Asaduddin Owaisi tells Pakistan to stop meddling in Kashmir

[Joe Shearer]

I have been reading, albeit posting rebuttals here may not be understood by 99.99% of the "living entities" here. If I have to discuss Kashmir with M.Sarmad, VCheng, Saiyan0321, it needs a moderator whose only job is to keep away everyone else and allow a debate to continue. But alas, that is a very wishful thinking indeed.

So, why engage him? He has enough battles to fight along with the other two, as it is.

And if I can offer you a safe haven to discuss this matter with these chosen gentlemen, perhaps one or two more, would you find it a nice prospect?

 

[Hellfire]

What it envisaged will have to be done one day as the UN has only become weaker in its enforcement of any solution in world affairs and we have seen the limitations of the ICJ. The two nations will have to come to terms that they are not going anywhere and will eventually have to resolve its issues

Doubt that. The Indian perspective has moved on. Very honestly, the present Indian mindset is indeed willing to consider a military option at a suitable time, to bring about a resolution. The vexing question of 'what after war', something that had hitherto prevented India from considering a military option, has increasingly been marked as redundant. It is merely a question of the 'ducks' being lined up.

 

[VCheng]

That is precisely what the Simla Agreement of 1972 envisaged, my dear sir. But what came of it? Genuine attempts at "peace in our time" undermined by two significant and public episode in 1999 and 2007.



I will just say - no more an option being considered by Indians.

There are very selective threads where I comment the least and simply observe or mark them as 'interesting take/insight'. This being another one of them.

Now the policy has been re-defined to vacation of the territories of GB and PAK (or AJK as is called). History has been a great teacher for those who want to learn - economic prosperity is always followed up by reclamation of territories lost, just a matter of time.

Economics always has a way of making people see the light, so I cannot disagree with you too vehemently here, but I do think it will still take a few decades at least for the situation to change in any meaningful way.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

UN has been laid to rest. The bilateral agreement signed even by Pakistan aka Simla Agreement, rendered them to the annals of history.

Now the interesting question that comes to fore is - does Pakistan have any courage to honour it's own commitments under an International Treaty it willingly signed?

Or will Pakistan continue to renege on a treaty aimed at establishing peace between the two by recognizing Kashmir as a dispute in 1972, thereby already marking the greatest concession one could expect India to make - of recognizing the Kashmir issue as a dispute?

We've had this argument multiple times - The language of Simla has been dissected and reviewed several times. Simla does not supersede the UNSC Resolutions.

 

[VCheng]

Doubt that. The Indian perspective has moved on. Very honestly, the present Indian mindset is indeed willing to consider a military option at a suitable time, to bring about a resolution. The vexing question of 'what after war', something that had hitherto prevented India from considering a military option, has increasingly been marked as redundant. It is merely a question of the 'ducks' being lined up.

Kashmir, like all vexing geopolitical issues, will be resolved by political means. A limited war or two might be in the mix as policy by other means, but I do think it will be an open conflict as many fear, and some want.

 

[#hydra#]

If it was always part of India than why did Hari Singh invited Indian forces only after he fled to India after partition?Maybe it should help follow ones own advise about writing own narrative and hypnotizing oneself into believing Kashmir as always being part of India.


We are wining because we support their struggle to freedom something your forefathers promised in the UN but latter backed out. We whine because of the brutality of Indian occupied forces in Kashmir and killing of hundreds of thousands of Kashmirs including women and children.
Our forefathers only sent forces in Kashmir when Hari Singh signed accession to India even though it was a Muslim majority area and as per the rules of partition all muslim majority areas were to come to Pakistan and not India. Like i said get your facts straight and read history other than whats told in India.

No such agreement was there that all muslim areas to be annexed with pak. The options available for princely states are
1) To get annexed with india
2)To get annexed with pak
3) Be a sovereign nation in future.
Kashmir king wants kashmir to be an independent nation, but pakistani misadventures made him to rethink and he signed the agreement with india. The misadventure cost Pakistan a lot, you neither annexed Kashmir completely, what you recieved is a timeless enmity from a much larger neighbour. That enmity brought down your economical growth,even if cost you to loose half of your nation. Now you are surrounded by Iran, Afghanistan, China,india and Arabian ocean. Except China all other three entities are under Indian influence.

Lastly why didn't you give much attention to the Muslims struggling in Syria,Palestine,Yemen,Myanmar and struggling Muslims in your own country?

 

[M. Sarmad]

Very true. Just as J&K's accession to India was never declared illegal?

J&K's accession to India was considered valid but incomplete by the UN thus effectively making it 'provisional'.
Without ratification by the people of Kashmir, the Accession by Maharaja on its own cannot make Kashmir a part of India under the International law.

 

[saiyan0321]

Doubt that. The Indian perspective has moved on. Very honestly, the present Indian mindset is indeed willing to consider a military option at a suitable time, to bring about a resolution. The vexing question of 'what after war', something that had hitherto prevented India from considering a military option, has increasingly been marked as redundant. It is merely a question of the 'ducks' being lined up.

I understand were you are basing this on.. Historical examples of economically strong nations filled with confidence attempting to take territories once claimed are perhaps too many to give as well as the mood and concept..

However such a war where over 90,000 kmsq territory is to be taken against an opponent that is by no means a pushover in an area that has geographical defences and military defences is something that is not light and may not bring the results as expected for there are as many example of economically and confident nations failing in their endeavor of doing such a thing...

However that kept aside mindsets of all nations change with time which is why @VCheng is suggesting decades.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Doubt that. The Indian perspective has moved on. Very honestly, the present Indian mindset is indeed willing to consider a military option at a suitable time, to bring about a resolution. The vexing question of 'what after war', something that had hitherto prevented India from considering a military option, has increasingly been marked as redundant. It is merely a question of the 'ducks' being lined up.

That's an interesting perspective, given your earlier post that I'll post here, and also use your post quoted below as a response to the post above - merely replace Pakistan with India.

Now the interesting question that comes to fore is - does Pakistan have any courage to honour it's own commitments under an International Treaty it willingly signed?

Or will Pakistan continue to renege on a treaty aimed at establishing peace between the two by recognizing Kashmir as a dispute in 1972, thereby already marking the greatest concession one could expect India to make - of recognizing the Kashmir issue as a dispute?

 

[Hellfire]

We've had this argument multiple times - The language of Simla has been dissected and reviewed several times. Simla does not supersede the UNSC Resolutions.

I agree and disagree. Does it really matter? The moment you signed the Simla Agreement, you bound yourself to undertake certain actions. If you (Pakistan and not AM), chose to renege, what is the value of your commitment?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I understand were you are basing this on.. Historical examples of economically strong nations filled with confidence attempting to take territories once claimed are perhaps too many to give as well as the mood and concept..

However such a war where over 90,000 kmsq territory is to be taken against an opponent that is by no means a pushover in an area that has geographical defences and military defences is something that is not light and may not bring the results as expected for there are as many example of economically and confident nations failing in their endeavor of doing such a thing...

However that kept aside mindsets of all nations change with time which is why @VCheng is suggesting decades.

There's also a significant assumption (and hope) that in the process of 'lining up all the ducks', that the Pakistani side will remain static. Barring Pakistan regressing into a North Korean, Syrian or Palestinian style meltdown, the ducks may likely never line up.

I agree and disagree. Does it really matter? The moment you signed the Simla Agreement, you bound yourself to undertake certain actions. If you (Pakistan and not AM), chose to renege, what is the value of your commitment?

It matters from an academic stand point, the Simla did not supersede the UNSC Resolutions. And certainly the question of 'the value of ones commitment' can first be posed to India - what is the value of her commitment in the UNSC, in front of the world, to implement the UNSC Resolutions to resolve the J&K dispute?

 

[Hellfire]

Kashmir, like all vexing geopolitical issues, will be resolved by political means. A limited war or two might be in the mix as policy by other means, but I do think it will be an open conflict as many fear, and some want.

Let's really hope that the military option does not gain traction. History, here, again needs to be taken into consideration.

Unlike the popular narrative being pushed along that India supported Mukti Bahini thereby setting up a precedence of supporting secessionist activities in the subcontinent, the support by Pakistan to the Mizo insurgent groups, predating the same, was the precedence. It was only a matter of time till a decision was reached wherein India decided to reciprocate the actions.

Similarly, Kashmir has been boiling for a long time. I wonder how long before the implied threat in Modi's Aug 2015 declaration over Baluchistan is actually put forth into action?

Where do we head then?

J&K's accession to India was considered valid but incomplete by the UN thus effectively making it 'provisional'.
Without ratification by the people of Kashmir, the Accession by Maharaja on its own cannot make Kashmir a part of India under the International law.

And the completion or lack thereof was hampered by the trained and armed tribals coming from territories held by the State of Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

the support by Pakistan to the Mizo insurgent groups, predating the same, was the precedence.

And what of the Indian support for unrest in Junagadh and Munavadh, setting the stage for military intervention by India and annexation of those territories?

 

[Hellfire]

I understand were you are basing this on.. Historical examples of economically strong nations filled with confidence attempting to take territories once claimed are perhaps too many to give as well as the mood and concept..

However such a war where over 90,000 kmsq territory is to be taken against an opponent that is by no means a pushover in an area that has geographical defences and military defences is something that is not light and may not bring the results as expected for there are as many example of economically and confident nations failing in their endeavor of doing such a thing...

However that kept aside mindsets of all nations change with time which is why @VCheng is suggesting decades.

I wish I could speak more on this, the military aspect. But I can not. For the sake of sanity, one can only hope that the option does not gain traction.

Having said that, the level of violence in valley is hardly anything of significance and not even close to what was seen in 90s.

 

[Joe Shearer]

We've had this argument multiple times - The language of Simla has been dissected and reviewed several times. Simla does not supersede the UNSC Resolutions.

Welcome, Reverend.