What's new

Kashmir The Freedom of Struggle

IA wouldn't be fighting the militants if they would not occupy them forcibly?

C'mon why not just ask the Kashmiris "Do you want us or them?" Once they choose you guys, case closed and shame on us. Perfect opportunity for you guys... If you are confident, of course.

Your justification to be in Kashmir is a lie. That happened first, militancy came afterwards.
And the IA shouldn't hit militant training camps across the border because...? Do you agree that Pakistan's statement to the world regarding its support to the Kashmir militancy is a lie? Today do you think the Kashmir insurgency would have survived without Pakistan?
 
Good try but I guess it needs to be more spiced up to work. Actually for starters, Balochistan doesn't have a 'separatist' movement, their demands are for more autonomy and bigger share of the resource revenue.
What is autonomy?
Core difference here is, for starters in political science; people of Kashmir dispute the legitimacy of the Indian state's rule over them while people of...
Who says so?.......The Pak media, some puppets called the Hurriyat?...and a small, puny, handfull of the public.
Balochistan respect the legitimacy of the Pakistani state's rule over them, only seeking some decentralization.
The ferocity of the guerilla wars - 3 since 1947 - speal otherwise, in contrast the current situation in Kashmir is a result of the desire to replicate the Afghan experience in J&K.
 
And the IA shouldn't hit militant training camps across the border because...? Do you agree that Pakistan's statement to the world regarding its support to the Kashmir militancy is a lie? Today do you think the Kashmir insurgency would have survived without Pakistan?

Wouldn't you agree that Indian rhetoric that ISI is involved in each and everything that happens in India is true? Wouldn't you agree that the Tamil Tigers would not be where they were today if India hadn't helped and nurtured them? Wouldn't you agree that Mukti Bahini was used as a pawn of state-sponsored terrorism by India to cause havoc in East Pakistan?
 
What is autonomy?

There's the literal meaning and the way it is used in the political world.

sword9 said:
Who says so?.......The Pak media, some puppets called the Hurriyat?...and a small, puny, handfull of the public.

The very fact that there is a UN resolution about the aspirations of the Kashmiri people speaks volumes. Pak media, puppets, etc do not even come to the fore.

sword9 said:
The ferocity of the guerilla wars - 3 since 1947 - speal otherwise, in contrast the current situation in Kashmir is a result of the desire to replicate the Afghan experience in J&K.

The very fact that those 'guerilla wars' if one is to label those chain of events were crushed thrice points out starkly that those rebels did not have majority support (Kashmir being in direct contrast to this) and the foreign hand trying to conjure those minority elements up failed time and again.

This time, it seems that a particular consulate in Kandahar is working overtime but once again looks to be at the losing end.
 
There's the literal meaning and the way it is used in the political world.
Autonomy was before Bhugti's death,...
The very fact that there is a UN resolution about the aspirations of the Kashmiri people speaks volumes. Pak media, puppets, etc do not even come to the fore.
That includes all the people of J&K or areas controlled by both Pakistan and India.

So why leave out the people of NA, the last time in 1988 Osama was sent by Musharraf (then commanding the SSG bde in FCNA), who led hordes of Waziris to butcher hunderds of Baltis. Wishing away the problems in NA does not hide or negate the truth. Now we don't do that with our kashmiris.
The very fact that those 'guerilla wars' if one is to label those chain of events were crushed thrice points out starkly that those rebels did not have majority support and the foreign hand trying to conjure those minority elements up failed time and again.
No it was extreme brutality, and cunning. The minority and majority story is crap.
This time, it seems that a particular consulate in Kandahar is working overtime but once again looks to be at the losing end.
Does worry the guys in that consulate have not yet started. They are past masters at that game, and they know how to finish the job.
 
Wouldn't you agree that Indian rhetoric that ISI is involved in each and everything that happens in India is true? Wouldn't you agree that the Tamil Tigers would not be where they were today if India hadn't helped and nurtured them? Wouldn't you agree that Mukti Bahini was used as a pawn of state-sponsored terrorism by India to cause havoc in East Pakistan?
So, is that a yes? Where would the Kashmiri militants be without Pakistan?
 
Autonomy was before Bhugti's death,...

Before Bugti's death, it was private militias terrorizing the locals and 'banishing' rival tribes from their lands. Even before he died, scores of his so-called 'commanders' started surrendering as the going got tough.

sword9 said:
That includes all the people of J&K or areas controlled by both Pakistan and India.

I do not recall an intance when Pakistan oppossed the plebicite.

sword9 said:
So why leave out the people of NA, the last time in 1988 Osama was sent by Musharraf (then commanding the SSG bde in FCNA), who led hordes of Waziris to butcher hunderds of Baltis. Wishing away the problems in NA does not hide or negate the truth. Now we don't do that with our kashmiris.

Problem is, you steer off-course as soon as things are not going your way. What was being discussed was the difference between the struggles of peoples from two different lands. The 'legitimacy of rule' part. I could just as well point out to thousands killed by Indian security forces in IOK, etc etc but that was not the point in discussion.

sword9 said:
No it was extreme brutality, and cunning. The minority and majority story is crap.

Saying something is crap doesnt make it crap. Its politics, you marginalize the minority lot who have taken up arms on instigation and deal with them accordingly, period.

sword9 said:
Does worry the guys in that consulate have not yet started. They are past masters at that game, and they know how to finish the job.

The countering-aspect is well in motion so I wouldn't be surprised if they failed a fourth time.
 
So, is that a yes? Where would the Kashmiri militants be without Pakistan?

So is that a yes too? Clearly you have failed to take hint from my sarcastic reply to your post.




P.S. The 'hint' being, you dont ask open-ended questions on forums; it wont get you anywhere. If you have to prove something, present facts and make a statement. Else it would become a wild goose chase sooner than you think.
 
So is that a yes too? Clearly you have failed to take hint from my sarcastic reply to your post.
P.S. The 'hint' being, you dont ask open-ended questions on forums; it wont get you anywhere. If you have to prove something, present facts and make a statement. Else it would become a wild goose chase sooner than you think.
Sorry, I understood your post but didn't get the part, about my question being open-ended. General Musharaff claims that the Kashmir militancy is completely indigenous and that Pakistan provides only diplomatic and moral support to militants. True or False. Only one answer is permissible. How is this question open-ended? India is prepared to accept all casualties it recieves in Kashmir, as long as Pakistan sticks to giving only moral support.
You want facts not statements. Fine. Fact is that AKs don't spring out of the ground and grenades don't grow on trees. Militants are trained somewhere. Fact is that the somewhere is not on this side of the LoC. By elimination the only place where such camps could be is across the LoC. Which implies Pakistan is fostering militancy against India, besides putting a question mark on the indigenous nature of the Kashmir 'struggle'.
 
mr.rahman AA,
could you please elaborate on the intellectual depth of the name that you have christened the thread....... it seems to be beyond my ability to apprehend it.

me
umar.
 
Sorry, I understood your post but didn't get the part, about my question being open-ended. General Musharaff claims that the Kashmir militancy is completely indigenous and that Pakistan provides only diplomatic and moral support to militants. True or False. Only one answer is permissible. How is this question open-ended? India is prepared to accept all casualties it recieves in Kashmir, as long as Pakistan sticks to giving only moral support.

The question arises here of politics. Your question is open-ended because even though Pakistan may not be supporting the militancy, some elements continue to exercise their will in the porous LOC region.

As India denied any help to Mukti Bahini or nurturing of Tamil Tigers time and again but everyone now knows (as has been established)where it came from.

You want facts not statements. Fine. Fact is that AKs don't spring out of the ground and grenades don't grow on trees. Militants are trained somewhere. Fact is that the somewhere is not on this side of the LoC. By elimination the only place where such camps could be is across the LoC. Which implies Pakistan is fostering militancy against India, besides putting a question mark on the indigenous nature of the Kashmir 'struggle'.

Exactly, neither did equipment and training just blossom in the rice fields of East Pakistan; it came from somewhere as it did in the Sri Lankan case.
 
Before Bugti's death, it was private militias terrorizing the locals and 'banishing' rival tribes from their lands. Even before he died, scores of his so-called 'commanders' started surrendering as the going got tough.
Quetta was burning after his death, and you want me to believe that Bughti was a brigand for the people of that land?
I do not recall an intance when Pakistan oppossed the plebicite.
What do you call the exclusion of political parties in Pak administered Kashmir that profess independence?
Problem is, you steer off-course as soon as things are not going your way. What was being discussed was the difference between the struggles of peoples from two different lands. The 'legitimacy of rule' part. I could just as well point out to thousands killed by Indian security forces in IOK, etc etc but that was not the point in discussion.
Yes I went a bit off track, but only to prove that all is not hunky-doory in your part of Kashmir too. Just because we have been gentlemen in Kashmir does not mean that we are idiots.

What thousands killed in Indian security forces in Kashmir?..you could'nt prove if even if you tried. Just use the last 11 months newspaper reports, and see for yourself. I have done it before one this forum itself....
Saying something is crap doesnt make it crap. Its politics, you marginalize the minority lot who have taken up arms on instigation and deal with them accordingly, period.
Agreed.
The countering-aspect is well in motion so I wouldn't be surprised if they failed a fourth time.
Time will tell, time will tell....
 
Quetta was burning after his death, and you want me to believe that Bughti was a brigand for the people of that land?

Parts of Quetta where there is a concentration of his tribe's peoples.

sword9 said:
What do you call the exclusion of political parties in Pak administered Kashmir that profess independence?

That still does not prove that Pakistan has ever opposed the plebicite while India after agreeing under Nehru made a u-turn.

sword9 said:
Yes I went a bit off track, but only to prove that all is not hunky-doory in your part of Kashmir too. Just because we have been gentlemen in Kashmir does not mean that we are idiots.

Never said all being 'hunky-doory' in our Kashmir. Gentleman in your Kashmir? The international community has had a hard time swallowing that one.

sword9 said:
What thousands killed in Indian security forces in Kashmir?..you could'nt prove if even if you tried. Just use the last 11 months newspaper reports, and see for yourself. I have done it before one this forum itself....

I obviously have not sat down and tracked each and every attrocity committed by the Indian forces in the past 11 months and even if they have eased their oppression relatively; it is a small time period in the 15+ yr history of the freedom struggle and therefore, does not negate or compensate for the acts committed in that period.
 
Never said all being 'hunky-doory' in our Kashmir. Gentleman in your Kashmir?
Comparitivly speaking.
I obviously have not sat down and tracked each and every attrocity committed by the Indian forces in the past 11 months and even if they have eased their oppression relatively; it is a small time period in the 15+ yr history of the freedom struggle and therefore, does not negate or compensate for the acts committed in that period.
Pick any time period, you will find max deaths due to the militants, deaths due to security forces are there but miniscule. Here we court-martial those breaking the law, compare it to the Sui rape case.

Anyway, I found some excellent reading material on the subject relating to 1947 and the circumstances that lead to the ceasfire. http://www.usiofindia.org/article_Jul_Sep03_7.htm
 
People might have been slightly unfair to nehru (referring to the article) but the fact remains that he WAS easily manipulated by the british C-in-C.He was the prime minister so he shud have been in control. In 1962 it was the chinese who managed to make a monkey out of him with their "Hindi chini bhai bhai" slogan. Nehru's stupidity has cost india dear in more ways than one.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom