The Kashmir Resolutions - Explanations

[roadrunner]

Plebiscite.

Will Pakistan do so for Balwaristan, Balochistan or Pakhtoonistan?

The Balochistan and Pakhtoonistan issues are separate. They were fairly divided during partition. As such no international law requires them to be re-assessed. Not the same with Kashmir. International law does require a referendum to be carried out there. GoP not choosing to carry out a referendum in Balochistan etc is not illegal. It is illegal for India to not carry out a referendum though in Kashmir. One more point, the Balochis do not want to be divided from Pakistan. They were fighting for royalties (2 tribes only), and the Pashtuns I highly doubt would want to join with Afghanistan in a Pashtunistan considering the state of the economy. I think a referendum in both those areas would favour Pakistan in current conditions. A referendum though in Kashmir would not favour India (and probably not Pakistan either, but more so Pakistan than India).

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Really?

Then why are there law and order hassles?

Quit hedging!

Everything is illegal for India and perfectly legal for Pakistan!

Great logic!

 

[Flintlock]

The phrase "the world's largest democracy" is one of the dumbest things coined in history considering the forceful occupation of Kashmir, the neglect of a referendum, and that Dalits are forced to vote for people who will give them the lower end jobs.

India is the "world's largest democracy" only for the people wish to remain part of India.

There is no democracy for separatists.

Dalits are free to choose whomsoever they want. They are not forced to vote for anyone. Kindly spare the lame statements.

 

[roadrunner]

Really?

Then why are there law and order hassles?

Quit hedging!

two words, Al Q. In fact, India probably has more law and order troubles than in Pakistan. Now try to stick to the topic, if possible.

 

[roadrunner]

India is the "world's largest democracy" only for the people wish to remain part of India.

There is no democracy for separatists.

Dalits are free to choose whomsoever they want. They are not forced to vote for anyone. Kindly spare the lame statements.

Let's start a new thread over this if you like. But if India is such a great democracy, where are the democratic rights of the Kashmiri people for plebiscite (forget the separatists), not to mention International Law? Democratic countries surely do respect international law, do they not? The UN is a democratic body is it not?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Let's start a new thread over this if you like. But if India is such a great democracy, where are the democratic rights of the Kashmiri people for plebiscite (forget the separatists), not to mention International Law? Democratic countries surely do respect international law, do they not? The UN is a democratic body is it not?

And Pakistan, not being a true democracy, does not!

Is that what you are suggesting?

And what do you think this thread is all about?

Mars?

Stop running away from reality!

 

[Flintlock]

Let's start a new thread over this if you like. But if India is such a great democracy, where are the democratic rights of the Kashmiri people for plebiscite (forget the separatists), not to mention International Law? Democratic countries surely do respect international law, do they not? The UN is a democratic body is it not?

I have no intention of starting a new thread, but please do so if you wish to.

Kashmiris have democracy within the dominion of India. They can fully exert their Kashmiri culture, identity, religion and values within Kashmir and elect their leaders freely and fairly. They don't have a legal case for separation.

International law? I"m sure India is following international law to its fullest extent.

UN resolution will never be implemented because Musharraf and GOI won't let it happen. I have said so many times on this forum. It was a one time solution whos time has passed.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

two words, Al Q. In fact, India probably has more law and order troubles than in Pakistan. Now try to stick to the topic, if possible.

Why things are getting too hot for you when you meander and get a stunning reply to bring you back to the topic?

Let us say we have more problems. We don't whine but face up to it as any man, worthy of himself as a man, would do!

 

[UnitedPak]

Salim your arguments are baseless. Kashmiris are being treated like Prisoners, for one they have half the Indian army at their doors, raping, killing and taking away there freedom. You are basically accepting that they shouldnt have any rights as long as they dont want to be a part of India. What a choice.

There is no democracy for separatists.

Ok, that would mean there is no democracy for the vast majority of Kashmiris, so they are prisoners. So much for the integral part.

I know a lot of Kashmiris and I can tell you right now that 99% of Muslim Kashmiris will either vote for complete Independence or join Pakistan. I have never come across a single Muslim Kashmiri in person who wanted to be a part of India. Indian claims that Kashmiris will change their minds when they see the economic gains are ridiculous and laughable. Is it meant to be a bribe or you getting desperate for reasons to give them?

Dont insult real democracies, India is nothing but a Brahmin dictatorship. If anything opposes the Hindu majority, you get the Sikh massacres of 1984 and the Muslim massacres of 2001. Not to mention the other massacres in Assam, Manipur and Mao.
India holding on to Kashmir just shows that Indians dont consider Kashmiris as human beings. What kind of selfishness does it take to allow such suffering just for self satisfaction?

 

[roadrunner]

Kashmiris have democracy within the dominion of India. They can fully exert their Kashmiri culture, identity, religion and values within Kashmir and elect their leaders freely and fairly.

Whether Kashmiris can exert their culture is not the case. The question is do they want to be a part of India, and the answer is no they do not. Is not the tenet of democracy to let the people decide? In that case, why is India so much against democracy and letting the people decide?

They don't have a legal case for separation.

Nonsense. The legal case for the separation of Kashmir is very strong, as per holding a plebiscite in which they can choose either India or Pakistan. UN resolutions do not vanish after a time or something.

International law? I"m sure India is following international law to its fullest extent.

Not the binding chapter 6 resolutions.

UN resolution will never be implemented because Musharraf and GOI won't let it happen.

Nonsense Musharraf wants the UN resolutions implemented, GoI does not. It's pretty obvious. Pakistan will win any referendum in Kashmir, GoI will lose. Look where all the fighting is as proof. And if you still don't believe it, hold the plebiscite, or at least support it, since you are so confident of winning it.

I have said so many times on this forum. It was a one time solution whos time has passed.

Nonsense again. UN resolutions do not fade with time. They remain. The solution of demilitarization under the UNGOMIP (or whatever it is now), is a solution that still exists. Pakistan agrees to demilitarization. India avoids it by saying that Kashmir is an integral part of India and so the issue is not important.

 

[Flintlock]

Nonsense Musharraf wants the UN resolutions implemented, GoI does not. It's pretty obvious. Pakistan will win any referendum in Kashmir, GoI will lose. Look where all the fighting is as proof. And if you still don't believe it, hold the plebiscite, or at least support it, since you are so confident of winning it.

Read the following article: I daresay you will find it interesting:

News Today - An English evening daily published from Chennai

Another one:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EFDE143FF93AA25751C1A9659C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/U/United%20Nations

So, I am focussing on the Musharraf not wanting Plebiscite argument and ignoring the rants against brahmin dominated oppresive India.

Whats your say on those articles? Do you still think Musharraf wants plebiscite?

 

[roadrunner]

Read the following article: I daresay you will find it interesting:

News Today - An English evening daily published from Chennai

Another one:

Pakistan May Relent on Kashmir Demand - New York Times

So, I am focussing on the Musharraf not wanting Plebiscite argument and ignoring the rants against brahmin dominated oppresive India.

Whats your say on those articles? Do you still think Musharraf wants plebiscite?

Look, Musharraf is being flexible on Kashmir. He knows (as we all do), that India will never implement the UN resolutions, because it will lose Kashmir. He is trying to find another route. But Musharraf is not trying to avoid plebiscite like you put it. It's a spin that one can see right through. If you want it to work, then you have to convince people that Pakistan will lose Kashmir in a plebiscite. Every person with the slightest knowledge of Kashmir, knows that out of a choice between India and Pakistan, the majority of Kashmiris will vote to join Pakistan. Therefore, why would Musharraf be against such a plebiscite? Use some logic please. The reasons why India is against plebiscite are as clear as crystal.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Salim your arguments are baseless. Kashmiris are being treated like Prisoners, for one they have half the Indian army at their doors, raping, killing and taking away there freedom. You are basically accepting that they shouldnt have any rights as long as they dont want to be a part of India. What a choice.

So what you state is the Gospel Truth and the Sermon from the Mount, right?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Look, Musharraf is being flexible on Kashmir. He knows (as we all do), that India will never implement the UN resolutions, because it will lose Kashmir. He is trying to find another route. But Musharraf is not trying to avoid plebiscite like you put it. It's a spin that one can see right through. If you want it to work, then you have to convince people that Pakistan will lose Kashmir in a plebiscite. Every person with the slightest knowledge of Kashmir, knows that out of a choice between India and Pakistan, the majority of Kashmiris will vote to join Pakistan. Therefore, why would Musharraf be against such a plebiscite? Use some logic please. The reasons why India is against plebiscite are as clear as crystal.

So every person with the slightest knowledge of Kashmir knows that they will vote for Pakistan?

Really?

Ask the Shias for a start.

Islam alone is not the factor since you seem to be basing your "knowing the slightest of Kashmir" on that.

I am afraid they (the Shias) are well aware of the way Sunnis are being planted in Northern Kashmir and Northern Areas to change the demographic balance and they are not the slightest amused!

The problem with you all is that you do not consider the Shias at all. Even there is a Pakistani Parliamentarian who has the audacity to repeatedly demand in Parliament that Shias be declared as Kaffirs like the Ahmediyas!

 

[Flintlock]

Look, Musharraf is being flexible on Kashmir. He knows (as we all do), that India will never implement the UN resolutions, because it will lose Kashmir. He is trying to find another route. But Musharraf is not trying to avoid plebiscite like you put it. It's a spin that one can see right through. If you want it to work, then you have to convince people that Pakistan will lose Kashmir in a plebiscite. Every person with the slightest knowledge of Kashmir, knows that out of a choice between India and Pakistan, the majority of Kashmiris will vote to join Pakistan. Therefore, why would Musharraf be against such a plebiscite? Use some logic please. The reasons why India is against plebiscite are as clear as crystal.

Well, what I don't understand is, if Musharraf is sincere in his demand for a free kashmir, why isn't he unilaterally giving "Azad" kashmir its azadi.

India, as you say, is quite clear on the issue. No plebiscite and no separation for Kashmr. India is evil and oppressive. Fine. I'll let that pass just to narrow down the argument.

But Musharraf is being the hero here, according to you. So why not be a true hero and grant AK independence unilaterally? It will put tremendous international pressure on India if he does so.

If Pakistan is so sure that people of AK are on their side, then why rig elections? Why bar pro-azadi candidates from contesting? Why not allow the media in? Sincerety is measured by actions, not words.

Again, its you who is putting a twist on words. The Kashmiris will have 3 choices, not 2. They will have the choice of separation also. So why ignore that choice? Why assume that kashmiris will vote for pakistan?

I"m sure seeing the situation in Pakistan right now, no sane group of people will want to become a part of it, unless they have been brainwashed. Reports coming out of the valley indicate that pro-Pakistanis are realizing the folly of fighting to join Pakistan, seeing the current situation there. They are thinking practically and looking to better their lives.