Beneath All Its Masks, The Kashmir ‘Conflict’ Was Always About Islam

[El Sidd]

Kashmir is an issue.

That's what matters. Now you can go and debate whatever the shade of it that suits you.

Humanitarian, religious, geopolitics or whatever. The common word would remain as an issue.

Now humans are not known for solving their problem the easier way.

Kashmir and Palestine actually are two main issue in the world.

Rest are just greed and hunger games.

 

[StraightShooter]

Pakistan backed off from it's CLAIMS. Do you understand this line? Pakistan don't CLAIM that land in return of 750 sq m territory. Pakistan had never controlled those lands neither did it controlled this additional 750 sq m.

It is not just a verbal claim or with drawl of a verbal claim. It was a formal agreement signed between governments of China and Pakistan.

http://people.unica.it/annamariabaldussi/files/2015/04/China-Pakistan-1963.pdf

On what basis can China and Pakistan settle on lands for which they do not have legal ownership?

India nor Oman has any legal standing over Balochistan.

That is the reason why I gave the analogy of Baluchistan.

If India & Oman cannot get into an agreement on Pakistan's Baluchistan how could Pakistan & China get into an agreement on GB?

 

[American Pakistani]

It is not just a verbal claim or with drawl of a verbal claim. It was a formal agreement signed between governments of China and Pakistan.

http://people.unica.it/annamariabaldussi/files/2015/04/China-Pakistan-1963.pdf

On what basis can China and Pakistan settle on lands for which they do not have legal ownership?

Neither do you have legal ownership.

Pakistan settle the dispute by agreeing that it will not raise the issue of territory it never controlled.

That is the reason why I gave the analogy of Baluchistan.

If India & Oman cannot get into an agreement on Pakistan's Baluchistan how could Pakistan & China get into an agreement on GB?

Just like Pakistan and Nepal cannot get into agreement over uttar pradesh or Pakistan China cannot get into agreement over South Tibet.

 

[Areesh]

So you are saying Might is Right and this whole argument on UN resolutions/plebiscite is just drama bazi of Pakistan to fool the people.

Thanks for being honest.

What I am saying that instead of being delusional like Indians and claiming territory that we don't control both physically or legally we accepted China's control on something it controls both legally and physically.

There are no protests in Shaksgam valley against chinese rule and Indians use this non isue just an excuse to delay solution of Kashmir issue and to extend its oppressive role of Kashmir. We understand that and consider it another Indian lame as$ excuse on Kashmir.

 

[StraightShooter]

Furthermore Oman will reject any such move by india and quite possible they will kick indians out. Secondly Pakistan will start poking it's nose in Indian internal matters such as khalistan, assam, South tibet, manipur, etc.

It is immaterial How Oman would react to Indian offer or how Pakistan would provide "Moral" support to people in other parts of India.

I am only interested in the legal argument.

 

[Areesh]

That is the reason why I gave the analogy of Baluchistan.

If India & Oman cannot get into an agreement on Pakistan's Baluchistan how could Pakistan & China get into an agreement on GB?

Your analogy on Baluchistan is moronic. Pakistan controlled GB and shared its border with China. And hence the agreement. Do you control Baluchistan physically? Do you have border with Oman?

On what basis you can have agreement with Oman? At least try have a practical scenario if you want to draw some analogy. Your analogy is stupid and is not comparable to Pakistani agreement with China.

 

[American Pakistani]

It is immaterial How Oman would react to Indian offer or how Pakistan would provide "Moral" support to people in other parts of India.

I am only interested in the legal argument.

Can Pakistan provide legal argument on South Tibet, Manipur, Khalistan, Nagaland, etc? Similarly India can't wrt Balochistan.

BTW no more Balochistan as this thread is Kashmir. I know old habits die hard and you as indians have habit of dragging Balochistan, khalistan, nagaland, South tibet, assam, manipur, etc but you gotta try buddy and keep it on topic which is IOK.

Any more offtopic on Balochistan will be reported.

 

[Areesh]

It is immaterial How Oman would react to Indian offer or how Pakistan would provide "Moral" support to people in other parts of India.

I am only interested in the legal argument.

Cut this Oman BS. It is stupid.

 

[truthseer]

They destroyed Kashmiri Hindus, killed the men, raped & butchered the woman and drove the remaining out.
Recently, they killed a cop named Pandit. After killing him, they stripped to look at his genitals to confirm if he was a Hindu.

Good

 

[StraightShooter]

Why do you think UNSC's resolution wouldn't make the instrument of accession null and void. By all means, Kashmir as of today stands as a disputed territory. Whatever intentions Nehru had at that time is irrelevant. Pakistan is crying out loud for a plebiscite since the start but a meaningful dialogue is required to agree on the nitty-gritty of the matter. Indians stance is they can hold off the status quo with a forceful occupation.

UN resolution is not a mandate just as suggestion. If Pakistan was serious why didn't Pakistan follow the steps suggested by the UN resolution in 1948? Pakistan was sitting on the UN resolution until 1989. It started raising it only after the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Hindus was completed in Kashmir valley and demography of AJK & GB has been changed through settling of Punjabis.

Cut this Oman BS. It is stupid.

I agree. It is as stupid as Pakistan ceding part of GB to China.

 

[Areesh]

I agree. It is as stupid as Pakistan ceding part of GB to China.

It might be stupid to you since you only believe in losing territory to china after getting a comprehensive beating in a war.

We understand your situation.

 

[StraightShooter]

Neither do you have legal ownership.

India is the legal heir of the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir through instrument of accession India signed with the Princely state of J & K.

Pakistan settle the dispute by agreeing that it will not raise the issue of territory it never controlled.

You could have said it verbally but you cannot enter into a legal agreement. The right way to to settle that would have been to settle the border with India first and if GB was ceded by India to Pakistan as part of that agreement then Pakistan could have further ceded some of the GB lands to China. Now you took the shortcut and muddied the whole process.

What I am saying that instead of being delusional like Indians and claiming territory that we don't control both physically or legally we accepted China's control on something it controls both legally and physically.

There are no protests in Shaksgam valley against chinese rule and Indians use this non isue just an excuse to delay solution of Kashmir issue and to extend its oppressive role of Kashmir. We understand that and consider it another Indian lame as$ excuse on Kashmir.

Physical control I understand but Pakistan cannot get into a legal agreement. I have already explained it in my above post.

 

[Areesh]

Physical control I understand but Pakistan cannot get into a legal agreement. I have already explained it in my above post.

We can have legal agreements whenever we deem it necessary. We are not into this habit of claiming stupid claims on others land like Indians. So please don't expect same idiocy from us that you guys are into.

 

[American Pakistani]

India is the legal heir of the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir through instrument of accession India signed with the Princely state of J & K.



You could have said it verbally but you cannot enter into a legal agreement. The right way to to settle that would have been to settle the border with India first and if GB was ceded by India to Pakistan as part of that agreement then Pakistan could have further ceded some of the GB lands to China. Now you took the shortcut and muddied the whole process.

Pakistan and Kashmir rejects that instrument hence nullified. Just like India did in Junagadh Manvadar case and Hyderabad Deccan case.

India is no one to tell what should've been done. Pakistan did the deal to get 750 sq m which is in control of Pakistan now, whereas Pakistan backed off from claiming something it never controlled. 1963 agreement was a land gain for Pakistan. And also gave Pakistan relief to focus on IOK.

 

[StraightShooter]

Your analogy on Baluchistan is moronic. Pakistan controlled GB and shared its border with China. And hence the agreement. Do you control Baluchistan physically? Do you have border with Oman?

On what basis you can have agreement with Oman? At least try have a practical scenario if you want to draw some analogy. Your analogy is stupid and is not comparable to Pakistani agreement with China.

Just because you control does not make it legal. That is that point I am highlighting. China controls Tibet but India does not recognize it as part of China yet.