep them.


----------



## Ticker

samantk said:


> Shows your ignorance... The thing what he cut and paste was the actual resolution not the delusioned one you have imagined, do us all a favour don't even respond to me any more..



Big deal - google it and you'll find it in a jiffy. 

why are you rolling eyes on my comments about Indian Muslims.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ticker said:


> That's what I am trying to tell you. There are people here who understand the thing and have posted marvelous insight of the matter under discussion. Learn from the likes of Nassr, Joe Shearer and Jinx1, instead of spoiling the discussion through cut-pasting your non-ideas through one liners.
> 
> I am not better than the names I have quoted above and I respect their acumen and knowledge. Therefore, don't unnecessarily jump in with spoilers that you and some others are pushing through.



It is true that Nassr and Jinx1 are very pleasant and refreshing to meet in a discussion. However, Bang Galore, and in his less impatient moments, Cap'n Popeye are equally incisive and insightful. While mercenary comes in for rough treatment from you, he actually makes a lot of sense, as does VCheng. They suffer because they represent a liberal line of thinking, which is not popular with jingos. I know; I get hell from patriots from India.

Sometimes I despair of ever getting to talk to someone who is not obsessed with the thinking behind the Two Nation Theory, and the evil corollaries that emerged from it. On another thread, i was shocked to find some who were behaving at their juvenile worst in this thread speaking with mature, self-assured tones on a particularly complex issue. Some warts will stay warts, with no possibility of a remission in the disease.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ticker

Joe Shearer said:


> It is true that Nassr and Jinx1 are very pleasant and refreshing to meet in a discussion. However, Bang Galore, and in his less impatient moments, Cap'n Popeye are equally incisive and insightful. While mercenary comes in for rough treatment from you, he actually makes a lot of sense, as does VCheng. They suffer because they represent a liberal line of thinking, which is not popular with jingos. I know; I get hell from patriots from India.
> 
> Sometimes I despair of ever getting to talk to someone who is not obsessed with the thinking behind the Two Nation Theory, and the evil corollaries that emerged from it. On another thread, i was shocked to find some who were behaving at their juvenile worst in this thread speaking with mature, self-assured tones on a particularly complex issue. Some warts will stay warts, with no possibility of a remission in the disease.



Sir, 

I'll be more careful while replying to mercenaries. Over the recent period of time, I have started enjoying my interaction here, at times becoming a jingo and at times merely trolling - meaning of which I understood not so long ago. 

I am on a learning curve here and teasing @samantk and some others at times is indeed fun. You may not agree with it and some other superior beings like you may not like the shenanigans I get myself involved in, but I enjoy some of these spurts. 

I do like whatever you write and you write very well indeed. I do at times finger people, like many here, but am generally careful to avoid those who have teeth in their hides and can can bite my fingers.


----------



## toxic_pus

Ticker said:


> Mr. toxic_pus is just like you, a cut-paste pusher. He can't even analyse what he cut-paste's. Forget it. There are other Indian posters who are much better.


Translation:


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> Sir,
> 
> I'll be more careful while replying to mercenaries. Over the recent period of time, I have started enjoying my interaction here, at times becoming a jingo and at times merely trolling - meaning of which I understood not so long ago.
> 
> I am on a learning curve here and teasing @samantk and some others at times is indeed fun. You may not agree with it and some other superior beings like you may not like the shenanigans I get myself involved in, but I enjoy some of these spurts.
> 
> I do like whatever you write and you write very well indeed. I do at times finger people, like many here, but am generally careful to avoid those who have teeth in their hides and can can bite my fingers.



Teasing me.. lol now thats funny!


----------



## Ticker

One thing is quite clear from the discussion above that while Mr. Nehru himself acknowledged that he made up his mind to not to hold the plebiscite in 1948, when he announced the decision in 1954, he cited the US-Pakistan accord which created the shift in balance of power, to not to hold the plebiscite. These statements are on record. He did not blame the non-withdrawal of Pakistani army from Kashmir as the cause.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ticker said:


> Sir,
> 
> I'll be more careful while replying to mercenaries. Over the recent period of time, I have started enjoying my interaction here, at times becoming a jingo and at times merely trolling - meaning of which I understood not so long ago.
> 
> I am on a learning curve here and teasing @samantk and some others at times is indeed fun. You may not agree with it and some other superior beings like you may not like the shenanigans I get myself involved in, but I enjoy some of these spurts.
> 
> I do like whatever you write and you write very well indeed. I do at times finger people, like many here, but am generally careful to avoid those who have teeth in their hides and can can bite my fingers.



Your fingers are quite safe from me! 

It is not that what we say should have any particular influence on you. Nobody is arrogant enough to think that. But you do owe it to yourself to interact in the manner that you have shown you can. At the same time, boys will be boys. You will certainly lock horns with your counterparts, decent Indian members. Just don't go to the depths of the Gang of Four.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndianTiger

Kashmir is part of India. Why pakistan want that territory


----------



## Ticker

IndianTiger said:


> Kashmir is part of India. Why pakistan want that territory




Hey @Indian Tiger, that's a very good question indeed. And a very difficult one also. Stay here, just don't go anywhere, I'll ask someone and let you know.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ticker said:


> One thing is quite clear from the discussion above that while Mr. Nehru himself acknowledged that he made up his mind to not to hold the plebiscite in 1948, when he announced the decision in 1954, he cited the US-Pakistan accord which created the shift in balance of power, to not to hold the plebiscite. These statements are on record. He did not blame the non-withdrawal of Pakistani army from Kashmir as the cause.



What is quite clear is that his note in end-48 despairing of the chances of holding a plebiscite was due to the frustration caused by Pakistani guerrilla tactics in Commission sittings, intended to foil any chance of holding a referendum. There were significant developments between then and 1954, six years later. The impact on the Pakistani Army of joining SEATO and CENTO was enormous. Doctrine changed, formations changed, compatibility with general procedures and battle formations in those two organizations was sought, artillery was significantly improved, field officers were systematically trained. It was not a paper deal, but one which involved the thorough integration of Pakistani military units with US-led treaty organizations. It was not for nothing that Nehru cited these wide-ranging reasons for withdrawing from the utterly frustrating talks on the plebiscite. Pakistani attritional tactics paled into insignificance beside these massive increases to Pakistani military strength.

Incidentally, presumably everybody knows who Josef Korbel was?


----------



## Ticker

Father of Madeline Albright

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Samlee

kumarkumar1867 said:


> From when did you get hallucination that Pakistan can join in any league with countries like Iran & China??? Placing looser in league of winners doesnt make him look different.



I Was Responding To Joe Shearer Who Has Boasted Much But Uptil Now Has Not Given Any Solid Argument Since I Starting Posting Here But Keeps Yapping How That He Has Answered Everything.I was Not Talking To You But It's Nice To Know How You TROLLS Look Out For One Another.

In Case Your Mental Retardation Gets In The Way Of Your Understanding My Post Mr Shearer Said That Jammu and Kashmir Was Disputed For One Loser Only Whereas Keeping My Cool I said That The OIC incl. Iran and China all Consider It As Disputed.Does Not Matter What Indians Say. Now Are They Loosers????????

I Know It Takes Quite A Lot Of Time For You Trolls To Fully Comprehend Questions.So Take As Much Time As You Like

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Samlee

toxic_pus said:


> This should have been your first clue. If someone like Sir Zafarullah Khan, whose legal acumen matched that of Jinnah, didn't touch upon these two 'questions', then these are probably not relevant. Indeed, these are inconsequential.
> 
> What you are trying to say is that since the Instrument was probably signed after the arrival of Indian troops, then (a) the entry of Indian troops into the sovereign territory of J & K is itself illegal and (b) the accession was acquired at gun point. Both are false.
> 
> Following the tribal invasion on 22 Oct, the Maharaja had formally asked for Military aide from India. The request was received on 24th Oct. Entry of Indian troops, on 27th Oct, can be legally validated by this request alone, even if you consider the Instrument to be invalid. Meher Chand Mahajan, the Prime Minisiter of the Maharaja, who was present in Delhi from 25th Oct, with full authority to negotiate accession, in his autobiography, 'Looking Back' writes,
> 
> 
> "I was, however, adamant in my submission; the Prime Minister also was sticking to his own view. As a last resort I said, *Give us the military force we need. Take the accession and give whatever power you desire to the popular party*" [pg-151]​
> 
> Point (a), therefore is legally not tenable.
> 
> Since you have quoted Victoria Schofield, let me quote her as well.
> 
> 
> "Whether or not the Instrument of Accession was signed before or after Indian troops landed, *the Maharaja had agreed to accession in principle upon the terms outlined by Mountbatten*'' [pg-58, Kashmir in Conflict by Victoria Schofield]​
> 
> As with the presence of Patiala Force, it was still a militia and was not yet absorbed into Indian Army. Their presence was of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> It is irrelevant if the accession was incomplete when the Indian airlift of soldiers began or when they landed. What is relevant is the question, if GoI had legally valid authority to do so, even without the Instrument. As you can see, argument can be made successfully that India was merely responding to the Maharaja's formal request for military help.
> 
> [...to be continued]





Thank You Toxic Sahib,Some Interesting Points Have Been Raised



Regarding Your First Point Yes Many Points Which Could Have Helped Pakistan Get Better Concessions From Were Ignored.One Good Reason Could Have Been That Quaid E Azam and and The Pakistani Government Were Not Aware Of The Detailed Information As To What Was Really Happening In Kashmir At That Point of Time and What The Indian Machinations Were.

Your Next Point:You Say


What you are trying to say is that since the Instrument was probably signed after the arrival of Indian troops, then (a) the entry of Indian troops into the sovereign territory of J & K is itself illegal and (b) the accession was acquired at gun point. Both are false.

Following the tribal invasion on 22 Oct, the Maharaja had formally asked for Military aide from India. The request was received on 24th Oct. Entry of Indian troops, on 27th Oct, can be legally validated by this request alone, even if you consider the Instrument to be invalid. Meher Chand Mahajan, the Prime Minisiter of the Maharaja, who was present in Delhi from 25th Oct, with full authority to negotiate accession, in his autobiography, 'Looking Back' writes,

"I was, however, adamant in my submission; the Prime Minister also was sticking to his own view. As a last resort I said, Give us the military force we need. Take the accession and give whatever power you desire to the popular party" [pg-151]

Point (a), therefore is legally not tenable. 

Since you have quoted Victoria Schofield, let me quote her as well.

"Whether or not the Instrument of Accession was signed before or after Indian troops landed, the Maharaja had agreed to accession in principle upon the terms outlined by Mountbatten'' [pg-58, Kashmir in Conflict by Victoria Schofield]



1.When The Nawab Of Junagadh Acceded To Pakistan,The Indian Government and UN Was Informed.No Such SOP Was Followed By India In Case Of Kashmir.None Of This Was Done.The Indian Government Claimed That The Original Accession Agreement Was Lost rendering Their Claim To Be Even More Suspicious.


Indias False Claim on Kashmir On October 28th 1993, Robin Raphel stated that Washington did not recognise the Instrument of Accession to India as meaning that Kashmir is not forever more an integral part of India. She expressed the view that the whole of Kashmir is disputed territory, the future status of which must be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir.




2.I Will Not Comment Much On The Words of Prem Chand Mahajan.Considering The Fact That He Was A Party To The Conflict and Later Would Hold Prominent Positions In The Indian Administration.I Will Certainly Doubt His Neutrality.

3.Victoria Schofield Is Right In Saying That In Return For Indian Military Aid,He Would Accede To India.A Promise To Accede Does Not Amount To Full Accession.Even When You Sell Land You Have To Follow Legal Procedures.You Have To Have A Sales Deed.You Cannot Just Sell Land By The Word Of The Mouth.

4.Miss Victoria's Quote Does Not Vindicate India's Stance In Anyway.She Did Not Say The Accession Document Had Indeed Been Signed Before The Airlift Of Indian Soldiers.

5.You Only Quoted A Portion Of My Reference and Arguements.I Wish You Had Answered One By One.I Will Quote Again and Reiterate my Point




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

and Again In Another Place


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

Once The Troops Started Landing In Srinagar and The Maharaja Became Totally Dependent Upon The Sweet Will of The Indian Government,He Would Have Signed Anything,Even His Death Warrant.



6.Regarding The Airlift Of The Indian Troops Itself,A Man No Less Than Lord Mountbatten Stated


_In all my extensive experience as Allied Commander in South-East Asia and Pacific during the Second World War, I have never seen an airlift of this magnitude with such slender resources and at such short notice
_
Three C47 Dakotas No 12 Sqn RIAF took off from Willingdon (Safdarjung) airfield at 0500h on 27 Oct 1947 with troops of the 1st Sikh Regiment ex-Gurgaon. The first aircraft touched down at 0830h, within hours of the signing of the aleged 'Instrument of Accession'.The Fact That Such A Large Airlift In Such A Short Time Must Have Been Planned Well In Advance.It Is Just Not Possible That Pundit Nehru Gave The Order and The Operation Started All Of A Sudden.This Also Puts Indian Intentions Under Suspicion.

I Thank You For Mentioning The so Called 'Tribal Invasion'.It Is Unfortunate To Know That Indians Have Only Been Told One Side Of The Story.They Have Not Been Told About The Large Scale Genocide Launched By Hari Singh and The Sikh and Hindu Militants From Punjab To Exterminate Muslims From Kashmir.This Holocaust of Innocent Muslims Was Not The Spur Of The Time Or The Religous Zeal Of The Hindu and Sikh Miltants But A Carefully Orchestrated Plan To Reduce The Muslims In Jammu and Kashmir To a Minority.




Official Records of the United Nations Security Council, Meeting No:234, 1948, pp.249-250:

*Special Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph of London, Douglas Brown, in the issue of 12 January 1948*:

"Yet another element in the situation is provided by Sikh refugees from the West Punjab who have seized Muslim lands in Jammu. They originated the massacres there last October, to clear for themselves new Sikh territory to comensate for their losses in Pakistan and to provide part of the nucleus of a future Sikhistan. "

*Official Records of the United Nations Security Council, Meeting No:534, 6 March 1951, pp.3-4:
*
Shortly after the terrible slaughters in India, which accompanied partition, the Maharaja set upon a course of action whereby, in the words of the special correspondent of The Times of London published in its issue of 10 October 1948,"in the remaining Dogra area, 237,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated, unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border, by all the forces of the Dogra State headed by the Maharaja in person and aided by Hindus and Sikhs."

*Official Records of the United Nations Security Council, Meeting No:226, 1948, pp.71-2:*

*Mr. G.K. Reddy, a Hindu editor of Kashmir Times, in a statement published in the Daily Gazette ,a Hindu paper of Karachi, in its issue of 28 October:*

"The mad orgy of Dogra violence against unarmed Muslims should put any self-respecting human being to shame. I saw armed bands of ruffians and soldiers shooting down and hacking to pieces helpless Muslim refugees heading towards PakistanI saw en route State officials freely distributing arms and ammunition among the Dogras From the hotel room where I was detained in Jammu, I counted as many as twenty-six villages burning one night and all through the night rattling fire of automatic weapons could be heard from the surrounding refugee camps."



*Official Records of the United Nations Security Council, Meeting No:234, 1948, pp.252-3:

Telegram sent from Sialkot, dated 20 October, from the President of the District Muslim Conference, Jammu to the Minister at Karachi:*

"Dogra military reinforced by numberless Indian Army plain-clothers, Sikh jathas, local and from abroad. Hindus and Rajputs, armed with modern weapons, launched wholesale massacre of Muslims of Ranbirsinghpura, Akhnur, Samba and Jammu Tehsils of Jammu District. Several thousand Muslims already ruthlessly butchered. Hundreds of women abducted. All moveable property looted and hundreds of Muslim villages burnt to ashes. Hostile forces, continuing killing suburban Muslims and burning Muslim villages from all sides, now converging on Jammu City and only one mile distant from it. Village Raipur, within Jammu Cantonment area, burnt. Muslims in City already hopeless minority and altogether unarmed. Fifteen thousand Muslims of Jammu City including women, children and cream of Muslim intelligentsia surrounded from all sides, helpless and in immediate danger of being ruthlessly killed. Muslim military disarmed and brigadier Khoda Bux, Jammu Cantonment relieved by Hindu Brigadier. If immediate help not made, all would be butchered. ."

Telegram sent from Sialkot, dated 22 October, from the City Muslim Conference, Jammu to the Governor-General at Karachi:

"Previous telegrams unheeded. Ten thousand Muslim refugees gathered Rosin factory Miransahib. All butchered by Dogra military, after assurance from Kashmir Premier for safety. Within fifteen miles radius of Jammu City, all Muslims including women, children, officials, killed. Number of killed ove 40,000. Organized killing continues. Attacks on Jammu City Muslims started. Over 350 mosques burned. Bonfires Holy Korans made. Muslim officials and officers being hunted and killed."



*Alastair Lamb, Incomplete Partition, Roxford 1997, p.202
*
There was indeed a civil war raging in Poonch. In Jammu at that very moment the Maharaja was engaged in a series of massacres of Muslims which some observers have considered to have been the nastiest of all in the wave of atrocities which followed immediately upon the Transfer of Power: conservative estimates suggest over 200,000 deaths here between August and December 1947. These events, naturally enough, set hordes of refugees on the move into Pakistan.

*Alastair Lamb, Incomplete Partition, Roxford 1997, p.128*

There is evidence that from the outset regular troops and police in the State service joined informally and covertly, but enthusiastically, in these atrocities which, some have estimated, eventually resulted in the death of atleast 200,000 Muslims and drove twice as many into exile.

By the beginning of October the Jammu & Kashmir State authorities joined openly in this anti-Muslim policy by setting out to create along the State's border with Pakistan (in the region of Gujarat and Sialkot) a depopulated zone some three miles deep. Hindus here were evacuated. Muslims were either killed or driven across into Pakistan. On a number of occasions Jammu & Kashmir State Forces actually crossed over into Pakistan and destroyed villages there(well documented acts of Jammu & Kashmir State's "aggression" on its territory which Pakistan has signally failed to exploit in its arguments concerning the rights and wrongs of the Kashmir situation). Early in October British observers saw in one such village on the Pakistan side of the border no fewer than 1,700 corpses of slaughtered Muslim men, women and children. Before 22 October, a crucial date on the Kashmir story, the Pakistan authorities reported that at least 100,000 Muslim refugees from Jammu were being cared for in the neighbourhood of Sialkot. The Government in Karachi might talk about negotiations, but there was a growing body of opinion in Pakistan, particularly in the Punjab, which argued forcefully for more direct action to stop the killing.

*India, District Census Handbook, Jammu & Kashmir, Jammu District, 1961, p.15, p.5:
*
Summarised below:

In Jammu District alone, which is a part of the larger Jammu Province, Muslims numbered 158,630 and comprised 37% of the total population of 428,719 in the year 1941. In the year 1961, Muslims numbered only 51,693 and comprised only 10% of the total population of 516,932. The decrease in the number of Muslims in Jammu district alone was over 100,000.


*P.S.Verma, Jammu and Kashmir at the political crossroads, New Delhi 1994, p.34*
The holocaust which raged through certain states like Bengal and Punjab in 1947 "failed to have any echo" in the Kashmir Valley which had as many as 93.7 per cent Muslim population. The Hindus in the Kashmir Valley remained safe and protected even in the wake of communal killings of Muslims in the Hindus dominated Jammu region. Credit for this mainly goes to Sheikh Abdullah and his colleagues in the party

_*Even Prem Shankar Jha Who Has Tried To Refute Lamb Had To Admit That *_


It is undeniable that later in October there was communal violence all along the Pakistan-Kashmir border, from Kathua to Bhimber to Mirpur, and beyond. It is also undeniable that Kashmir State forces did cross over the border into Pakistan proper on several occasions, and on one occasion penetrated six miles deep to virtually depopulate two [Muslim] villages near Sialkot. [Footnote:] This was not merely a Pakistan concoction, but attested to by a British officer who went to the site. The alleged body count of over 17,000 corpses may be what he was told-it is unlikely that he personally did the counting, but the fact of casualties in the thousands is beyond reasonable doubt, if the British officer's report to the UK Deputy High Commission in Lahore was accurate. Telegram from UK Dy. High Commissioner in Lahore, 6 Nov. 1947.(Kashmir, 1947 : rival versions of history, O.U.P. 1996, pp.120-1)


The Above Also Shows That Pakistan Was Not The Aggressor But The Victim Of Aggression

Also

*Ian Stephens, Pakistan, New York 1963, p.200*

But in the Jammu Province, things went very differently. There, unlike every other part of the State, Hindus and Sikhs slightly outnumbered Muslims; and within a period of eleven weeks starting in August, systematic savageries, similar to those already launched in East Punjab and in Patiala and Kapurthala, practically eliminated the entire Muslim element in the population, amounting to 500,000 people. About 200,000 just disappeared, remaining untraceable, having presumably been butchered, or died from epidemics or exposure. The rest fled destitute to West Punjab.This writer talked about it early in the following month with Mr. Gandhi, deducing that, even more than the carnage in and around Delhi itself, it explained the despairing mood of that great teacher of ahimsa during his last few weeks of life



Any Fair Minded Indian Who Says That The Tribal Invasion and The Subsequent Looting and Pillaging Was Wrong Should Also Admit That Bringing In Sikh and Hindu Militants From Neighbouring Punjab Was Also Wrong.There Have Also Been Allegations That The Maharaj Hari Singh Also Called In Patiala Sikh Infantry which landed Srinagar secretly by air on 19th July, 1947(Anil Athale's article in Sunday Observer, a weekly from Mumbai, dated 26 th October 1997 p. 2 , titled 'The Genesis of Border Dispute'), 17 th October 1947( Prof Alastair Lamb's & Stanley Wolpert's books separately & secret British records).This Also Puts Under Suspicion The Indian Intentions As Well.
The Maharajs Of Faridkot,Kapoorthala and Other Neighbouring States Were Also Helping Hari Singh Carry Out This Genocide

When You Say That You Were Responding To The Request For Help,Help For What,To Help In His Campaign Of Ethno-Religous Cleansing??????


In 1947, Muslims were in a 61 per cent majority in the Jammu province. Horace Alexander wrote in the Spectator (January 16, 1948) that the killings had the tacit consent of State authority and put the figure at 200,000. On August 10, 1948, The Times (London) published a report by A Special Correspondent, an Indian Civil Service official who had served in the State. He wrote: 2,37,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated  unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border  by all the forces of the Dogra State, headed by the Maharaja in person and aided by Hindus and Sikhs. This happened in October 1947, five days before the first Pathan invasion and nine days before the Maharajas accession to India. India was, therefore, not responsible one bit. Hari Singh was, personally. Between 1941 and 1961, the Muslim population of Jammu fell from 61 per cent to 38 per cent. Sheikh Abdullah wrote: There was enacted in every village and town through which he [Hari Singh] passed an orgy of arson and loot and murder of Muslims. In Jammu the killing of Muslims all over the province continued unabated for weeks under his very nose. In an article entitled Being Muslim in Jammu, Zafar Chaudhary writes: There was hardly any family in the region which escaped it. Those events permanently changed the way the Muslims of Jammu would live or think (Economic & Political Weekly; August 23, 2008).


Secondly,Indians Intervened In East Pakistan On The Pretext Of Large Influx Of Bengali Refugees From There .Similar Case Can Be Made On Behalf Of Pakistan.If It Is Accepted That Pakistan Was an 'Aggressor'.

It Was Against This That An Uprising Started In The Poonch Region.This Uprising Was Started By Former Immobilised Muslims Soldiers Of The State Army.Here They Proclaimed The Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir on 24th October 1947.They Were Led By Sardar Abdul Qayum Khan and Sardar Ibrahim Khan.Politically They Were Supported By Muslim Conference.These Freedom Fighters Had Called The Pashtun Tribesmen.These Tribesmen Did Not Come Of Their Own Account But Were Called In By Freedom Fighters In Poonch

Was Pakistan The Aggressor?????????

I Will Refer To Jammu and Kashmir war, 1947-1948: political and military perspective by Kuldip Singh Bajwa Ch. Kashmir Valley Saved Page 117-118.Jinnah Was Informed Of The Indian Miltary Action,He Bacme Furious.He Ordered Gen. Gracey To Send Regular Troops To Kashmir But Was Dissuaded From Doing So. 



_*Was Jinnah Aware Of The Trbemen's Activities??????? I Will Quote The Following
*_
*Jinnahs role in the Kashmir War Yasser Latif Hamdani*
The issue of whether Jinnah knew about it is a contentious one, primarily because there is no evidence, let alone overwhelming one, of Jinnahs knowledge of the tribal invasion. On the contrary, the evidence as well as consensus amongst the majority of the students of the Kashmir dispute is that, sitting in Karachi in the first two months of Pakistans creation, Jinnah was entirely ignorant of the tribal invasion till at least October 10, 1947, when it was officially underway in the north.

Here it is pertinent to quote Alastair Lamb, the author of Incomplete Partition, who says on page 137 of this book: What part had the government of Pakistan to play in this venture into the military venture into the state of Jammu and Kashmir?...The Governor General, M A Jinnah was kept ignorant of all the details, though naturally he was aware that there was trouble of some sort brewing in Kashmir, and the Pakistan cabinet did not take a minuted stance.

Fatima Jinnah confirms this as well. Sorraya Khurshid, the wife of K H Khurshid and sister to Khalid Hasan, writes in her book Memories of Fatima Jinnah on page 87 that Fatima Jinnah told her that Jinnah had no clue about the tribal invasion. She is quoted as saying, In fact, he did not know anything about it [Kashmir attack by tribals] at all and was very sorry that a thoughtless step had been taken in such a crude and unorganised manner.

George Cunningham also seconds the view that Jinnah was unaware of the tribal invasion till very late. He is quoted in the book Sir George Cunningham: A Memoir (Blackwood, 1968), on page 140 as saying: On October 25, Colonel Iskandar Mirza arrived from Lahore. He told me all the underground history of the present campaign against Kashmir, and brought apologies from Liaquat Ali for not letting me know anything about it sooner. Liaquat had meant to come here last week and tell me about it personally but was prevented by his illness...Apparently Jinnah himself first heard of what was going on about 15 days ago, but said, Dont tell me anything about it. My conscience must be clear...It was decided apparently about a month ago that the Poonchis should revolt and should be helped. Abdul Qayyum was in it from the beginning.

I Will Say No More Than The Above

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ticker said:


> Father of Madeline Albright



OK, OK, smart Alec! 

You do know your stuff, though you use it to propagandize.


----------



## sayyieth

&#1729;&#1606;&#1583;&#1608;&#1722; &#1606;&#1746; &#1578;&#1608; &#1711;&#1580;&#1585;&#1575;&#1578; &#1605;&#1740;&#1722; &#1576;&#1726;&#1740; &#1605;&#1587;&#1604;&#1605;&#1575;&#1606;&#1608;&#1722; &#1705;&#1575; &#1602;&#1578;&#1604; &#1705;&#1740;&#1575; &#1578;&#1726;&#1575;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;&#1748;


----------



## Joe Shearer

Nassr said:


> Sir,
> 
> I agree with @Jinx1s comments that there is so much more that needs to be done between signing of an agreement and its implementation.



The situation here was not of filling in the details necessary to implement an agreement.

The situation here was of one involved party and the supervising commission being in perfect accord, and the other involved party obdurately seeking to force its own interpretation on the others. I hope you will agree that the Commission's position was that Pakistan would have to withdraw, and that it was NOT of the opinion that any further clarification was needed to be given to Pakistan to permit it to begin withdrawal.

That Pakistan sought further detail is another thing. If we can agree on the first part, we can continue. Otherwise, we need to examine the evidence closely, once again.


----------



## Executioner

Dudh mango ge kheir de ge kshmir mango chir de ge.


----------



## Ticker

Executioner said:


> Dudh mango ge kheir de ge kshmir mango chir de ge.



ha ha .......... Himmat hai to cheer lo. 

Kashmir maangein ge nahin ........... 

zabadasti cheen len ge ............ Himmat hai to rok lo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A1Kaid

Does Mountbatten still have living relatives or progeny?


----------



## Samlee

Joe Shearer said:


> We value freedom of speech. Arundhati Roy is welcome to express her point of view. As it happens, i disagree with her. Tere is no coherence in her arguments; she argues from a different point of view on every issue.
> 
> However, she lives in a country where the legislature of a province is not asked to swear loyalty to the foreign policy of that state. She is more fortunate than Professor Peerbhoy.




Unfortunately She Is Also The Member Of A Country Where One Gets Beaten For Saying The Wrong Thing



http://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&r...pIGQCg&usg=AFQjCNGSaridMltToiZHi64HlZFV2d8rwg


----------



## Samlee

illusion8 said:


> LOL your Muslims minorities are being slaughtered and fleeing, the Gilgit/ Baltistan people want freedom so do the Baloch and the Pashtuns, The Bengali's wanted it and got it and got a genocide in return but achieved it in the end, The Indian Kashmiri's and Indian Muslims do not want anything to do with Pakistan, The Hindu's and Christians want to flee from Pakistan and here you seem worried about the Naxals of India.



We Are Not But You Should Be












BTW Kashmiris Also Don't Want Anything To Do With India


http://www.pakistantoday.com....dian-ministry/


----------



## Dubious

What exactly is the point of arguing now? 

The argument would have been valid had someone broken the neck of the gori chamri! 

Seriously, there were problems in the subcontinent but none were as serious until the lousy gori chamri came...

Mind you, this is the case wither wherever they left...

Not sure how many are aware of South east Asia- SAME CASE- they left some disputed lands!

To date the Malaysians, the Bruneians, the Singaporeans and the Indonesian are arguing (not on major scale like India nd Pakistan) but on STILL arguing about CERTAIN pieces of lands!

All because of the gori chamri...Had the mullahs and the Hindu pandit not kept their people ignorant and uneducated none of this crap would have happened.

By ANY of you arguing on this thread would not change history. History is written by the winners...Here in UK, it is thought about INDIAN barbarians/terrorists whom you guys call FREEDOM fighters...so chew however you want, gori chamri screwed all the Asians!


----------



## A1Kaid

Talon said:


> What exactly is the point of arguing now?
> 
> The argument would have been valid had someone broken the neck of the gori chamri!
> 
> Seriously, there were problems in the subcontinent but none were as serious until the lousy gori chamri came...
> 
> Mind you, this is the case wither wherever they left...
> 
> Not sure how many are aware of South east Asia- SAME CASE- they left some disputed lands!
> 
> To date the Malaysians, the Bruneians, the Singaporeans and the Indonesian are arguing (not on major scale like India nd Pakistan) but on STILL arguing about CERTAIN pieces of lands!
> 
> All because of the gori chamri...Had the mullahs and the Hindu pandit not kept their people ignorant and uneducated none of this crap would have happened.
> 
> By ANY of you arguing on this thread would not change history. History is written by the winners...Here in UK, it is thought about INDIAN barbarians/terrorists whom you guys call FREEDOM fighters...so chew however you want, gori chamri screwed all the Asians!



I think we all agree the British are the root of most problems in today's world. In South Asia, in SE Asia, East Asia, Africa, ME, even South America -Falkland Is. and other parts of the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dubious

Yup they left some problems EVERYWHERE before they left, I am guessing they hoped that when these ex-colonies would fall they could re-intervene just like America invites itself everywhere


----------



## Nassr

Joe Shearer said:


> The situation here was not of filling in the details necessary to implement an agreement.
> 
> The situation here was of one involved party and the supervising commission being in perfect accord, and the other involved party obdurately seeking to force its own interpretation on the others. I hope you will agree that the Commission's position was that Pakistan would have to withdraw, and that it was NOT of the opinion that any further clarification was needed to be given to Pakistan to permit it to begin withdrawal.
> 
> That Pakistan sought further detail is another thing. If we can agree on the first part, we can continue. Otherwise, we need to examine the evidence closely, once again.



Sir,

There were many aspects to which India did not agree as well, with regard to not only the commission, the subsequent representative appointees also. The commission or others, may or may not have agreed with either India or Pakistan, they had to report their findings to the UNSC. 

The mere fact that it took 113 meetings of the commission of which Josef Korbel was part of, with all concerned parties in 1948, to negotiate a basic ceasefire. Without Korbel, the Commission held another 126 meetings in a vain attempt to move forward on a truce agreement and plebiscite (Korbel mentions about this in his book, Danger in Kashmir). Korbel feared that a failure to settle the Kashmir dispute would fragment potential South Asian unity to the benefit of communist activism and potential domination. 

Subsequent UN appointed individual mediators also followed with no better result. 

The US-Pakistan agreement alarmed Nehru. Korbels analysis also partly supports Nehrus concerns. However, despite this, considering the length and breadth of commissions and interaction of other individual intermediaries consultations and Nehrus raison-dêtre for not holding plebiscite, it still did not highlight non-withdrawal of Pakistani Army as the major impediment for not holding the plebiscite. 

After not reaching an agreement in various aspects, the later representatives also, in order to further the process made repeated additional changes/suggestions, while remaining within the ambit of overall UNSC resolutions. They would add or subtract or improve when either Pakistan or India would not agree to certain suggestions. Therefore, they were exercising flexibility in order to reach some amenable conclusion, while remaining within the ambit of UNSC resolution. Many examples exist and you can not straight-jacket it to either or nothing scenario which may have been presented, as the final authority was not the commission or an individual, but the UNSC to which they would report. 

Like I said before also, we can continue discussing this, can quote different people, different reports and different analyses and findings. We still would not find a common ground on this aspect.


----------



## Nassr

Ticker said:


> Father of Madeline Albright



ha ha ha....... gosh man ........ ha ha ha


----------



## Joe Shearer

A1Kaid said:


> Does Mountbatten still have living relatives or progeny?



His nephew, sister's son, is Prince Philip of Greece, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Consort to the Queen of Great Britain. The next British monarch is likely to be his Great-nephew, Charles, Prince of Wales, who will have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor when (and if) he ascends the throne, and his descendants, after him.

Philip took the surname Mountbatten when he became a British citizen, but he was not a Mountbatten, he was a Gluecksburg, a junior branch of the Danish royal family, the Oldenburgs. His mother was a Mountbatten, or rather, a Battenberg. The Battenbergs settled in Britain were embarrassed by their German titles when WWI broke out, and the senior of the House in Britain, Admiral of the Fleet Louis Lord Battenberg was given an English title, the Marquess of Milford Haven, by his cousin the King of Britain, George V. This (older) Louis' daughter Alice married Prince Andrew of Greece, and was Philip's mother. His son joined the Navy and came to India as Viceroy, later being raised to the Peerage as Earl Mountbatten of Burma.

Mountbatten's own children and grand-children included Patricia, Lady Mountbatten, who inherited the title, married Lord Brabourne and had eight children. Seven survive; one of the two youngest (twins) was murdered with his grandfather by the IRA. 

His younger daughter, Lady Pamela Mountbatten, married David Hicks and had three children.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Nassr said:


> Sir,
> 
> There were many aspects to which India did not agree as well, with regard to not only the commission, the subsequent representative appointees also. The commission or others, may or may not have agreed with either India or Pakistan, they had to report their findings to the UNSC.
> 
> The mere fact that it took 113 meetings of the commission of which Josef Korbel was part of, with all concerned parties in 1948, to negotiate a basic ceasefire. Without Korbel, the Commission held another 126 meetings in a vain attempt to move forward on a truce agreement and plebiscite (Korbel mentions about this in his book, Danger in Kashmir). Korbel feared that a failure to settle the Kashmir dispute would fragment potential South Asian unity to the benefit of communist activism and potential domination.
> 
> Subsequent UN appointed individual mediators also followed with no better result.
> 
> The US-Pakistan agreement alarmed Nehru. Korbel&#8217;s analysis also partly supports Nehru&#8217;s concerns. However, despite this, considering the length and breadth of commission&#8217;s and interaction of other individual intermediaries&#8217; consultations and Nehru&#8217;s raison-d&#8217;être for not holding plebiscite, it still did not highlight non-withdrawal of Pakistani Army as the major impediment for not holding the plebiscite.
> 
> After not reaching an agreement in various aspects, the later representatives also, in order to further the process made repeated additional changes/suggestions, while remaining within the ambit of overall UNSC resolutions. They would add or subtract or improve when either Pakistan or India would not agree to certain suggestions. Therefore, they were exercising flexibility in order to reach some amenable conclusion, while remaining within the ambit of UNSC resolution. Many examples exist and you can not straight-jacket it to either or nothing scenario which may have been presented, as the final authority was not the commission or an individual, but the UNSC to which they would report.
> 
> Like I said before also, we can continue discussing this, can quote different people, different reports and different analyses and findings. We still would not find a common ground on this aspect.



Sir,

You mention many aspects to which India did not agree as well. I put it to you that my question was simple and remains unanswered. Second, i put it to you that there was nothing in the Commission's proceedings other than the failure of Pakistan to comply with the Resolution that India did not agree to. Irrespective of it not being mentioned in the Commission's reports, the records of the Commission show the actual position.

Discussion of the efforts of subsequent interlocutors becomes futile.

My point is simple. The task before the Commission was straightforward and uncomplicated. There is all the evidence in the world that Pakistan was obstructive, and created impediments, asking for extensions of the Resolution to suit their own ends, the protraction of the proceedings and ultimate frustration of the entire effort, knowing very well that a plebiscite would go against them. There is no evidence to justify any surmise of Indian obstruction of the proceedings.

Bringing in the subsequent developments, when a series of interlocutors proposed their own modifications of the UN Resolution, is a retrospective justification. None of those subsequent proceedings had any relevance to the original meetings, and the record shows clearly what happened. 

Once again, would you agree, absence of mention of this in the Commission reports notwithstanding, the only sticking point was the intransigence of Pakitan?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A1Kaid

Joe Shearer said:


> His nephew, sister's son, is Prince Philip of Greece, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Consort to the Queen of Great Britain. The next British monarch is likely to be his Great-nephew, Charles, Prince of Wales, who will have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor when (and if) he ascends the throne, and his descendants, after him.
> 
> Philip took the surname Mountbatten when he became a British citizen, but he was not a Mountbatten, he was a Gluecksburg, a junior branch of the Danish royal family, the Oldenburgs. His mother was a Mountbatten, or rather, a Battenberg. The Battenbergs settled in Britain were embarrassed by their German titles when WWI broke out, and the senior of the House in Britain, Admiral of the Fleet Louis Lord Battenberg was given an English title, the Marquess of Milford Haven, by his cousin the King of Britain, George V. This (older) Louis' daughter Alice married Prince Andrew of Greece, and was Philip's mother. His son joined the Navy and came to India as Viceroy, later being raised to the Peerage as Earl Mountbatten of Burma.
> 
> Mountbatten's own children and grand-children included Patricia, Lady Mountbatten, who inherited the title, married Lord Brabourne and had eight children. Seven survive; one of the two youngest (twins) was murdered with his grandfather by the IRA.
> 
> His younger daughter, Lady Pamela Mountbatten, married David Hicks and had three children.



Thank you for the well-informed response, I do remember learning the British monarchy are originally from Germany and were transplanted in Britain to rule England. Many of them changed their surnames, the earlier generations of monarchs couldn't even speak English when they were ruling England.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nelson

Was it Mountbaton who ordered PA to infiltrate in Kashmir without the latter approved its accession to Pakistan??


----------



## Joe Shearer

A1Kaid said:


> Thank you for the well-informed response, I do remember learning the British monarchy are originally from Germany and were transplanted in Britain to rule England. Many of them changed their surnames, the earlier generations of monarchs couldn't even speak English when they were ruling England.



You are quite right, of course. The British had decided, after their bad experience with the returned Stuarts, specifically, with James II,s who was adamantly Catholic, that no Catholic would come to reign. This meant that the monarchy shifted to the daughters of Charles I who had married Protestants, first to William and Mary, then, after they both died, to Anne, finally, to the son of Sophie, George, Elector of Hanover, who came to the throne as George I, and did not have a word of English. His great-grandsons both came to reign, as George IV, and as William IV. Neither of them had children, so the daughter of the fourth son, Edward, Duke of Kent, came to the throne as Victoria. She was a Hanover, but married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, so the royal family was the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family until George V changed their name to Windsor.

In other words, the next King will be descended from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha on his mother's side, Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluecksburg on his father's side; the Mountbatten name is an adopted one.

Simple enough, isn't it?



Nelson said:


> Was it Mountbaton who ordered PA to infiltrate in Kashmir without the latter approved its accession to Pakistan??



No.

It was Liaqat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister, but acting with the vague knowledge of Jinnah. Jinnah specifically wanted not to be told, not to be involved in what he held in distaste.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Nelson

Joe Shearer said:


> No.
> 
> It was Liaqat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister, but acting with the vague knowledge of Jinnah. Jinnah specifically wanted not to be told, not to be involved in what he held in distaste.


That means that Kashmir was not stolen by Mountbaton (as claimed by the article) but Pakistan threw it away for showing her immaturity and impatience. Pakistanis should blame their own policies for this mess and not Mountbaton or India for that matter.


----------



## Nassr

Joe Shearer said:


> Sir,
> 
> You mention many aspects to which India did not agree as well. I put it to you that my question was simple and remains unanswered. Second, i put it to you that there was nothing in the Commission's proceedings other than the failure of Pakistan to comply with the Resolution that India did not agree to. Irrespective of it not being mentioned in the Commission's reports, the records of the Commission show the actual position.
> 
> Discussion of the efforts of subsequent interlocutors becomes futile.
> 
> My point is simple. The task before the Commission was straightforward and uncomplicated. There is all the evidence in the world that Pakistan was obstructive, and created impediments, asking for extensions of the Resolution to suit their own ends, the protraction of the proceedings and ultimate frustration of the entire effort, knowing very well that a plebiscite would go against them. There is no evidence to justify any surmise of Indian obstruction of the proceedings.
> 
> Bringing in the subsequent developments, when a series of interlocutors proposed their own modifications of the UN Resolution, is a retrospective justification. None of those subsequent proceedings had any relevance to the original meetings, and the record shows clearly what happened.
> 
> Once again, would you agree, absence of mention of this in the Commission reports notwithstanding, the only sticking point was the intransigence of Pakitan?



A process is being followed. There is a dialectic involved. If Pakistan does not agree to certain interpretations offered by the commission, it had a right to do so. The commission did not have the power to force its will on Pakistan, neither did India. When a portion of the process did not yield result, it was furthered, through appointment of other interlocutors following normal conflict resolution norms. 

If Pakistan feels that certain aspects are not in its interest, it objects. How can you term it intransigence. What if the Indians feel that there are certain aspects which are not in their interest and they object. Would you term it as being intransigent. 

I have read the commissions report and the observations of individual members like Korbel etc. And in my opinion many of their demands were outright frivolous. The commissions inclination and bias was as clear as the daylight. There are many others who opined identically. 

A process like this does not end with non-agreement in one particular phase. You surprise me when you say that the discussion of subsequent interlocutors became futile. It smacks of arrogance. A small new upstart challenges great India  is that what you want to imply. 

The multi-lateral dialogue process is a tedious undertaking and is never easy. The retrospective judgments and decisions would come into play if needed. And just because it happens, does not mean that the process failed. 

The difference in interpretation between Pakistan and India in this case is so wide that both will have to lose quite a lot to arrive at a consensus.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ticker

Joe Shearer said:


> OK, OK, smart Alec!
> 
> You do know your stuff, though _you use it to propagandize. _


_
_

Don't we all sir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Nassr said:


> A process is being followed. There is a dialectic involved. If Pakistan does not agree to certain interpretations offered by the commission, it had a right to do so. The commission did not have the power to force its will on Pakistan, neither did India. When a portion of the process did not yield result, it was furthered, through appointment of other interlocutors following normal conflict resolution norms.



It is mistaken to believe that the Commission sought the power to force its will on Pakistan, considering that it sought to interpret the Resolution which formed its basis in minimal terms. It was Pakistan that sought to interpret the Resoution, and read nuances into it which never existed, for purposes of its own. How can we decide that Pakistan, against whose presence in the disputed area the Resolution was worded, in unambiguous terms, and which took upon itself a revision of both wording and spirit of the Resolution, had a right to disagree? A right to disagree might have existed if the Commission sought to do what was not contained in the Resolution; for such a right to exist when the Commission sought to do the precise things set out for it and the disagreeing party disagreed due to a desire to extend the scope and wording is contradictory.



> If Pakistan feels that certain aspects are not in its interest, it objects. How can you term it intransigence. What if the Indians feel that there are certain aspects which are not in their interest and they object. Would you term it as being intransigent.



This was not about nationality but about acceptance of the terms of the Resolution. It is important to concentrate on that for the simple reason that the Pakistani administration has hoodwinked the world by letting it be understood that it was for a plebiscite, and India was not, while carefully concealing the facts about the systematic sabotage of the Commission's initial proceedings.

In such a case, whichever party agrees with the bare interpretation of the Resolution, and cooperates with the Commission, is to be considered positive; whichever party disagrees, and seeks to superimpose its own interests through stalling the proceeds, is intransigent. Is that unfair? 

It boils down to Pakistan seeking to dilute the implied rebuke contained in the wording of the Resolution, and to neutralize its effect by twisting it on the ground.



> I have read the commissions report and the observations of individual members like Korbel etc. And in my opinion many of their demands were outright frivolous. The commissions inclination and bias was as clear as the daylight. There are many others who opined identically.



Would you care to display a single instance in which it sought to deviate from the Resolution? 

If strict compliance is termed bias, and unbiased proceedings are identified with the interpolated desires of a rebuked party, surely the bias in the judgement itself is evident? If the Resolution says one thing, and your opinions say another, which should we give more weight, in terms of the intentions of the UN?



> A process like this does not end with non-agreement in one particular phase. You surprise me when you say that the discussion of subsequent interlocutors became futile. It smacks of arrogance. A small new upstart challenges great India  is that what you want to imply.



That is not what I mean to imply, and it is not going to work to make me feel guilty of bullying a small, helpless, new entity by asking that we stick to the facts rather than encourage fishing expeditions. 

The process did not end with disagreement on one small phrase. It ended with the Pakistani disruption of the entire process by flat refusal to comply with the terms of the Resolution: in bald terms, with the Resolution itself. When the Commission reverted to its parent body, the response was to reiterate the terms of the original Resolution. Any change in response to Pakistan's strenuous efforts to alter things to its own liking might have been incorporated then, if the UN was so inclined. Apparently, it was not.

For that reason, and no other, I termed the efforts of other interlocutors futile.

Trust that the point is abundantly clear.



> The multi-lateral dialogue process is a tedious undertaking and is never easy. The retrospective judgments and decisions would come into play if needed. And just because it happens, does not mean that the process failed.



There was no multilateral dialogue process at the level of the Commission. That dialogue had already taken place in the UN. The UN took a view. Pakistan disagreed with that view, seemingly, because its actions at the Commission level suggest that. Instead of getting its point at the UN, it was sought to get it by stopping the process of the plebiscite dead in its tracks by raising requests that reversed the implications of the Resolution.

What you have deemed earlier the bias of the Commission was no such thing; it was the sense of the UN. We criticize Nehru severely for allowing the matter to go to the UN when a military victory was well within sight. We tend to forget that the UN. In fact backed India's stand by its wording of its Resolution. That wording showed clearly what it thought had happened and what the situation on the ground was. It was thereafter Pakistan's fixed and sole intention to convert this rebuke into an equally distributed decision. There was no equal distribution in the thinking of the UN and it shows very clearly what the world thought at that moment.

All the argument at the Commission and subsequently, for instance, here, is intended to neutralize that stinging criticism of Pakistan's failed aggression. 



> The difference in interpretation between Pakistan and India in this is so wide that both will have to lose quite a lot to arrive at a consensus.



It has been made wide by one side, as is its wont, in order to secure gains through a compromise between the existing position of one side and the expanded position of the other. Except where the existing position is maintained by a hugely weaker entity, this is unlikely to succeed, which will explain why bilateral discussions between the two countries seldom succeed. One side seeks to bargain without any strength, and is then aggrieved at its lack of success and accuses the other of exercising its superior strength in unfair ways. A strange and perverse argument, from a weak power seeking to browbeat a stronger power.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Bang Galore

Joe Shearer said:


> ....... Except where the existing position is maintained by a hugely weaker entity, this is unlikely to succeed, which will explain why bilateral discussions between the two countries seldom succeed. One side seeks to bargain without any strength, and is then aggrieved at its lack of success and accuses the other of exercising its superior strength in unfair ways. A strange and perverse argument, from a weak power seeking to browbeat a stronger power.



This small paragraph beautifully sums up the India-Pakistani relationship better that what reams & reams of paper written on the subject don't.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ticker

Joe Shearer said:


> It is mistaken to believe that the Commission sought the power to force its will on Pakistan, considering that it sought to interpret the Resolution which formed its basis in minimal terms. It was Pakistan that sought to interpret the Resoution, and read nuances into it which never existed, for purposes of its own. How can we decide that Pakistan, against whose presence in the disputed area the Resolution was worded, in unambiguous terms, and which took upon itself a revision of both wording and spirit of the Resolution, had a right to disagree? A right to disagree might have existed if the Commission sought to do what was not contained in the Resolution; for such a right to exist when the Commission sought to do the precise things set out for it and the disagreeing party disagreed due to a desire to extend the scope and wording is contradictory.



Pakistan also had the right to interpret the wording of the resolution as it deemed appropriate. So did India. If you think the commission was the only one who could interpret in whatever manner it could, you are wrong. It could and then in the absence of an agreement would report to the UNSC. Thats what it did. 



> This was not about nationality but about acceptance of the terms of the Resolution. It is important to concentrate on that for the simple reason that the Pakistani administration has hoodwinked the world by letting it be understood that it was for a plebiscite, and India was not, while carefully concealing the facts about the systematic sabotage of the Commission's initial proceedings.
> 
> In such a case, whichever party agrees with the bare interpretation of the Resolution, and cooperates with the Commission, is to be considered positive; whichever party disagrees, and seeks to superimpose its own interests through stalling the proceeds, is intransigent. Is that unfair?
> 
> It boils down to Pakistan seeking to dilute the implied rebuke contained in the wording of the Resolution, and to neutralize its effect by twisting it on the ground.




Pakistan accepted the resolution. But at the same time like any other country it reserved the right to interpret its various articles as it deemed appropriate. It would not accept Indias biased interpretation or commissions interpretation thrust down its throat, primarily because it was a weaker party or that India being a bigger party and therefore her interpretation is correct, or India perceived that Pakistan was attempting to hoodwink the world. The resolution never said that Pakistan has to accept Indias interpreted version. You can perceive anything as to why Pakistan interpreted a particular article in the manner that it did. Pakistan wanted to create this or that impression or because Pakistans Foreign Minister didnt brush his teeth that morning.




> Would you care to display a single instance in which it sought to deviate from the Resolution?
> 
> If strict compliance is termed bias, and unbiased proceedings are identified with the interpolated desires of a rebuked party, surely the bias in the judgement itself is evident? If the Resolution says one thing, and your opinions say another, which should we give more weight, in terms of the intentions of the UN?



Who said anybody deviated from the resolution. It was the interpretation of certain articles which was contested. Pakistan did not agree with the Indias or commissions interpretation in certain articles. Like you say, If the resolution says one thing and your opinion says another thing, which should we give more weight, in terms of intentions of the UN? 

Who decides the correct interpretation, India, Pakistan, Commission? If a party does not agree, they take it back to the UNSC. Thats what they did.




> That is not what I mean to imply, and it is not going to work to make me feel guilty of bullying a small, helpless, new entity by asking that we stick to the facts rather than encourage fishing expeditions.
> 
> The process did not end with disagreement on one small phrase. It ended with the Pakistani disruption of the entire process by flat refusal to comply with the terms of the Resolution: in bald terms, with the Resolution itself. When the Commission reverted to its parent body, the response was to reiterate the terms of the original Resolution. Any change in response to Pakistan's strenuous efforts to alter things to its own liking might have been incorporated then, if the UN was so inclined. Apparently, it was not.
> 
> For that reason, and no other, I termed the efforts of other interlocutors futile.
> 
> Trust that the point is abundantly clear.



Which means that after the failure of initial rounds in a dialogue, and if I form a perception, subsequent parleys would be futile. It normally doesnt happen this way unless the accusing party has already decided the outcome. 



> There was no multilateral dialogue process at the level of the Commission. That dialogue had already taken place in the UN. The UN took a view. Pakistan disagreed with that view, seemingly, because its actions at the Commission level suggest that. Instead of getting its point at the UN, it was sought to get it by stopping the process of the plebiscite dead in its tracks by raising requests that reversed the implications of the Resolution.
> 
> What you have deemed earlier the bias of the Commission was no such thing; it was the sense of the UN. We criticize Nehru severely for allowing the matter to go to the UN when a military victory was well within sight. We tend to forget that the UN. In fact backed India's stand by its wording of its Resolution. That wording showed clearly what it thought had happened and what the situation on the ground was. It was thereafter Pakistan's fixed and sole intention to convert this rebuke into an equally distributed decision. There was no equal distribution in the thinking of the UN and it shows very clearly what the world thought at that moment.
> 
> All the argument at the Commission and subsequently, for instance, here, is intended to neutralize that stinging criticism of Pakistan's failed aggression.



Thats what you think and its your interpretation of events. Which is entirely wrong. Why would you go to the UN if you thought you could win the war. Pakistan asked India earlier to collectively approach the UN. India refused, as it thought they could win the war. When Pakistan consolidated its gains, India knew that it cannot win the war and thus went running to the UN. And in the end the favourite ploy is blame it all on Nehru. Poor man cant even reply. 

Conveying the sense of the UN, as interpreted by the commission was not agreed to by Pakistan. Pakistan had the right to do this. Whatever and however the twist you may like to spun it with, Pakistan exercised its right as a sovereign and independent state. And please take it out of your mind that Pakistan spoiled it in order to avoid a plebiscite. There is nothing far from the truth than Shangri La from reality. 

Pakistans failed aggression gained it enough real-estate. Infact it was an Indian aggression which failed. India wanted an ethnically cleansed Muslim less Kashmir. It sent forces and hordes from Patiala, Alwar etc etc to Kashmir to kill or force Muslims out. This pogrom started much before the so-called Pathan invasion commenced. 




> It has been made wide by one side, as is its wont, in order to secure gains through a compromise between the existing position of one side and the expanded position of the other. Except where the existing position is maintained by a hugely weaker entity, this is unlikely to succeed, which will explain why bilateral discussions between the two countries seldom succeed. One side seeks to bargain without any strength, and is then aggrieved at its lack of success and accuses the other of exercising its superior strength in unfair ways. A strange and perverse argument, from a weak power seeking to browbeat a stronger power.



When a stronger power failed to attain its objectives against a weaker power through the use of force, it sought refuge and support from an umbrella of powers and wanted to attain the same very objectives, perverse as it may sound, through a coerced dialogue process. Having failed to even coercively use a dialogue process, blamed the weaker power of aggression and capture of territory and attempts to avoid Plebiscite of a people who would have favoured the weaker rather than joining the stronger to avoid becoming a minority.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## toxic_pus

Samlee said:


> Thank You Toxic Sahib,Some Interesting Points Have Been Raised


And yet you have only rehashed the same old arguments. 



> Regarding Your First Point Yes Many Points Which Could Have Helped Pakistan Get Better Concessions From Were Ignored.One Good Reason Could Have Been That Quaid E Azam and and The Pakistani Government Were Not Aware Of The Detailed Information As To What Was Really Happening In Kashmir At That Point of Time and What The Indian Machinations Were.


Part II, para A(1) of the all pervasive Security Council resolution of 13th August, 1948, begins thus:


'As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a *material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council*....'​

That's Pakistan's machination codified in the body-text of the resolution. Do you know what it is referring to?

Or for that matter, why did it take 9 odd months for Pakistan to sign the Truce Agreement, which India signed within 15 days of it being passed at Security Council?




> 1.When The Nawab Of Junagadh Acceded To Pakistan,The Indian Government and UN Was Informed.No Such SOP Was Followed By India In Case Of Kashmir.None Of This Was Done.The Indian Government Claimed That The Original Accession Agreement Was Lost rendering Their Claim To Be Even More Suspicious.


Pretty much irrelevant. The rules of accession as prescribed by extant laws were followed _in toto_. The original accession Instrument is now a public document



> Indias False Claim on Kashmir On October 28th 1993, Robin Raphel stated that Washington did not recognise the Instrument of Accession to India as meaning that Kashmir is not forever more an integral part of India. She expressed the view that the whole of Kashmir is disputed territory, the future status of which must be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir.


Again, US views on Kashmir have no bearing on UN resolutions and Indian Constitution. 



> 2.I Will Not Comment Much On The Words of Prem Chand Mahajan.Considering The Fact That He Was A Party To The Conflict and Later Would Hold Prominent Positions In The Indian Administration.I Will Certainly Doubt His Neutrality.


If you have any means to refute Prem Chand, do so. Don't hide behind the issue of 'neutrality', because that would make everybody from Jinnah to Nehru unquotable because they were also 'party to the conflict'.



> 3.Victoria Schofield Is Right In Saying That In Return For Indian Military Aid,He Would Accede To India.A Promise To Accede Does Not Amount To Full Accession.Even When You Sell Land You Have To Follow Legal Procedures.You Have To Have A Sales Deed.You Cannot Just Sell Land By The Word Of The Mouth.
> 
> 4.Miss Victoria's Quote Does Not Vindicate India's Stance In Anyway.She Did Not Say The Accession Document Had Indeed Been Signed Before The Airlift Of Indian Soldiers. [...] Once The Troops Started Landing In Srinagar and The Maharaja Became Totally Dependent Upon The Sweet Will of The Indian Government,He Would Have Signed Anything,Even His Death Warrant.


Nonsense. 

I have already explained in my earlier post why it is irrelevant if the actual signing happened after the landing of Indian troops. Meeting of minds between the Maharaja and the Indian Govt. regarding accession of J & K had already happened long before the troops were given orders to board those Dokotas. Victorial Schofield - not that I consider her to be of any authority, but since you quoted her - agrees as much. Signing was a matter of formality. Whether it happened before the troops landed or after, doesn't in any way prejudice the Instrument. 




> 5.You Only Quoted A Portion Of My Reference and Arguements.I Wish You Had Answered One By One.I Will Quote Again and Reiterate my Point


I have responded to the basic points raised in that post. That should suffice. 



> 6.Regarding The Airlift Of The Indian Troops Itself,A Man No Less Than Lord Mountbatten Stated
> 
> 
> In all my extensive experience as Allied Commander in South-East Asia and Pacific during the Second World War, I have never seen an airlift of this magnitude with such slender resources and at such short notice
> 
> Three C47 Dakotas No 12 Sqn RIAF took off from Willingdon (Safdarjung) airfield at 0500h on 27 Oct 1947 with troops of the 1st Sikh Regiment ex-Gurgaon. The first aircraft touched down at 0830h, within hours of the signing of the aleged 'Instrument of Accession'.The Fact That Such A Large Airlift In Such A Short Time Must Have Been Planned Well In Advance.It Is Just Not Possible That Pundit Nehru Gave The Order and The Operation Started All Of A Sudden.This Also Puts Indian Intentions Under Suspicion.



Following is the text of the document jointly signed by General R.M.M. Lockhart, Commander-In-Chief Indian Army, Air-Marshal T.W.Elmhirst, Chief of Royal Indian Air Force and Rear Admiral J.T.S.Hall, Chief of Royal Indian Navy. It was presented to the Council at the UN Meeting #234, 23 Jan, 1948 [pg 222-3]. 


'_It has been alleged that plans were made for sending Indian forces to Kashmir at some date before 22 October, on which day the raid on that State from the direction of Abbottabad began.

1. The following is a true time-table of events, as regards decisions taken, plans made, orders given, and movement started in this matter:

2. On 24 October the Commander-in-Chief, received information that tribesmen had seized Muzaffarabad. This was the first indication of the raid.

3. Prior to this date, no plans of any sort for sending Indian forces into Kashmir had been formulated or even considered. On the morning of 25 October, we were directed to examine and prepare plans for sending troops to examine and prepare plans for sending troops to Kashmir by air and road, in case this should be necessary to stop the tribal incursions. This was the first direction which we received on this subject. No steps had been taken, prior to the meeting, to examine or prepare such plans.

4. On the afternoon of 25 October we sent one staff officer of the Indian Army and one of the Royal Indian Air Force by air to Srinagar. There they saw officers of the Kashmir State Forces. This was the first contact between officers of our Headquarters and officers of the Kashmir State Forces on the subject of sending Indian troops of Kashmir.

5. On the afternoon of 25 October we also issued orders to an infantry battalion to prepare itself to be flown, at short notice, to Srinagar, in the event of the Government of India deciding to accept the accession of Kashmir and to send help.

6. On the morning of 26 October the staff officers mentioned in paragraph 4 above. returned from Srinagar and reported on their meetings with officers of the Kashmir State Forces.

7. On the afternoon of 26 October we finalized our plans for the dispatch by air of troops to Kashmir.

8. At first light on the morning of 27 October, with Kashmir's Instrument of Accession signed, the movement by air of Indian forces to Kashmir began. No plans were made for sending thees forces, nor were such plans even considered before 25 October, three days after the tribal incursions began._'​

[...contd.]

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## toxic_pus

Joe Shearer said:


> Would you care to display a single instance in which it sought to deviate from the Resolution?


Unfortunately, several instances can be given, but all were in favour of Pakistan. Numerous attempts were made to equate India with Pakistan, former being the victim, later the aggressor. Proposals were given that went right against the spirit of the Truce Agreement but put Pakistan in a favourable position. So much so, one rapporteur even completely disregarded a previous Commission report to militarily weaken Indian position in J & K.

There is a reason why Nehru, once a great advocate for UN, literally gave up on UN. 



> It has been made wide by one side, as is its wont, in order to secure gains through a compromise between the existing position of one side and the expanded position of the other. Except where the existing position is maintained by a hugely weaker entity, this is unlikely to succeed, which will explain why bilateral discussions between the two countries seldom succeed. One side seeks to bargain without any strength, and is then aggrieved at its lack of success and accuses the other of exercising its superior strength in unfair ways. A strange and perverse argument, from a weak power seeking to browbeat a stronger power.


Absolute gem.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

> It is mistaken to believe that the Commission sought the power to force its will on Pakistan, considering that it sought to interpret the Resolution which formed its basis in minimal terms. It was Pakistan that sought to interpret the Resoution, and read nuances into it which never existed, for purposes of its own. How can we decide that Pakistan, against whose presence in the disputed area the Resolution was worded, in unambiguous terms, and which took upon itself a revision of both wording and spirit of the Resolution, had a right to disagree? A right to disagree might have existed if the Commission sought to do what was not contained in the Resolution; for such a right to exist when the Commission sought to do the precise things set out for it and the disagreeing party disagreed due to a desire to extend the scope and wording is contradictory.
> Original Post By Joe Shearer
> 
> Pakistan also had the right to interpret the wording of the resolution as it deemed appropriate. So did India. If you think the commission was the only one who could interpret in whatever manner it could, you are wrong. It could and then in the absence of an agreement would report to the UNSC. Thats what it did.
> 
> This was not about nationality but about acceptance of the terms of the Resolution. It is important to concentrate on that for the simple reason that the Pakistani administration has hoodwinked the world by letting it be understood that it was for a plebiscite, and India was not, while carefully concealing the facts about the systematic sabotage of the Commission's initial proceedings.
> 
> In such a case, whichever party agrees with the bare interpretation of the Resolution, and cooperates with the Commission, is to be considered positive; whichever party disagrees, and seeks to superimpose its own interests through stalling the proceeds, is intransigent. Is that unfair?
> 
> It boils down to Pakistan seeking to dilute the implied rebuke contained in the wording of the Resolution, and to neutralize its effect by twisting it on the ground.
> 
> Pakistan accepted the resolution. But at the same time like any other country it reserved the right to interpret its various articles as it deemed appropriate. It would not accept Indias biased interpretation or commissions interpretation thrust down its throat, primarily because it was a weaker party or that India being a bigger party and therefore her interpretation is correct, or India perceived that Pakistan was attempting to hoodwink the world. The resolution never said that Pakistan has to accept Indias interpreted version. You can perceive anything as to why Pakistan interpreted a particular article in the manner that it did. Pakistan wanted to create this or that m
> All the argument at the Commission and subsequently, for instance, here, is intended to neutralize that stinging criticism of Pakistan's failed aggression.
> 
> Thats what you think and its your interpretation of events. Which is entirely wrong. Why would you go to the UN if you thought you could win the war. Pakistan asked India earlier to collectively approach the UN. India refused, as it thought they could win the war. When Pakistan consolidated its gains, India knew that it cannot win the war and thus went running to the UN. And in the end the favourite ploy is blame it all on Nehru. Poor man cant even reply.
> 
> Conveying the sense of the UN, as interpreted by the commission was not agreed to by Pakistan. Pakistan had the right to do this. Whatever and however the twist you may like to spun it with, Pakistan exercised its right as a sovereign and independent state. And please take it out of your mind that Pakistan spoiled it in order to avoid a plebiscite. There is nothing far from the truth than Shangri La from reality.
> 
> Pakistans failed aggression gained it enough real-estate. Infact it was an Indian aggression which failed. India wanted an ethnically cleansed Muslim less Kashmir. It sent forces and hordes from Patiala, Alwar etc etc to Kashmir to kill or force Muslims out. This pogrom started much before the so-called Pathan invasion commenced.
> 
> It has been made wide by one side, as is its wont, in order to secure gains through a compromise between the existing position of one side and the expanded position of the other. Except where the existing position is maintained by a hugely weaker entity, this is unlikely to succeed, which will explain why bilateral discussions between the two countries seldom succeed. One side seeks to bargain without any strength, and is then aggrieved at its lack of success and accuses the other of exercising its superior strength in unfair ways. A strange and perverse argument, from a weak power seeking to browbeat a stronger power.
> 
> When a stronger power failed to attain its objectives against a weaker power through the use of force, it sought refuge and support from an umbrella of powers and wanted to attain the same very objectives, perverse as it may sound, through a coerced dialogue process. Having failed to even coercively use a dialogue process, blamed the weaker power of aggression and capture of territory and attempts to avoid Plebiscite of a people who would have favoured the weaker rather than joining the stronger to avoid becoming a minority.



It all boils down to this: while the text of the Resolution is in front of us all, apologists for Pakistan feel that it needed interpretation, and that both the Commission and India were in effect interpreting it when they wished to implement it in literally the way it was worded.

Does it sound right even from within your patriotic fog to insist that deviation from the exact wording of the resolution was an interpretation, and that literal adherence to it was also an interpretation? Are you equating the action of somebody who reads 2+2=4 as 2+2= something which has to be determined by mutual discussion, because we lose if 2+2=4, with somebody else who says 2+2=4 means just that, 2+2=4, nothing more, nothing less? Do you see no fallacy in this equalization?

You spoke about India's interpreted version. How did India's version deviate from the wording, and if it didn't deviate, how can it be termed an interpretation? Why should it be necessary to interpret something as clearly worded as this resolution?

You deny that there was any deviation from the wording. The text is in front of you. Do you see no difference between that and the Pakistani position? There was no question of interpretation, as you can see for yourself. Which part needed interpretation? Would you reproduce it, for us to understand what mystic formation caused the Pakistani side such anxiety?

The question of considering further proceedings futile emerges straightaway from this issue. If you believe, with the straightforward text on front of you, that it needed interpretation, will anyone neutral, uninvolved in this dispute, take your position seriously? Would you have taken such a determined bid to reverse the sense of the resolution as indicating any inclination to resolve the problem? Or would you have understood the determination of the other side to deny reality as a clear signal that further progress was not possible? 

With regard to the timing and motivation for India to approach the UN, it has already been pointed out to the fanboys that the greatest extent of Pakistani occupation of Kashmir was when Pakistani forces, the Gilgit Scouts, were besieging Leh, Kargil was iniakistani occupation, Baramula was in Pakistani occupation, and the Mehtar's forces in occupation of Skardu. When the reference to the UN was made, Leh had been relieved permanently, Kargil had been taken back, Baramula and the entire route to Muzaffarnagar cleared, and Indian troops occupied the Haji Pir Pass.

Does it, even to you, sound as if India was not in increasingly control of the situation, and Pakistan had lost ground?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Executioner

Ticker said:


> ha ha .......... Himmat hai to cheer lo.
> 
> Kashmir maangein ge nahin ...........
> 
> zabadasti cheen len ge ............ Himmat hai to rok lo.



It's has been 65 yr still no luck, how many year you need. Le lo Kashmir zabardasti you are more than welcome.


----------



## Ticker

Joe Shearer said:


> It all boils down to this: while the text of the Resolution is in front of us all, apologists for Pakistan feel that it needed interpretation, and that both the Commission and India were in effect interpreting it when they wished to implement it in literally the way it was worded.
> 
> Does it sound right even from within your patriotic fog to insist that deviation from the exact wording of the resolution was an interpretation, and that literal adherence to it was also an interpretation? Are you equating the action of somebody who reads 2+2=4 as 2+2= something which has to be determined by mutual discussion, because we lose if 2+2=4, with somebody else who says 2+2=4 means just that, 2+2=4, nothing more, nothing less? Do you see no fallacy in this equalization?
> 
> You spoke about India's interpreted version. How did India's version deviate from the wording, and if it didn't deviate, how can it be termed an interpretation? Why should it be necessary to interpret something as clearly worded as this resolution?
> 
> You deny that there was any deviation from the wording. The text is in front of you. Do you see no difference between that and the Pakistani position? There was no question of interpretation, as you can see for yourself. Which part needed interpretation? Would you reproduce it, for us to understand what mystic formation caused the Pakistani side such anxiety?
> 
> The question of considering further proceedings futile emerges straightaway from this issue. If you believe, with the straightforward text on front of you, that it needed interpretation, will anyone neutral, uninvolved in this dispute, take your position seriously? Would you have taken such a determined bid to reverse the sense of the resolution as indicating any inclination to resolve the problem? Or would you have understood the determination of the other side to deny reality as a clear signal that further progress was not possible?
> 
> With regard to the timing and motivation for India to approach the UN, it has already been pointed out to the fanboys that the greatest extent of Pakistani occupation of Kashmir was when Pakistani forces, the Gilgit Scouts, were besieging Leh, Kargil was iniakistani occupation, Baramula was in Pakistani occupation, and the Mehtar's forces in occupation of Skardu. When the reference to the UN was made, Leh had been relieved permanently, Kargil had been taken back, Baramula and the entire route to Muzaffarnagar cleared, and Indian troops occupied the Haji Pir Pass.
> 
> Does it, even to you, sound as if India was not in increasingly control of the situation, and Pakistan had lost ground?




The different interpretations of UNSC Iraqi resolutions by different countries is a recent case which clearly exemplifies this fact. Where was the 2+2=4 in this case. 

After adoption of a UNSC resolution and its implementation there are many aspects which need coordination. 

When there is disagreement on such coordination aspects, UNSC is approached again to render solutions/decisions/amendments/new resolutions. 

If Nehru thought that these interactions were futile, why did he wait, from 1948 to 1954 to announce his decision and then too India blamed US-Pakistan agreement and not Pakistani intransigence or non-withdrawal of troops. Why wasn&#8217;t India so black and white in its pronouncements at that time. Therefore, your perception of events doesn&#8217;t matter. What India as a nation announced through its good offices is the truth. 

If India was so confident of its position and was gaining ground, why did it go to the UN, it should have continued with its conquests and captured the whole of Kashmir. India was not confident that it would be able to sustain her advances as Pakistan Army was getting more and more involved and stabilizing the situation. The only way out for India then was to knock the UN door to attain status quo and continue playing with UN resolutions and commissions and appointed interlocutors in order to improve her position on ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ticker

Executioner said:


> It's has been 65 yr still no luck, how many year you need. Le lo Kashmir zabardasti you are more than welcome.



40% to le liya na. baaqi bhi le lein ge. 

Tum me kya cheer liya


----------



## KRAIT

Ticker said:


> 40% to le liya na. baaqi bhi le lein ge.
> 
> Tum me kya cheer liya


30% liya tha....par khudka 50% kho diya....Ab to samjh jaao...Kashmir chodo...Apna desh bachao....


----------



## Ticker

KRAIT said:


> 30% liya tha....par khudka 50% kho diya....Ab to samjh jaao...Kashmir chodo...Apna desh bachao....



Khoya nahin ...... azaad kar diya. 

apna des bhi bachaein ge aur baaqi ka Kashmir bhi lenge


----------



## KRAIT

Ticker said:


> Khoya nahin ...... azaad kar diya.
> 
> apna des bhi bachaein ge aur baaqi ka Kashmir bhi lenge


BWHAHAHAHA....AZAAD Kara Diya...Kisse,....

BTW...jab lene aao to bata dena....upar jannat se dekhunga...kyunki meri lambi umar main to ye hone se raha....


----------



## SamantK

Ticker said:


> Khoya nahin ...... azaad kar diya.
> 
> apna des bhi bachaein ge aur baaqi ka Kashmir bhi lenge



app aakhir main yeh bolna bhool gaye "Khayalon main"..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PlanetWarrior

^^^Please discuss in english. Not all of the readers here are fluent in your lingo


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ticker said:


> The different interpretations of UNSC Iraqi resolutions by different countries is a recent case which clearly exemplifies this fact. Where was the 2+2=4 in this case.



If I may say with the utmost respect to you personally, bunkum.

The Iraq resolutions number in the scores. Prior to 1990, there were 14, so let us start with those. The resolutions were clearly articulated, but they related to the Iraq-Iran war, and presumably you are referring to the Desert Shield/Desert Storm resolutions. 

Briefly, when required, the language included full and clear instructions, for instance: 



> ...Prompt and simultaneous withdrawal of armed concentrations along the entire border, in accordance with an Arrangement to be agreed upon between the appropriate authorities of the two countries...



I hope you see the vast difference between the language of this resolution and the corresponding plebiscite resolution that we have been discussing. In simple but plain terms, this is what the Pakistani side had hoped for but did not get, and which it then tried to insert into the proceedings by raising pettifogging objections. 

Now regarding the later set of resolutions, would you like to indicate which resolution you are referring to, and what confusion you have in mind? I ask this as the matter ought to be treated at the same level of detailed scrutiny as the plebiscite resolution.



> After adoption of a UNSC resolution and its implementation there are many aspects which need coordination.
> 
> When there is disagreement on such coordination aspects, UNSC is approached again to render solutions/decisions/amendments/new resolutions.



This is a generalization of massive proportions, at the level of motherhood and apple pie. There are resolutions and resolutions; those that are clear obviously need no discussion, or less discussion than others. These others might be ambiguously worded.

If it is your case that all resolutions are subject to interpretation, it is for you to point out what needs clarification. As you have seen from the example above, usually resolutions are far too clearly worded to warrant the kind of Fabian tactics adopted by Pakistan.



> If Nehru thought that these interactions were futile, why did he wait, from 1948 to 1954 to announce his decision and then too India blamed US-Pakistan agreement and not Pakistani intransigence or non-withdrawal of troops. Why wasn&#8217;t India so black and white in its pronouncements at that time. Therefore, your perception of events doesn&#8217;t matter. What India as a nation announced through its good offices is the truth.



What possible benefit would India have derived from such an action - other than to settle a discussion on PDF in the year 2012?



> If India was so confident of its position and was gaining ground, why did it go to the UN, it should have continued with its conquests and captured the whole of Kashmir. India was not confident that it would be able to sustain her advances as Pakistan Army was getting more and more involved and stabilizing the situation. The only way out for India then was to knock the UN door to attain status quo and continue playing with UN resolutions and commissions and appointed interlocutors in order to improve her position on ground.



The difficulty with Pakistan, and the Pakistani point of view, is that every principled act of compromise or coming forth to bridge the gap is immediately associated with hitherto unsuspected weakness, and with sinister, clandestine plans having come undone. A refusal to move is seen as a display of hegemonism, and the brutality of a bullying superior power. This was displayed on numerous occasions, for instance, in Nehru's selecting a point of equilibrium, beyond which a serious push by the Indian Army would be required, at a time when sizable gains had been made, at which to fulfill his commitment to a plebiscite. Later, it raised huge suspicion among uninformed Pakistanis when Shastri accepted a Russian offer to mediate; as usual, the Pakistani reaction to being rescued at the nick of time was deep suspicion of the motives of the rescuer. Again in 1971, when Bhutto and his delegation travelled to Simla, and Bhutto confided that an open treaty on Kashmir would doom him in the eyes of Pakistan, and the matter was merely touched upon, Pakistani speculation ran towards the motives behind Pakistan not being crushed utterly - understandably so, since that is what Pakistan would have done, and will do in future if ever it is to find itself in the position of India. Need i even mention 1999? Considering that a party to the frantic mission of rescue to Washington blandly denied it when asked in later years? 

Your response has the great merit of conforming to type.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ticker

KRAIT said:


> BWHAHAHAHA....AZAAD Kara Diya...Kisse,....
> 
> BTW...jab lene aao to bata dena....upar jannat se dekhunga...kyunki meri lambi umar main to ye hone se raha....



You are welcome 



samantk said:


> app aakhir main yeh bolna bhool gaye "Khayalon main"..



OK. ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

I have to say that thanks to Nassr and Ticker (an unexpected and therefore all the more welcome advent), I find this a nourishing thread. Could I ask if it is still of interest, as the subject is unfortunately quite dry?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

PlanetWarrior said:


> ^^^Please discuss in english. Not all of the readers here are fluent in your lingo



This was for you 

Just some fun hearted banter.. here goes a rough transalation (in red)




Ticker said:


> 40% to le liya na. baaqi bhi le lein ge. (40 % was taken right, we will take the rest too.)
> 
> Tum me kya cheer liya(I dont remember you tearing us (In response to ask for milk we will give a sweet made up of milk, ask Kashmir we will tear you apart))


 


KRAIT said:


> 30% liya tha....par khudka 50% kho diya....Ab to samjh jaao...Kashmir chodo...Apna desh bachao.... (30% you took.. but lost 50%.. atleast understand now... Leave kashmir and save you country... )


 


Ticker said:


> Khoya nahin ...... azaad kar diya. (Not lost .... we set it free.)
> 
> apna des bhi bachaein ge aur baaqi ka Kashmir bhi lenge(will save our country also and take the rest of the Kashmir too)


 


KRAIT said:


> BWHAHAHAHA....AZAAD Kara Diya...Kisse,.... (What exactly did you set free?)
> 
> BTW...jab lene aao to bata dena....upar jannat se dekhunga...kyunki meri lambi umar main to ye hone se raha....(While coming to claim, inform us... will see from the heaven above.... because in my life this is not possible)


 


samantk said:


> app aakhir main yeh bolna bhool gaye "Khayalon main".. (at the end you forgot to say this "In dreams")





Joe Shearer said:


> I have to say that thanks to Nassr and Ticker (an unexpected and therefore all the more welcome advent), I find this a nourishing thread. Could I ask if it is still of interest, as the subject is unfortunately quite dry?



Sir, 

Read my trolling above for fun, I know your thirst is too great to quench.. but likes of me are just not upto it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

Oh, I don't mind the banter. It's just that I don't always find the time to sit back and enjoy it. Not when there are such gripping questions being discussed. This thread has really crystallized my thinking about Pakistan.

I'm just grateful to get keen, sharp, young people asking such searching questions and forcing me to put various random thoughts into order.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abhishek_

Joe Shearer said:


> Oh, I don't mind the banter. It's just that I don't always find the time to sit back and enjoy it. Not when there are such gripping questions being discussed. This thread has really crystallized my thinking about Pakistan.
> 
> I'm just grateful to get keen, sharp, young people asking such searching questions and forcing me to put various random thoughts into order.


JS, your posts are enlightening. thank you for sharing the wealth

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SamantK

Joe Shearer said:


> Oh, I don't mind the banter. It's just that I don't always find the time to sit back and enjoy it. Not when there are such gripping questions being discussed. This thread has really crystallized my thinking about Pakistan.
> 
> I'm just grateful to get keen, sharp, young people asking such searching questions and forcing me to put various random thoughts into order.



Sir, propose some books or resources on Kashmir, pre-47 and after. I have been wanting to dig a bit deep into this topic!


----------



## my2cents

Ticker said:


> Pakistan will continue providing moral and diplomatic support to Kashmiri Freedom Fighters.


what kind of moral and diplomatic support have you extended to Ajmal Kasab after he was caught alive in mumbai????. 

what kind of moral and diplomatic support are u going to extend to Abu jindal who is being interrogated in mumbai????.


----------



## Executioner

Ticker said:


> ha ha .......... Himmat hai to cheer lo.
> 
> Kashmir maangein ge nahin ...........
> 
> zabadasti cheen len ge ............ Himmat hai to rok lo.


 


Ticker said:


> Khoya nahin ...... azaad kar diya.
> 
> apna des bhi bachaein ge aur baaqi ka Kashmir bhi lenge



*Tick Tick Tick clock is ticking Ticker* and don't forget Zion Hamid with you. I will request Comedy Circus bring Zion Hamid next time with shakeel siddiqi. Thanks to many Pakistani for entertaining us.


----------



## Ticker

Joe Shearer said:


> If I may say with the utmost respect to you personally, bunkum.
> The Iraq resolutions number in the scores. Prior to 1990, there were 14, so let us start with those. The resolutions were clearly articulated, but they related to the Iraq-Iran war, and presumably you are referring to the Desert Shield/Desert Storm resolutions.
> 
> Briefly, when required, the language included full and clear instructions, for instance:
> 
> I hope you see the vast difference between the language of this resolution and the corresponding plebiscite resolution that we have been discussing. In simple but plain terms, this is what the Pakistani side had hoped for but did not get, and which it then tried to insert into the proceedings by raising pettifogging objections.
> 
> Now regarding the later set of resolutions, would you like to indicate which resolution you are referring to, and what confusion you have in mind? I ask this as the matter ought to be treated at the same level of detailed scrutiny as the plebiscite resolution.


 
Tony Blairs British position that the invasion of Iraq was legal rests on a particular interpretation of Security Council resolutions dating back to 1990. 

Both the Blair and Bush arguments on the legality of war in Iraq rely on creative interpretations of the existing international law regarding the use of force. Blair has strung together the Security Council resolutions in such a way as to argue that the Coalition of the Willing had prior authorization through the use of resolutions 678 and 687. Bush creatively interpreted the argument for pre-emptive self-defence to find a legal basis for war in a threat that had not yet materialized

Many countries and international law experts opine that the coalitions decision to use force without a second Security Council resolution cannot stand as precedent for future action and therefore was not legal. 

All this is based on interpretation of UNSC resolutions. I wonder sir, if it is me speaking to Buncombe.



> This is a generalization of massive proportions, at the level of motherhood and apple pie. There are resolutions and resolutions; those that are clear obviously need no discussion, or less discussion than others. These others might be ambiguously worded.
> 
> If it is your case that all resolutions are subject to interpretation, it is for you to point out what needs clarification. As you have seen from the example above, usually resolutions are far too clearly worded to warrant the kind of Fabian tactics adopted by Pakistan.



This probably is in the simplest of the form a UNSC procedure and norm, followed since long could be explained. And calling it a generalization of massive proportions is almost as good as calling it a presumptuous sin of the text, and equating it with the chief of all sins. 



> What possible benefit would India have derived from such an action - other than to settle a discussion on PDF in the year 2012?



May I with equal, if not more, humility and respect, reciprocate - bunkum.



> The difficulty with Pakistan, and the Pakistani point of view, is that every principled act of compromise or coming forth to bridge the gap is immediately associated with hitherto unsuspected weakness, and with sinister, clandestine plans having come undone. A refusal to move is seen as a display of hegemonism, and the brutality of a bullying superior power. This was displayed on numerous occasions, for instance, in Nehru's selecting a point of equilibrium, beyond which a serious push by the Indian Army would be required, at a time when sizable gains had been made, at which to fulfill his commitment to a plebiscite. Later, it raised huge suspicion among uninformed Pakistanis when Shastri accepted a Russian offer to mediate; as usual, the Pakistani reaction to being rescued at the nick of time was deep suspicion of the motives of the rescuer. Again in 1971, when Bhutto and his delegation travelled to Simla, and Bhutto confided that an open treaty on Kashmir would doom him in the eyes of Pakistan, and the matter was merely touched upon, Pakistani speculation ran towards the motives behind Pakistan not being crushed utterly - understandably so, since that is what Pakistan would have done, and will do in future if ever it is to find itself in the position of India. Need i even mention 1999? Considering that a party to the frantic mission of rescue to Washington blandly denied it when asked in later years?
> 
> Your response has the great merit of conforming to type.



Look who is calling kettle black. Sir, see every nook and corner of Indian media, intelligence agencies, MEA and you name it  Pakistan is blamed for everything that bedevils India. Much has been said about this aspect. Let me just accept it as a tap on the knuckles for being a conformist to a type.

*___________________________________________________________*





Executioner said:


> *Tick Tick Tick clock is ticking Ticker* and don't forget Zion Hamid with you. I will request Comedy Circus bring Zion Hamid next time with shakeel siddiqi. Thanks to many Pakistani for entertaining us.



Yaar, I need to see who this Zaid Hamid fellow is. He is so famous amongst the Indians. 

Yeah the clock is ticking for you guys - and I've been sent as the Ticker.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ticker

my2cents said:


> what kind of moral and diplomatic support have you extended to Ajmal Kasab after he was caught alive in mumbai????.
> 
> what kind of moral and diplomatic support are u going to extend to Abu jindal who is being interrogated in mumbai????.




The kind of moral and diplomatic support which is moral as well as diplomatic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Ticker said:


> Tony Blairs British position that the invasion of Iraq was legal rests on a particular interpretation of Security Council resolutions dating back to 1990.
> 
> Both the Blair and Bush arguments on the legality of war in Iraq rely on creative interpretations of the existing international law regarding the use of force. Blair has strung together the Security Council resolutions in such a way as to argue that the Coalition of the Willing had prior authorization through the use of resolutions 678 and 687. Bush creatively interpreted the argument for pre-emptive self-defence to find a legal basis for war in a threat that had not yet materialized
> 
> Many countries and international law experts opine that the coalitions decision to use force without a second Security Council resolution cannot stand as precedent for future action and therefore was not legal.
> 
> All this is based on interpretation of UNSC resolutions. I wonder sir, if it is me speaking to Buncombe.
> 
> 
> 
> This probably is in the simplest of the form a UNSC procedure and norm, followed since long could be explained. And calling it a generalization of massive proportions is almost as good as calling it a presumptuous sin of the text, and equating it with the chief of all sins.
> 
> 
> 
> May I with equal, if not more, humility and respect, reciprocate - bunkum.
> 
> 
> 
> Look who is calling kettle black. Sir, see every nook and corner of Indian media, intelligence agencies, MEA and you name it  Pakistan is blamed for everything that bedevils India. Much has been said about this aspect. Let me just accept it as a tap on the knuckles for being a conformist to a type.
> 
> *___________________________________________________________*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yaar, I need to see who this Zaid Hamid fellow is. He is so famous amongst the Indians.
> 
> Yeah the clock is ticking for you guys - and I've been sent as the Ticker.



Another brilliant and challenging post - I hope Nassr and notorious_eagle are reading this, and Atanz.

In keeping with the spirit of the occasions coming up, I shall defer my responses to the 17th or so. Except to wonder aloud if '...it is I speaking to Buncombe' makes for better grammar, and to express profound gratitude that I am not cast as either Walker or Clingman.



Ticker said:


> The kind of moral and diplomatic support which is moral as well as diplomatic.



Slippery, very.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## toxic_pus

It is being claimed that Pakistan had the right to interpret UN resolutions in their own way. Fair enough. I am presenting here the vital paragraph of the SC resolution of 13th Aug, 1948, the interpretation of the same by Pakistan, as summerised in UNCIP 3rd Interim Report, and also the Commission's opinion, most of which I have already presented.


Part II/B/1 of Truce Agreement

_When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission._​

Pakistan's interpretation, as summerised by the Commission:


Mr Robert van de Kerchove, UNCIP 3rd Interim Report; Para 229; pg 60

_..the Pakistan delegation held (a) that the objective of the truce agreement is to create a military balace between the forces on each side and (b) that the withdrawal of here regular forces depended upon plans acceptable to the Pakistan Government for the synchronization of this withdrawal with that of the bulk of the Indian forces_.​

Now the Commission's opinion:


Mr Robert van de Kerchove, UNCIP 3rd Interim Report; Para 242; pg 63

_...the Resolution [...], as has been pointed out, draws a distinction between the withdrawal of Indian and Pakistan forces. Pakistan troops are to begin to withdraw in advance of the Indian troops and their withdrawal is not conditioned on Pakistan's agreement to the plan of the Indian withdrawal. [...] The Commission was not able to share the view of the Government of Pakistan that the only method of assuring this form of synchronization was by the full and free exchange of information between the Indian and Pakistan Governments regarding withdrawal plans_.

Para 243; pg 60

_The Pakistan Government could not in reason expect, nor could the Commission have granted, a 'synchronization' which would have been incompatible with the terms of Resolution of 13 August_.​

In plain and simple words, Pakistan's interpretation, i.e. the Resolution sought 'military balance' and conditioned Pakistani withdrawal to the Indian plans for withdrawal being 'acceptable to the Pakistan Government', was taken by the scruff of it's neck and kicked out of the window as something '_incompatible with the terms of Resolution of 13 August._' 

Just where the eff is the ambiguity.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Joe Shearer

Great job.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## my2cents

Ticker said:


> The kind of moral and diplomatic support which is moral as well as diplomatic.



I see -- your kind of moral support is to disown the nationality like in Kasab's case. 

Your kind of diplomatic support is no legal representation during trial. 

Talk is big but action is zero.


----------



## Nassr

Part II/B/1 of Truce Agreement, states the following

1.	That the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn;

2.	That the PAKISTAN FORCES ARE BEING WITHDRAWN from the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

3.	The GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AGREES TO BEGIN TO WITHDRAW the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

Simply put, it means that various events had to be synchronized in order to achieve the objective. 

Complete the withdrawal of Pathans from Kashmir before withdrawal of Indian forces could begin. 

Start the withdrawal of Pakistani forces and while the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn, commence the withdrawal of Indian forces. 

Some of the answers Pakistan needed to plan the withdrawal of Pakistani forces:

1.	The date of Indian start of withdrawal so that it could start the withdrawal before that. Without knowing the above date, Pakistan could have planned to start the withdrawal later than the Indian forces and would have gone against the resolution. 

2.	The date Indian forces would have completed the withdrawal of bulk of its forces. This date was needed so that Pakistan could have finished the withdrawal either on the same date or before that. If Pakistan was not told of this date it could have been in default by withdrawing late. 

3.	Indian withdrawal plan would also be needed in such cases to ensure that withdrawal of Pakistani forces at any stage, do not remain out of sync within the overall environment, in order to avoid being blamed for slow movement etc. 

How could the commission pronounce judgment on a request for synchronization being incompatible with the terms of August 13, Resolution, when the event could not have been completed without some form of synchronization and necessary coordination. 

This either displayed a lack of understanding on the part of the commission or a clear bias.

The commission also stated that, Pakistani request was not the only method of assuring this form of synchronization and that full and free exchange of information was not necessary. It clearly implied that other forms of synchronization could be used, which could be in contradiction to commission's earlier pronouncements. 

If full or free exchange of information exchange was not considered necessary by the commission, did the commission then expect to take Pakistani or Indian forces under its own command in order to plan and coordinate the withdrawal, to order them when to start withdrawing and when to stop. This could not have happened, nor was it within the mandate of the commission. 

So, how would the withdrawal be coordinated, without synchronization of effort. 

And if there was some methodology to synchronize the event, it could not have been implemented without the consent of both the countries. 

Did the main resolution specify such a methodology. No it didn&#8217;t. Therefore, further consultations between the two countries had to be undertaken to arrive at a mutually agreed plan of withdrawal. 

Which also clearly identifies the fact, that between signing of the agreement and its implementation on ground, much more needs to be done and coordinated, which does not form part of the main text of the resolution, in all the cases. 

I am not an expert in international law. I have just raised some questions with regard to the difference of interpretation. 

Interpretation of a clear aspect for one may not translate into the same for the other. 

Regarding the Pakistani contention that the resolution also sought to achieve a military balance; at the end of the day, it was Nehru who cited US-Pakistan agreement and the shift it created in the balance of power, to deny plebiscite to the Kashmiris.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ticker

my2cents said:


> I see -- your kind of moral support is to disown the nationality like in Kasab's case.
> 
> Your kind of diplomatic support is no legal representation during trial.
> 
> Talk is big but action is zero.



You are totally out of sync with your surroundings.



Joe Shearer said:


> Slippery, very.



Indeed....


----------



## DarkPrince

Ticker said:


> You are totally out of sync with your surroundings.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed....




bhai tera naam hasan hai kya ???


----------



## my2cents

Ticker said:


> You are totally out of sync with your surroundings.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed....



Care to elaborate...............


----------



## Ticker

my2cents said:


> Care to elaborate...............



No........



DarkPrince said:


> bhai tera naam hasan hai kya ???



No........


----------



## toxic_pus

Nassr said:


> 1. The date of Indian start of withdrawal so that it could start the withdrawal before that. Without knowing the above date, Pakistan could have planned to start the withdrawal later than the Indian forces and would have gone against the resolution.
> 
> 2. The date Indian forces would have completed the withdrawal of bulk of its forces. This date was needed so that Pakistan could have finished the withdrawal either on the same date or before that. If Pakistan was not told of this date it could have been in default by withdrawing late.


You have taken the resolution and turned it right on its head. Indian withdrawal was conditioned upon withdrawal of Pakistan, not the other way round. If anything it was India that needed to know the details of Pakistani withdrawal so India could start withdrawing. 



> 3. Indian withdrawal plan would also be needed in such cases to ensure that withdrawal of Pakistani forces at any stage, do not remain out of sync within the overall environment, in order to avoid being blamed for slow movement etc.



The commission proposed 7 weeks for Pakistan and 3 months for India for their respective troop withdrawal.


UNCIP 3rd Interim Report;Para 234; pg 61

_A period of *7 weeks was envisaged for the complete withdrawal of Pakistan troops*. In a covering letter to the Government of India a plan was suggested for *the withdrawal of the bulk of the Indian forces to take place within a period of 3 months*. The Commission's proposals of different time limits for the withdrawal of the Pakistan and Indian forces was determined by the inadequacy of road conditions between Kashmir and India and the differences in terrain and distances between Kashmir and India and the differences in terrain and distances between forward area in Kashmir and base areas in India and in Pakistan. *For Pakistan, withdrawal is comparatively easy to achieve and can be quickly carried out. For India it is a more difficult and longer military operation.*_​



> How could the commission pronounce judgment on a request for synchronization being incompatible with the terms of August 13, Resolution, when the event could not have been completed without some form of synchronization and necessary coordination.
> 
> This either displayed a lack of understanding on the part of the commission or a clear bias.
> 
> The commission also stated that, Pakistani request was not the only method of assuring this form of synchronization and that full and free exchange of information was not necessary. It clearly implied that other forms of synchronization could be used, which could be in contradiction to commission's earlier pronouncements.


Commission didn't disagree with the obvious 'synchronization' that was envisaged by the Resolution. Commission disagreed with Pakistan's spin on how this 'synchronization' was to be achieved. Agreeing to the demand for 'the full and free exchange of information between the Indian and Pakistan Governments regarding withdrawal plans' would imply that Pakistan was also a party to the negotiation. But the Resolution envisaged the Indian plans _*'to be agreed upon with the Commission'*_ not Pakistan. In other words, it was Commission that would be the only party to the negotiation with India and it was Commission that would decide if the Indian plan was fair. Not Pakistan. 

Hence, _'Pakistan Government could not in reason expect, nor could the Commission have granted, a 'synchronization' which would have been incompatible with the terms of Resolution of 13 August.'_

By demanding something that was clearly not part of the Resolution, Pakistan was deliberately scuttling the process of demilitarization and consequently plebiscite. Pakistan was well aware that neither India nor Commission would agree to it. Curiously, when it suited, Pakistan wanted strict adherence to the literal meaning of the Resolution. When it didn't they resorted to 'interpretations'.



> If full or free exchange of information exchange was not considered necessary by the commission, did the commission then expect to take Pakistani or Indian forces under its own command in order to plan and coordinate the withdrawal, to order them when to start withdrawing and when to stop. This could not have happened, nor was it within the mandate of the commission.
> 
> So, how would the withdrawal be coordinated, without synchronization of effort.





UNCIP 3rd Interim Report, Para 234; pg 61

_The Commission's reference to synchronization should be interpreted to mean that *discussions with the Government of India concerning the withdrawal of the bulk of its forces would ensue without delay* and lead to the *establishment of a time sequence for the two withdrawals* agreed upon between the respective High Commands and Commission after the acceptance of the Truce Terms by both Governments. The Commission was not able to share the view of the Government of Pakistan that the only method of assuring this form of synchronization was by the full and free exchange of information between the Indian and Pakistan Governments regarding withdrawal plans. It was feasible, in the Commission's judgment and the Commission's military adviser had had this in mind, that *the arrangements could be coordinated and supervised by the mediation party, namely, the Commission,* so as to cause the two withdrawals to represnt a dual operation which would be coordinated in timing and would result in a military situation in the State which was not such as to place either side at a disadavantage._​

Further:


UNCIP 3rd Interim Report, Para 244; pg 65 

_The *Commission did take into account Pakistan's concern that the withdrawal be synchronized*. It *repeatedly assured the Pakistan Government that this would be evident in the agreement itself*, and it must be noted that the terms were to be published in full immediately upon the acceptance of the two Governments. The withdrawal plan for the Indian forces, a part of that agreement, was consequently, to be published in advance of implementation by either side._​

When Pakistan signed the Truce Agreement, Pakistan agreed to take UN appointed Commission as the 'mediation party'. But when the real negotiations began, Pakistan wanted to completely bypass the Commission.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DGMO

Oh God, still on this subject I see. Can't we just move on and realise that debating whatever happened will make no difference to the final solution on Kashmir? 

LoC as the border is that solution, so why continue to cover old ground? Totally pointless.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jinx1

When the discussion took turn towards the aspects being discussed now, the bone of contention was that the resolution was crystal clear, black and white. And that there was no need to interpret its clauses any further or seek additional information and clarifications. And that it should have been implemented, being so clear and concise. 

Different interpretations, as interpreted by different posters here is indicative of the fact that even crystal clear clauses may have different meanings for one and different for the other. 

The mere fact that a commission was constituted to check and oversee the implementation of the resolution, confirms in my opinion, that there would have been ambiguities and differing interpretations. 

The most surprising aspect has been, again in my opinion, an almost lack of information as to how bi-lateral or multi-lateral discussions in such matters proceed. Unless of-course one of the parties has suffered a total defeat and is offered no other option but to acquiesce. 

In this case, the two parties had differing interpretations of same clauses, irrespective of the fact that both parties had agreed to the overall resolution. The formulated commission could offer its own opinion about the so-called sense of the UNSC resolution, but it was not granted the powers to effect a force-implementation. 

Some further interesting aspects emerge from the discussion so far:

How could Pakistan have initiated withdrawal without knowing details of Indian Plan, as Indian withdrawal was linked to the withdrawal of Pakistan. You could not segregate the two and expect a smooth undertaking. And stating that this was not required is downright frivolous. 

Pakistan was not seeking direct parleys with the Indians and was interacting through the commission. 

The withdrawal of Indian forces would commence after the withdrawal of Pathans was completed. How would the Pathans withdraw. They also needed time and they being irregulars and civilians needed much more time to get organized and undertake a withdrawal. Due appropriation to this aspect was not adequately dealt with. 

The 7 weeks time period for Pakistan was also contentious. More time was needed by Pakistan as well. This was due to the deployment of troops far ahead of the existing road and track infrastructure. Coming down from the mountain based deployment to the road-head needed more time, though after arriving at the road-head, remaining travel was comparatively shorter. The staff checks conducted by the commission&#8217;s military adviser were highly contentious as well. 

Both sides were interpreting various constituent clauses of the resolution to suit their interests. What&#8217;s wrong with this. These were two independent sovereign states, unless India perceived that Pakistan was somehow a lesser state of the two. 

Pakistan never intended to bypass the commission. Infact all negotiations were taking place through the commission. The commission was a mediation party and not a deciding authority. Certain proposals the commission made were not considered appropriate by Pakistan and Pakistan was well within its right to do so. 

Again, the main impediment here seems to be incomplete information or the lack-thereof, as to how such parleys are conducted between two independent and sovereign states. Both sides fight to serve their interests and there are no morals involved. It is my interest against yours. 

The historians of both sides would tend to project the viewpoint which suits their nations. The term unbiased historians is a farce. 

Indians here may not agree to the sequence of events, viewpoints and interpretations highlighted by Pakistan &#8211; please don&#8217;t. It is not going to change the facts as are apparent to me. 

There would always be two sides of the coin and both would have different engravings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## karan.1970

DGMO said:


> Oh God, still on this subject I see. Can't we just move on and realise that debating whatever happened will make no difference to the final solution on Kashmir?
> 
> LoC as the border is that solution, so why continue to cover old ground? Totally pointless.



Because some people prefer living in hypotheticals instead of the real world

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Executioner

We can win in any grounds battle, cricket, forum or UN.


----------



## toxic_pus

Jinx1 said:


> When the discussion took turn towards the aspects being discussed now, the bone of contention was that *the resolution was crystal clear, black and white.* And that there was no need to interpret its clauses any further or seek additional information and clarifications. And that it should have been implemented, being so clear and concise.


It still is.



> Different interpretations, as interpreted by different posters here is indicative of the fact that even crystal clear clauses may have different meanings for one and different for the other.


Stick to Commission's interpretation. Not the anonymous posters on an Internet forum.



> The mere fact that a commission was constituted to check and oversee the implementation of the resolution, confirms in my opinion, that there would have been ambiguities and differing interpretations.


Sure. But not everything was ambiguous.



> In this case, the two parties had differing interpretations of same clauses, irrespective of the fact that both parties had agreed to the overall resolution. The formulated commission could offer its own opinion about the so-called sense of the UNSC resolution, but it was not granted the powers to effect a force-implementation.


Actually, of the three parties, two had the same interpretation, at least on the basic mechanism for withdrawal. Guess which one differed?



> How could Pakistan have initiated withdrawal without knowing details of Indian Plan, as Indian withdrawal was linked to the withdrawal of Pakistan. You could not segregate the two and expect a smooth undertaking. And stating that this was not required is downright frivolous.


Not again. Pakistan's withdrawal was not, I repeat, *not* contingent upon Indian plan. The resolution is clear. The Commission had clarified.



> Pakistan was not seeking *direct parleys with the Indians* and was interacting through the commission.


Pakistan was seeking exactly that, in a round about way.



> The withdrawal of Indian forces would commence after the withdrawal of Pathans was completed. How would the Pathans withdraw. They also needed time and they being irregulars and civilians needed much more time to get organized and undertake a withdrawal. *Due appropriation to this aspect was not adequately dealt with*.


Is that a fact? Or may be you should read up on the whole issue of disbanding and disarming of Azad Forces and how Pakistan refused to comply.



> The 7 weeks time period for Pakistan was also contentious. More time was needed by Pakistan as well. This was due to the deployment of troops far ahead of the existing road and track infrastructure. Coming down from the mountain based deployment to the road-head needed more time, though after arriving at the road-head, remaining travel was comparatively shorter. The staff checks conducted by the commission&#8217;s military adviser were highly contentious as well.


All of those were factored in.



> Both sides were interpreting various constituent clauses of the resolution to suit their interests. What's wrong with this. These were two independent sovereign states, unless India perceived that Pakistan was somehow a lesser state of the two.


Good to know that you do not belong to the school of thought that blames India for not holding plebiscite. 



> Pakistan never intended to bypass the commission. Infact all negotiations were taking place through the commission. The commission was a mediation party and not a deciding authority. Certain proposals the commission made were not considered appropriate by Pakistan and Pakistan was well within its right to do so.


Actually the Commission was the deciding authority as well. 


Part II/B/1 of Truce Agreement

_When *the Commission shall have notified the Government of India* that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby *terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India* to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of *India agrees* to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages *to be agreed upon with the Commission*._​

Do you see the name of your country in any 'deciding' role? Food for thought.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aanshu001

Pakistanisage said:


> Maybe there is a small minority of kashmiris who may be ambivalent about joining Pakistan or may want to become an Independent country, but most want to be with Pakistan. However there is no ambivalence about leaving India amongst Kashmiris. Every Kashmiri who introduces himself/herself says they are from Kashmir. They NEVER introduce themselves as Indians. That should tell you something.



how many times you had been to Kashmir...I had visited the state at-least 100 times (was involved in rehabilitation after Poonch earthquake) been member of panel for few development projects in J&K. I use to meet several Kashmiries of (*** or Azad Kashmir) who were surprised with the liberty in Indian part (One of them said your girls can go out so late in our place it is impossible) and development. Rajuri and Poonch (significant population of Sikh) sector are pro India and for fact if you divide J&K in Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh then you will find Jammu & Ladakh will always be part of India.


----------



## aanshu001

BATMAN said:


> Problem is you Indian growup with flase history. You are beyond fix.
> 
> There are 500k Indian army soldiers posted in Kashmir and you call it better?
> 
> Apparently Indian Kashmir is worst than Syria and is like this since last 60 years.


 
60 years are you nuts.....before late 80s Kashmir was haven on earth it was 1987 after that when Pakistan supported insurgency during time General Zia had sobbed this beautiful land in blood. It was Pakistan misadventure in 1947/48 cut this land in part. Than in 1965 operation Gibraltar was complete failure (no support by kashmiries), so Pakistan realized they can not take Kashmir by Power so started a proxy war and now we are facing the heat.


----------



## aanshu001

mastbalochi said:


> ap balochistan and fata aur karachi ki fikar chore den ....takr care about ur india now!!! ur economy is declinning and soon the war is coming .....



Ghoda kitan bhi sikur jaye Gadha nahi ban sakata..hamre paas economy to hai aapke paas kya hai udhar ka katora.


----------



## SamantK

@toxic_pus 

Hats off for making the resolution so clear and putting out how Pakistan hijacked the the chances of plebiscite.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aanshu001

BATMAN said:


> ^^On what grounds India is occupying Hyderabad?


 
was waiting for it the first legitimate post to defend act of 1947 by Paksitan, but why India succeeded 1. People support ( which Pakistan don't had) 2. Better Planing & Professional Army (the biggest mistake which Pakistan had made to send Kabayalies which involve in looting & raping which had given India army enough time to advance and protect Srinagar) than push Pakistani Army back with Kabayalies. If Pakistan had used main army may be scenario would be different. 

Hyderabad, Junagar or Goa were well planned & executed not like Pakistan haste ( even for Siachen Islamabad ordered Arctic-weather gear from a supplier from London, unaware that the same supplier provided outfits to the Indians which gave Indian head start and result is know).


----------



## aanshu001

Last thing which I want to add before going to bed....population of all minorities in India had increased ( except Babari Demolition & Op Blue Star) no major religious symbol had been affected ( Golden Temple had been rebuilt) but is it same for Pakistan? is rights for other minorities is secure? had any one with bleeding heart on Kashmir problem had looked on demographic figures of Pakistan. In India their are more Muslim Millionairess than Pakistan, education level is higher and more safer. We do had problems and clashes as all countries do but my friends just check the data how many Muslims died in riots compare to bullets send by beloved Pakistanis for their freedom.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

aanshu001 said:


> Last thing which I want to add before going to bed....population of all minorities in India had increased ( except Babari Demolition & Op Blue Star) no major religious symbol had been affected ( Golden Temple had been rebuilt) but is it same for Pakistan? is rights for other minorities is secure? had any one with bleeding heart on Kashmir problem had looked on demographic figures of Pakistan. In India their are more Muslim Millionairess than Pakistan, education level is higher and more safer. We do had problems and clashes as all countries do but my friends just check the data how many Muslims died in riots compare to bullets send by beloved Pakistanis for their freedom.



seems like you need to do more bedside reading....

you forgot about attacks on Christians and Churches in Orissa in 2008


----------



## Ticker

@toxic_pus

Sir,

Have you seen the information desk in a library. If you haven't, please kindly look in the mirror.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ticker

aanshu001 said:


> how many times you had been to Kashmir...I had visited the state at-least 100 times (was involved in rehabilitation after Poonch earthquake) been member of panel for few development projects in J&K. I use to meet several Kashmiries of (***** or Azad Kashmir) who were surprised with the liberty in Indian part (One of them said your girls can go out so late in our place it is impossible) and development. Rajuri and Poonch (significant population of Sikh) sector are pro India and for fact _*if you divide J&K in Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh then you will find Jammu & Ladakh will always be part of India*_.



Sir,

If you type B u t together as a word as I believe you have, the PDF thinks that you are typing 'the other side of midnight', gets affronted and converts it surprisingly, in to three stars. 

The plebiscite is to be held for the whole of Kashmir and the vote of majority counts.



aanshu001 said:


> Ghoda kitan bhi sikur jaye Gadha nahi ban sakata..hamre paas economy to hai aapke paas kya hai udhar ka katora.



Alas, we don't have an aunty who is seeking balls to become an uncle.


----------



## Joe Shearer

DGMO said:


> Oh God, still on this subject I see. Can't we just move on and realise that debating whatever happened will make no difference to the final solution on Kashmir?
> 
> LoC as the border is that solution, so why continue to cover old ground? Totally pointless.



As a matter of fact, there is a very major truth concerning the Pakistan-India relationship which is exposed by this discussion, more than by other parallel discussions which may have taken place earlier. Have patience; it is going towards an objective, and not meandering aimlessly, much though it may seem to be doing so. Perhaps a better simile would be that it reveals that truth to a greater extent with every single exchange of views.

Please follow the exchanges very closely, and a surprising conclusion will soon become apparent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SamantK

Joe Shearer said:


> As a matter of fact, there is a very major truth concerning the Pakistan-India relationship which is exposed by this discussion, more than by other parallel discussions which may have taken place earlier. Have patience; it is going towards an objective, and not meandering aimlessly, much though it may seem to be doing so. Perhaps a better simile would be that it reveals that truth to a greater extent with every single exchange of views.
> 
> Please follow the exchanges very closely, and a surprising conclusion will soon become apparent.



Sir,

I already see a pattern emerge, India itseems wrt to Pakistan is in such a situation that either action or inaction warrants suspicion and blame! (Looks dangerous cause even if a few people in Pakistan and India want peace, it is impossible because of what I think to be a stalemate)

(I would have asked what pattern or conclusion you see, but then I think you are waiting for the 17th or so.. )


----------



## Executioner

aanshu001 said:


> 60 years are you nuts.....before late 80s Kashmir was haven on earth it was 1987 after that when Pakistan supported insurgency during time General Zia had sobbed this beautiful land in blood. It was Pakistan misadventure in 1947/48 cut this land in part. Than in 1965 operation Gibraltar was complete failure (no support by kashmiries), so Pakistan realized they can not take Kashmir by Power so started a proxy war and now we are facing the heat.



Man enjoy the Independent Days. Now it's 65 yr still no luck, so they keep shouting Allah hu Akbar and we will keep shouting them sending to there Kbar.


----------



## clmeta

Yes. One leader married his best friend's daughter.


Pakistanisage said:


> Let us just say, Pakistani leaders were Gentlemen and not as devious and immoral as the Indian ones.
> 
> Everybody knows about the affair Nehru was having with Mrs. Mountbatten ( a married woman).



I don't care about the Kashmiris you met. A vast majority of them are patriotic.
We will not partition our nation on the basis of religion again. 
Never.


Pakistanisage said:


> Maybe there is a small minority of kashmiris who may be ambivalent about joining Pakistan or may want to become an Independent country, but most want to be with Pakistan. However there is no ambivalence about leaving India amongst Kashmiris. Every Kashmiri who introduces himself/herself says they are from Kashmir. They NEVER introduce themselves as Indians. That should tell you something.


----------



## clmeta

By your logic the division of India was unjust as it was a non muslim majority country.
The whole logic of two nation theory was Hindus and Muslims were separate nations.
Whey then give whole 45 % of Punjabis and Bengalis a Pakistani nationality.
The partition of these two states was inevitable.


Pakistanisage said:


> Because Sindh was a Muslim Majority State/Province. Punjab was also a Muslim majority State, so it should have come to Pakistan as a whole. The whole division of Punjab and Bengal was unjust as they were both MUSLIM MAJORITY STATES.



I'm sorry about what happened to your family in Srinagar.
But I don't know how to explain you but Pakistan's establishment is equally responsible for their misery.
Peace


Armstrong said:


> Hello ! I'm an ethnic Kashmiri myself...no way do we want 'Independence' either...! Maybe some guys on the Indian side of Kashmir but here in Pakistan - Proud to be a Pakistani, sir jee !
> 
> There are a dozen different reasons why we shouldn't be with Pakistan but we followed Jinnah to get 'Our Pakistan', we gave so many sacrifices to have a homeland of our and by God we're not going to give up on it...just yet !
> 
> P.S Don't pull any surveys, guys ! Around 4 families on my Dad's side were cut down in Jammu and near Srinagar...so nah, we're pretty set calling ourselves Pakistanis ! And so are those of my family who remained on the Indian side...about 3 families left.


----------



## clmeta

Do you want me to quote how many Muslims have been killed in Pakistan by Muslims for not being good muslims.
We know what happened to Ahmedis. They are paying the price for fighting for Pakistan alongside you guys.
Not to talk of minorities which are virtually wiped off.
Also the countless Bengalees who perished to the savagery of your army.

So please, jinke ghar sheeshe ke hote hain.................


Pakistanisage said:


> *Really ? The 90% Happy include the 3000+ Gujarati Muslims Massacred on Modi's orders.
> 
> So the 3000+ innocent Indian Muslims who were Slaughtered died HAPPY ?
> 
> Or the Muslims butchered during the Ayodhya Massacre were dying HAPPILY by the Hindu Fundamentalists.
> 
> Are'nt you even Embarrased making such Bogus and BS claims ?
> 
> Or are you so brainwashed that you have lost sight of right and wrong ?*



Yes, it is all because of Pak sponsored terrorism.
See bulk of your army is deployed in tribal areas, Swat etc to fight terrorism.
If there was no terrorism, army wouldn't have been deployed there.
Even if the battle against terror takes 10000 years, we are ready for it.
But we won't give an inch of our land. Even if some people question our right to that land.



BATMAN said:


> Problem is you Indian growup with flase history. You are beyond fix.
> 
> There are 500k Indian army soldiers posted in Kashmir and you call it better?
> 
> Apparently Indian Kashmir is worst than Syria and is like this since last 60 years.


----------



## toxic_pus

@Joe Shearer,

Sir, I am unable to send you any PM or leave a message on your wall. However, I can't thank you enough for those kind words of inspiration. Thank you, Sir.

And I concur with what you have pointed out.

And happy Independence day to all Indian and Pakistani members of this Board.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aanshu001

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> seems like you need to do more bedside reading....
> 
> you forgot about attacks on Christians and Churches in Orissa in 2008


 
You are referring Kandhmal incident and how many are in jail for that had you checked? and any attacks after that in last 4 years? As I already told we had issues and we solve them and people as per the law. Not like Pakistan were stateless actors can rule and detected the terms (cut innocent women for dancing in marriage) we do had some radical forces like Khap and they do stupid thing (honor killing) time to time but none of them are spared all of them are behind bars for rest of their life.

On 23 August 2008, Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati - a leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad - was murdered by Christian Maoist gunmen along with four others, including a boy, from the VHP. Christian Maoist rebels took responsibility for the multiple murders, and openly claimed that Saraswati was murdered for pro-Hindu activities like preventing forced and incentivized religious conversions of Hindu tribals by Christian missionaries. As most Maoist extremists in Orissa are Pana-caste Christians, Maoist groups have proclaimed Hindu nationalist organizations to be their "natural enemies".This led to large scale riots between the indigenous Hindu Kandha tribe tribals and the converted Christian communities. The underlying causes are complex and cross political, religious and ethnic boundaries. Land encroachment perceived or otherwise being a particular source of tension between the communities. In April 2010, a special "fast track" court in Phulbani convicted 105 people. Ten people were acquitted due to lack of evidence.

104 people in April 2010 in two year time can you show me one example in Pakistan were majority had been punished by law for their crimes



Executioner said:


> Man enjoy the Independent Days. Now it's 65 yr still no luck, so they keep shouting Allah hu Akbar and we will keep shouting them sending to there Kbar.



and even we had to dig the kabar as they don't take bodies back

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Rockshot

haha what stolen ... it was never a so called " part of pakistan... " and will not be


----------



## Rockshot

KASHMIR - HUMOUROUSLY EXPLAINED

A Kashmiri, a reporter and a tough old soldier were captured by terrorists in Kashmir . The leader of the terrorists told them he'd grant each of them one last request before they were beheaded and dragged naked through the streets.
The Kashmiri said,'Well, I'm a foodie, so I'd like one last plate of tandoori chicken.'
The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the Chicken.
The tourist ate it all and said, 'Now I can die content.'

The reporter said, 'I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe, someday, someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end.' The leader directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder and the reporter dictated his comments.He then said, 'Now I can die happy.' 

The leader turned to the soldier and asked, 'And now, Havaldarji, what is your final wish?'Kick me in the ***,' said the soldier.

'What?' asked the leader, 'Will you mock us in your last hour?''No, I'm NOT kidding. I want you to kick me in the ***,' insisted the soldier. So the leader shoved him into the yard and kicked him in the ***.
The soldier went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9 mm pistol from inside his cammies and shot the leader dead. In the resulting confusion, he emptied his sidearm on six terrorists, then with his knife he slashed the throat of one, and with an AK-47, which he took from one of the already dead terrorists, sprayed the rest of the terrorists killing another 11. In a flash, all of them were either dead or fleeing for their lives.


As the soldier was untying the Kashmiri and the reporter, they asked him, 'Why didn't you just shoot them all in the first place? Why did you ask him to kick you in the ***?'

'Because' replied the soldier, 'if I had shot first, you two a***oles would have 
reported that I was the aggressor and the root cause of all the blood shedding 
in Kashmir ?'

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------

