60 years on, 87 Kashmiris want independence

[Contrarian]

Yeah exactly, cauz Pakistan respects the culture, traditions and values of everyone who lives there and accepts them but it is only India that is holding people against their will while they yearn for freedom. The Kashmiri people have been screaming for you guys to get the army out of there which is responsible for siezure of property, rape, torture and killings. Does'nt that prove India is a dictatorship?

Common guys, it doesnt get any funnier than this
This guy is out to prove a point !!

 

[Always Neutral]

Sir, criticizing unneccessarily does not make you "always neutral"

He is not a dictator because he is not imposing his will on others... For example the Chief Justice issue proved that the judiciary had power and if he was a dictator he could have punished the justice no matter what everyone said. Sharif and Bhutto just want rule... they spent all their time stealing from the country and are obviously criticizing him because they want to see him in a weaker position and in truth when have they ever said anything good about the ruling group??? The world is presented a negative image of him that is why they say that otherwise he follows the will of the people. If he was a dictator you would not have heard about any opposition to him as is it is the case with the North Korean President!

The Pakistani newspapers DO NOT call him a dictator! Its the protests and bombings etc that you guys sitting far away from Pakistan hear about that help you form these vague ideas

Dear Dimension,

Thank you for opening my eyes. You are very RIGHT. Musharraf is not a dictator! After your post I am now convinced that in fact in the list of beacons of Democratic leaders he is right on TOP followed by

George Washington
Gandhi
Martin Luther King
Jinnah
Nelson Mandela

Now that I have achieved ultimate enlightenment thanks to you I shall retire happily to my cave on the moon. I have also decided to ignore the below articles claiming that he is a Dictator.

Pervez Musharraf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“A respected journalist Ayaz Amir stated that the General was “the author of his own misfortune”. The article stated that unlike other dictators Musharraf has an easy exit that should be heeded to”

Pervez Musharraf, Dictator of the Month September 2005
“Nominates him Dictator of the Month”

TIME Magazine: Pakistan - Pervez Musharraf (Foreign Press)
“Can Pakistan's dictator Pervez Musharraf, a battle-tested soldier, survive the political minefield that lies before him?”
(PS the Gen even posed for the photo for this article so I guess he did not mind being called a Dictator)

Pakistan’s Dictator - New York Times (even the US press. How ungrateful)
“But nobody takes General Musharraf’s democratic claims seriously anymore, except for the Bush administration, which has put itself in the embarrassing position of propping up the Muslim world’s most powerful military dictator as an essential ally in its half-baked campaign to promote democracy throughout the Muslim world.”

Pakistan ex-PM Sharif to return - CNN.com (Nawaz also says so. Really naive of him)
"I don't believe in power-sharing with Musharraf -- he is a dictator, we are democrats," Sharif said Thursday, shortly after the Pakistani court's ruling. "How can a democrat share power with a dictator?"

Pakistan's Musharraf must quit top military post, ex-PM Bhutto says - International Herald Tribune
( Mrs Bhutto says it too. Oh my God who made her the Prime Minister of Pakistan ?)
“Bhutto, who has previously condemned Musharraf as a dictator, told Sky News in Britain she was interested in becoming prime minister again.”

The unnamed enemy of Musharraf (Respected Journalist Hamid Mir that to in the bad Indian Press says) “ For the first time a Chief Justice refused to tender his resignation to a military dictator in Pakistan.”

Pakistan chief justice challenges ouster - Boston.com ( Musharraf never uses force)
“ With Chaudhry himself absent, his lawyer, Aitzaz Ahsan, told the 13-judge bench that the chief justice had been summoned to Musharraf's army office in Rawalpindi on March 9 and held there against his will for several hours. He sought several times to leave. ... He was physically prevented from leaving," Ahsan said”

I give up in exasperation on how all these people and many more can mistake Musharraf to be a DICTATOR and urge you Sir Dimension to educate them.

Best Regards

 

[aksingh]

Dear Dimension,

Thank you for opening my eyes. You are very RIGHT. Musharraf is not a dictator! After your post I am now convinced that in fact in the list of beacons of Democratic leaders he is right on TOP followed by

George Washington
Gandhi
Martin Luther King
Jinnah
Nelson Mandela

Now that I have achieved ultimate enlightenment thanks to you I shall retire happily to my cave on the moon. I have also decided to ignore the below articles claiming that he is a Dictator.

Pervez Musharraf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“A respected journalist Ayaz Amir stated that the General was “the author of his own misfortune”. The article stated that unlike other dictators Musharraf has an easy exit that should be heeded to”

Pervez Musharraf, Dictator of the Month September 2005
“Nominates him Dictator of the Month”

TIME Magazine: Pakistan - Pervez Musharraf (Foreign Press)
“Can Pakistan's dictator Pervez Musharraf, a battle-tested soldier, survive the political minefield that lies before him?”
(PS the Gen even posed for the photo for this article so I guess he did not mind being called a Dictator)

Pakistan’s Dictator - New York Times (even the US press. How ungrateful)
“But nobody takes General Musharraf’s democratic claims seriously anymore, except for the Bush administration, which has put itself in the embarrassing position of propping up the Muslim world’s most powerful military dictator as an essential ally in its half-baked campaign to promote democracy throughout the Muslim world.”

Pakistan ex-PM Sharif to return - CNN.com (Nawaz also says so. Really naive of him)
"I don't believe in power-sharing with Musharraf -- he is a dictator, we are democrats," Sharif said Thursday, shortly after the Pakistani court's ruling. "How can a democrat share power with a dictator?"

Pakistan's Musharraf must quit top military post, ex-PM Bhutto says - International Herald Tribune
( Mrs Bhutto says it too. Oh my God who made her the Prime Minister of Pakistan ?)
“Bhutto, who has previously condemned Musharraf as a dictator, told Sky News in Britain she was interested in becoming prime minister again.”

The unnamed enemy of Musharraf (Respected Journalist Hamid Mir that to in the bad Indian Press says) “ For the first time a Chief Justice refused to tender his resignation to a military dictator in Pakistan.”

Pakistan chief justice challenges ouster - Boston.com ( Musharraf never uses force)
“ With Chaudhry himself absent, his lawyer, Aitzaz Ahsan, told the 13-judge bench that the chief justice had been summoned to Musharraf's army office in Rawalpindi on March 9 and held there against his will for several hours. He sought several times to leave. ... He was physically prevented from leaving," Ahsan said”

I give up in exasperation on how all these people and many more can mistake Musharraf to be a DICTATOR and urge you Sir Dimension to educate them.

Best Regards

Hahaha funniest thing I read today hahahaha..

 

[haviZsultan]

Yeah, whatever... keep laughing. When you lose Kashmir then you can come back here and cry.

It is the tuth is it not? A dictator is someone who imposes his will upon others! And Mushurraf is not imposing his will on us.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

After all this brouhaha over whether Mushy is a "dictator", I thought I might as well look up the precise meaning of the word in a dictionary. So here is what I have:

dic·ta·tor (dkttr, dk-t-)
n.
1.
a. An absolute ruler.
b. A tyrant; a despot.
2. An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency.
3. One who dictates: These initials are those of the dictator of the letter.

I am pretty sure no one is going to argue over throwing out definitions 2 and 3, so that leaves definition 1(a) and 1(b).

Now 1(a) suggests an "absolute" ruler, which led me to look up the precise definition of "absolute:

1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2. Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.
3.
a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
b. Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.
4. Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.
5. Not to be doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof.

Well he is obviously not perfect so there goes #1 - I don't know his lineage so I can't comment on 2

#3(a) is arguable. I would suggest that his backtracking on issues like repealing the Hudood laws (that he was quite enthusiastic about early on) due to opposition from within his own party (PML-Q) indicates that he is limited by "restrictions and exceptions". Add to that the fact that he accepted (so far) Supreme Court decisions against him in at least three major cases in the last few months, and my argument that definition 3(a) does not apply to him is bolstered further.

3(b) well, how many politicians in "democracies" can claim to be qualified for the posts they are elected to - so we'll drop that one too.

I think it has become quite obvious in recent months that Mushy has striven to maintain some semblance of constitutional legitimacy. Indeed the whole "deal with the devil" (MMA) was to allow an elected legislature to provide legal cover to his presidency. So I would argue that 4 is not applicable either.

All the recent events pretty much indicate that 5 does not apply either.

So based on the above, I would say that Mushy is not an "absolute ruler".

A tyrant or despot?

ty·rant (trnt)
n.
1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

1 has been analyzed already.

2 is arguable. Most pakistani commentators will agree that Mushy has been quite benevolent, in fact he has scored better than our "democratically" elected rulers in the past. Unprecedented media freedom (with some hiccups here and there, but everything is relative).

3 Going off of 2, I would argue he has not displayed any of the three qualities any more than our "democratically elected" leaders.

Conclusion: A strong case can be made that Musharraf is "technically" not a dictator.

 

[aksingh]

Yeah, whatever... keep laughing. When you lose Kashmir then you can come back here and cry.

It is the tuth is it not? A dictator is someone who imposes his will upon others! And Mushurraf is not imposing his will on us.

Lose kashmir to whom?? Pakistan? Kashmiri people?
Kashmir can never be a part of Pakistan simply because only 22% of the Kashmiris that are Sunni's and the most powerful and visible group in the state, can switch their loyalties from independence to Pakistan, rest 78% of the Kashmiris are pro-India..

So majority wins in a democracy.. ah the joys of democracy...

Fortunately for you we are not demanding P0K (why did you ban such a beautiful word as P0K) and CoK...

 

[salman nedian]

Fortunately for you we are not demanding P0K

How fortunate this is for us.can u get Azad Kashmir back?

Sardarji Pakistan is not the same Pakistan of 1971.Now we are a Nuclear Power

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Lose kashmir to whom?? Pakistan? Kashmiri people?
Kashmir can never be a part of Pakistan simply because only 22% of the Kashmiris that are Sunni's and the most powerful and visible group in the state, can switch their loyalties from independence to Pakistan, rest 78% of the Kashmiris are pro-India..

So majority wins in a democracy.. ah the joys of democracy...

Fortunately for you we are not demanding P0K (why did you ban such a beautiful word as P0K) and CoK...

Wait a second, I thought the title of the thread was that 87% of Kashmiris want independence from India! So did you decide to come up with your own stats to bolster your argument?

I doubt the Indian Government would have so much opposition towards the idea of a plebiscite were your "figures" of "78% Kashmiris being pro-India" true.

The majority would win in a free and fair plebiscite - aah the joys of free expression and the right to decide ones destiny, and the resulting fear in India were that to ever come true in Kashmir.

 

[aksingh]

Wait a second, I thought the title of the thread was that 87% of Kashmiris want independence from India! So did you decide to come up with your own stats to bolster your argument?

Nah actually.. Since Ladakh and Jammu are pro-India hence their complete population is thought of as pro India, Hindus and Sikhs pro-India.. so basically 6% population that is Ladhaki is Pro-India, Jammu population that is ~40% is pro-India.. Rest Kashmiri Shia's,gujars, hindus, sikhs etc. I m again considering pro-India etc.. So the Sunnis in kashmir are left and are actually the most powerful politically and have disproportionate wealth and political power and the most visibilty. So let me rephrase it.. 22% of the population in Kashmir is making noises..

I doubt the Indian Government would have so much opposition towards the idea of a plebiscite were your "figures" of "78% Kashmiris being pro-India" true.

The majority would win in a free and fair plebiscite - aah the joys of free expression and the right to decide ones destiny, and the resulting fear in India were that to ever come true in Kashmir.

Yeah according to the UNCIP resolution of 1948 return p0k and cok and ask your military and adminstrators and non-Kashmiris to leave and let the Indian govt hold a plebiscite as per the conditions laid down, when it suits them and maintain a minimum acceptable force which in legal ambigious terms means it could be even 10 million..

Glory to lawyers...

cifjkindia.org - The Resolution of the UNCIP of August 13, 1948
cifjkindia.org - UNCIP Resolution on 05-Jan-1949

Well Musharraf has gone against Jinnah himself and has said that Plebiscite is not an option..
Therefore the status quo on Kashmir shall remain...


""These resolutions provide the bedrock on which Pakistan built its case on Kashmir. They endow Kashmiris with the right of self-determination through a UN-sponsored plebiscite. For more than half a century Pakistan did not abandon these resolutions. Not even when it was down and out after the 1971 war as testified by the insertion of the clause “without prejudice to the recognised position of either side”, in the Simla Agreement. It is true that Ayub Khan agreed on a couple of occasions to consider options other than that of plebiscite. But he never volunteered to abandon these resolutions. Similarly, during the Bhutto-Swaran Singh parleys, the two sides reportedly explored solutions other than that of plebiscite but Pakistan did not offer to jettison these resolutions.

The present policy of abandoning UN-sponsored plebiscite in favour of the “wishes of the people of Kashmir” formulation has serious legal consequences for our Kashmir policy that seem to have been completely overlooked. To begin with, “the wishes of the people” can be ascertained through a variety of methods including simply by holding elections or through consultation with the elected representatives of the people. India claims to have gone through this kind of exercise on a number of occasions. It even claims to have fulfilled the requirement of the UN resolutions as far back as 1951 when, according to it, the democratically-elected Kashmir constituent assembly unanimously decided — as a representative body of the Kashmiris — to approve the accession of the state with it. The UN Security Council rejected the Indian claim on two occasions — in 1951 and 1957 — as not being in conformity with the UN Kashmir resolutions.""
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[Shivakumar]

How fortunate this is for us.can u get Azad Kashmir back?
Sardarji Pakistan is not the same Pakistan of 1971.Now we are a Nuclear Power

Do you think that we need a war to get the P-o-K? What we need to do is to just scrap the Indus water treaty and block the water until the issue is settled. It will cost us less than a war.

 

[khanbhai]

Nah actually.. Since Ladakh and Jammu are pro-India hence their complete population is thought of as pro India, Hindus and Sikhs pro-India.. so basically 6% population that is Ladhaki is Pro-India, Jammu population that is ~40% is pro-India.. Rest Kashmiri Shia's,gujars, hindus, sikhs etc. I m again considering pro-India etc.. So the Sunnis in kashmir are left and are actually the most powerful politically and have disproportionate wealth and political power and the most visibilty. So let me rephrase it.. 22% of the population in Kashmir is making noises..

WTF dont make stupid conclusions
Ladakh is 49% muslim 50% buddists there is more chances of Ladkha to go with pakistan if we give them choice
and wat do you mean by Iam considering them pro indian lolzzzzzzzzz who are you
how many sikhs are there in kashmir? probably not even 1%
shia are muslims so they will go with pakistan

there are 5 main Regions in Kashmir
Kashmir Valley 95% muslim 4% hindus
Jammu 66% hindus 30% muslims
Ladkha 50% buddhist 46% muslims
Northern areas 99% muslims
Azad Kashmir 99% muslims

aksingh
when the aricle says 87% kashmiris want independence means they want independence and inshallah they will get it you better like it or not

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nah actually.. Since Ladakh and Jammu are pro-India hence their complete population is thought of as pro India, Hindus and Sikhs pro-India.. so basically 6% population that is Ladhaki is Pro-India, Jammu population that is ~40% is pro-India.. Rest Kashmiri Shia's,gujars, hindus, sikhs etc. I m again considering pro-India etc.. So the Sunnis in kashmir are left and are actually the most powerful politically and have disproportionate wealth and political power and the most visibilty. So let me rephrase it.. 22% of the population in Kashmir is making noises..

If your "figures" were correct, then they would represent the opinions of Jammu, Kashmir and Laddakh - not just Kashmir. If you go through the article that discusses the poll you'll see that the authors make that distinction as well. When I said "87% of Kashmiris want independence from India", I was only repeating the results of a poll conducted by an Indian organization funded by a few international organizations. Where are your figures from? If anything, providing a source for your numbers might offer an interesting comparison with the numbers obtained in this poll.

Yeah according to the UNCIP resolution of 1948 return p0k and cok and ask your military and adminstrators and non-Kashmiris to leave and let the Indian govt hold a plebiscite as per the conditions laid down, when it suits them and maintain a minimum acceptable force which in legal ambigious terms means it could be even 10 million..

Glory to lawyers...

cifjkindia.org - The Resolution of the UNCIP of August 13, 1948
cifjkindia.org - UNCIP Resolution on 05-Jan-1949

Well Musharraf has gone against Jinnah himself and has said that Plebiscite is not an option..
Therefore the status quo on Kashmir shall remain...

So all those arguments over "shifting demographics that render a plebiscite unacceptable" for the Indians were for what? Don't kid yourself that India has refused to hold a plebiscite because the letter of the law regarding the U.N resolutions was not followed. There would have been multiple ways, if India was truly interested in a plebiscite, to proceed on the issue.


Is there something wrong with Musharraf thinking outside the box to try and bring a resolution to the issue? Plus lets not quite avoid the issue just yet. YOU claimed that 78% of "Kashmiris" are "pro-India", so why should your country not advocate on every forum the legally accepted process (U.N resolutions) that would ensure that the entire territory would become a part of India (heavy majority being pro India and all)? Are the Indians so magnanimous and generous that they have frittered away such an opportunity?

Someone should tell the Indian map makers, the BJP and the Shiv Sena then, because they would be quite upset knowing that the process Pakistan has been harping on for so long, that could deliver Kashmir to India, has been left to languish by Indian governments.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Do you think that we need a war to get the P-o-K? What we need to do is to just scrap the Indus water treaty and block the water until the issue is settled. It will cost us less than a war.

I think that the repercussions from a move such as that would be war.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

shia are muslims so they will go with pakistan

I wonder.

Ask those in Kargil!

Are the Indians so magnanimous and generous that they have frittered away such an opportunity?

As soon as the US has used Pakistan and has no use for Pakistan, things will change.

As it is, the west who so vociferously were rooting for Pakistan has changed tack.

If there was honesty and morality in arbitrating cases, the world would be a different place and so full of peace!

 

[salman nedian]

Do you think that we need a war to get the P-o-K? What we need to do is to just scrap the Indus water treaty and block the water until the issue is settled. It will cost us less than a war.

This step will cost you more than a war.