9000 Kashmiri boys show up for Indian army selection, defying threat from terrorists.

[garibnawaz]

How many of them Muslims, can u tell.

Population of Kashmir has 95%+ muslims. Can you calculate?

Besides do you know how many muslims died in Kargil? Particualarly those belonging to Kashmir?

If not check this page. The Kargil Memorial - Operation Vijay

Also do google on Company Quarter Master Havildar Abdul Hamid.

GB

 

[garibnawaz]

Not as long as Kashmir is disputed territory.

Get the international community and UN to accept IOK as sovereign Indian territory and then you can make that claim.

Same can be said about u.

You could not even live happily with Bengali's. Bade aaye Kashmir ki fikar karne.

 

[Zob]

Same can be said about u.

You could not even live happily with Bengali's. Bade aaye Kashmir ki fikar karne.

well Kashmir is our part.....and kashmir is disputed territory and i think in 1984 india proved that when the other ain't looking take advantage....we did the same in 99....and whenever we can we will....and i guess this vidoe is an ample response to your claims....

 

[Zob]

What does it matter if they are Hindu/ Muslim / Buddhists or any other denomination .. they are all Indians.

go explain that to BJP & VARUN GANDHI.....and before you say buddy BJP lost well it lost cuz advani didn't assure the people that he will make the TEMPLE over the ruins of BABRI MASJID.....

 

[white_pawn]

go explain that to BJP & VARUN GANDHI.....and before you say buddy BJP lost well it lost cuz advani didn't assure the people that he will make the TEMPLE over the ruins of BABRI MASJID.....

Zob do you really think if advani would have assure the people that he will make the temple over the ruins of babri masjid, ppls would have fallen for the that piece of crap.

 

[asq]

That's what Pakistan claims. And my point is simple, no detailed reports are required, no media bias in this. The UN Resolution, whatever it may say, is not binding and its implementation is dependent of both parties to the dispute. India initially was in favour of resolution through UN but now we are not. Changed our mind, BIG DEAL.

No UN resolution makes it mandatory, and even Pakistani leadership has realised it long back. Since then they have also started talking about resolution based on political ground. Please refrain from saying that India is under any obligation for a plebiscite in Kashmir, that topic is off the table for long.

I am not convinced that we will let go off Plebiscite, India has accepted in U.N. and should keep its word, as for as Pakistani Leaders, who accepted what ever it was, it was without the consent of the people of Pakistan, and that is how your create unhappy populous, gone are the day when what leader did people accept it

Now a days people want their input and want things done based on promises, facts and based on truthful deductions of ground realities keeping in with the majority of the inhabitants.

If India stops claiming to be the biggest Democracy of the world, than we might say, that is how India is, but if you claim to be the biggest than put your money where your mouth is, or stop claiming about being democratic and being human rights advocates.

Let us be factual and not claim what is not yours.

 

[rubyjackass]

That is not binding.... I hope you are not so naive are you?

It is applicable if both the parties are willing to enforce it. Newsflash - India is not...


The resolution was passed by United Nations Security Council under chapter VI of UN Charter. Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability.

Any more thinking and saying is of no purpose to the cause.

As I said:



Oh I love quoting myself !!

Also the plebiscite was to be held after clearing the entire region of the 'tribal invaders'. So no question of that until India controls entire territory.

Correct me here.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Same can be said about u.

You could not even live happily with Bengali's. Bade aaye Kashmir ki fikar karne.

We'll let the kashmiri's decide that - oh wait, your nation doesn't have the balls for that and violated a commitment in the UN to hold a plebiscite.

I am not claiming Kashmiris are Indians or Pakistanis - you guys are, even though the UN and the majority of the international community does not recognize Kashmir as sovereign Indian territory.

let me repeat that again

"Not as long as Kashmir is disputed territory.

Get the international community and UN to accept IOK as sovereign Indian territory and then you can make that claim."

The rest of you on the UN resolutions - that issue has been discussed on the UN resolutions sticky, and Nehru's quotes quite clearly establish his perfidy over the plebiscite issue and who was responsible for the lack of implementation.

 

[Skeptic]

I am not convinced that we will let go off Plebiscite, India has accepted in U.N. and should keep its word, as for as Pakistani Leaders, who accepted what ever it was, it was without the consent of the people of Pakistan, and that is how your create unhappy populous, gone are the day when what leader did people accept it

Now a days people want their input and want things done based on promises, facts and based on truthful deductions of ground realities keeping in with the majority of the inhabitants.

If India stops claiming to be the biggest Democracy of the world, than we might say, that is how India is, but if you claim to be the biggest than put your money where your mouth is, or stop claiming about being democratic and being human rights advocates.

Let us be factual and not claim what is not yours.

Pakistan had to let go of Plebiscite. Remember last time negotiations were happening, was there any discussion about Plebiscite? At least I don't remember.

Legally, no-one can enforce a Plebiscite as it is under chaper VI of UN charter. Such issues can not be solved by provoking some false sense of righteousness and holding on to words. Along with time policies change. Every nation changes it's policies and stance with time. Remember Taliban.

Again, as explained earlier also, no democracy allows it's people to form a separate country. They are free to elect their leaders but have to stay as a part of the country. Its a geo-political and legal issue, no point bringing in all the emotions.

Being factual is exactly my point. Be factual, be practical.

Let me bring in an Indian opinion to this. We are not legally bound for any plebiscite and our policies have changed, just as we changed our view regarding Israel.

Negotiations can only start if the training camps for Kashmiri millionths are shut down. Only when cross border terrorism will stop. We can not be a party to discussion while a gun is being held to our head.Pakistan has done some good by stopping state sponsorship to these terrorist, now all you need to do is stop their functioning all together. Infiltration dropped when Pakistan stopped state support to these organization, all the more reason to believe that its well within Pakistan's capacity to stop it altogether. Till then we are okay with status quo.

 

[third eye]

go explain that to BJP & VARUN GANDHI.....and before you say buddy BJP lost well it lost cuz advani didn't assure the people that he will make the TEMPLE over the ruins of BABRI MASJID.....

They say exactly the same thing.. all those who live inJ&K are indians, so what is the dispute here ?

 

[Skeptic]

The rest of you on the UN resolutions - that issue has been discussed on the UN resolutions sticky, and Nehru's quotes quite clearly establish his perfidy over the plebiscite issue and who was responsible for the lack of implementation.

Whatever Nehru said at that time and for whatever reason the process was stalled, does not have any influence on current scenario. As it stands currently, India is not in favour of a plebiscite. We changed our stance on the issue.

Every nation has that discretion. When Israel was established, how many nations recognized it, and look at the scenario now. ven Pakistan briefly flirted with the idea.

You can make a sticky of Nehru's quotes and interpret them any way you want to, it won't change the situation on ground.

PS: Countries are not run by Balls and we know very well about a very famous U-turn.

 

[dabong1]

First of all - So do you now accept that the views of maharaja were for annexation by India, that's half the topic wrapped up.

And you accept that the people of kashmir asked for there muslim brothers to help them get rid of a dictator......thats half the topix wrapped using your words.

Another 25%: I am yet to receive any rebuttal about the UN charter, so I will consider it as accepted that we have an understanding that it is not binding unless both parties agree.

All United Nations General Assembly resolutions that are not about matters internal to the UN (such as the structure of the UN or the creation of UN agencies) are inherently and explicitly (in the UN Charter) non-binding.

Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are bound to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". Resolutions made under Chapter VII are considered binding, but resolutions under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law.[2] In 1971, however, a majority of the then International Court of Justice (ICJ) members asserted in the non-binding Namibia advisory opinion that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding.

Democratic way - Dude you seem to be a learned man, have you not read the defenition of Democracy?

Democracy is a form of government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state.

Within a country, it can not be used for separation from a country.

As far as your last line

Sir, all the territories were annexed following the same methodology. The Maharajas from every province signed up papers to enable annexation. If we are disputing the method, then each and every state will need to be questioned. Not feasible. Not Happening.
Rather than a conclusion, it is the premise with which you started and ended the discussion, and seriously I doubt the quality of discussion of which you were a part off. I have already seen that in this discussion, you are the one wavering left and right bringing in non-issues like blue star into a Kashmir Discussion. You sir are diverting from the topic (which generally Indians are accused of)

Good try but its about one vote per person to choose there leader who then decides for them.....was the maharaja elected by the people..?

If we do take your defination of democracy then can we have Hyderabad and Junagadh back.....seems the topic has been wrapped up and parceled off.

 

[Skeptic]

And you accept that the people of kashmir asked for there muslim brothers to help them get rid of a dictator......thats half the topix wrapped using your words.

Which part of my reply suggests that . I'd be glad if you pointed out. I'd be glad to bring to your notice what prompted my reply. You mentioned:

.does the view of a maharaja count more then all the millions and what they want.

Implying that Maharaja was willing to annex to India, thus question of signing document under duress does not occur.

Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are bound to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". Resolutions made under Chapter VII are considered binding, but resolutions under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law.[2] In 1971, however, a majority of the then International Court of Justice (ICJ) members asserted in the non-binding Namibia advisory opinion that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding.

Sorry, No Cigars. Quoting the Namibia case is a very weak example and you know that very well. In practice, the Security Council does not consider its decisions outside Chapter VII to be binding.

"The International Court of Justice took the position in the Namibia Advisory Opinion that Art. 25 of the Charter, according to which decisions of the Security Council have to be carried out, does not only apply in relation to chapter VII. Rather, the court is of the opinion that the language of a resolution should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be drawn as to its binding effect. The Court even seems to assume that Art. 25 may have given special powers to the Security Council. The Court speaks of "the powers under Art. 25". It is very doubtful, however, whether this position can be upheld. As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has pointed out in his dissenting opinion: "If, under the relevant chapter or article of the Charter, the decision is not binding, Article [69/70] 25 cannot make it so. If the effect of that Article were automatically to make all decisions of the Security Council binding, then the words 'in accordance with the present Charter' would be quite superfluous". In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here." Frowein, Jochen Abr. Völkerrecht - Menschenrechte - Verfassungsfragen Deutschlands und Europas, Springer, 2004, ISBN 3540230238, p. 58.

Good try but its about one vote per person to choose there leader who then decides for them.....was the maharaja elected by the people..?

Was India even a democracy at that time? No. Even the constitution was not implemented.

If we do take your defination of democracy then can we have Hyderabad and Junagadh back.....seems the topic has been wrapped up and parceled off.

How come you are deriving such fancy conclusions from. They are integral part of India and In democracy, elections are not held to determine which state will remain part of the nation. Junagarh and Hyderabad were forceful annexation by India, same as it would have been if Pakistan was able to occupy entire Kashmir in 1947. It could not, the part of Kashmir occupied by Pakistan is still with Pakistan and India is willing to make LOC as permanent border.

 

[Captain03]

Let's use some reasoning here.

9000 reported by the media => ~8000 actually reported by the recruiters.
no, wait, let's start again.

9000 reported by Indian media => ~6000 actually reported by the recruiters
~6000 reported by recruiters => actually ~4000 showed up
~4000 showed up => ~2000 were actually interested
~2000 were actually interested => ~1500 were "boys" of Indian settlers in Kashmir
~500 "Kashmiri boys" actually interested => ~400 "Kashmiri boys" from Hindu-dominant areas

Congratulations Indian Army on winning the hearts and minds of 100 "Muslim Kashmiri boys" from app. 90% of the Kashmiri population.

And even if we take the number to be true (I know, crazy, right?).

9000 from the entire province? after all that effort? What a shame! the Army must be really unpopular if this is "unprecedented". I know three Kashmiri "boys" from university who would rather cut their own throats than join the Indian Army, and I know none that are actually happy with Indian occupation, I guess in Indian media terms this is "100% success rate". Ofcourse, these are boys the Indians like to call "terrorists".

The fact that they didn't mention how many were from Hindu majority areas like Jammu, Ladakh, Leh etc. is a win for the rest of the 90% of Kashmir. When the enemy mistakes peace for weakness, what are they to do but find victories in reports like these?

Still, good work Indian Army recruiters. Pat yourselves on the back some more.

this guy got a point

 

[Captain03]

We don't count people as Muslims and Hindus here

but u sure count who u kill