Boy from the valley

[MilSpec]

You talked about ' cause and effect ' , right ? I asked you to start from the beginning on why have the Kashmiris always been discontent/against with the Indian rule . The organized armed insurgency started from the 1980's , that doesn't really mean that before then , the people were happy and nothing was happening there and everything was fine . Because if that was the case , then Pakistan would have had no pretext and wouldn't have the popular support from the Kashmiri people , it got , which further emboldened it to continue . Will you deny that the Kashmiris crossed the border themselves to get training in Azad Kashmir ?

False.... If kashmiris were so pro pakistani, 65 infiltration, and 99 infiltration would have been ovewhelmingly supported by the local, but guess what?

Usually the the most loud vocal minority is mistaken for the popular opinion, case and point - Hardliner islamic groups screaming and shouting "j ihad" but that is not the majority opinion, its a fringe group that can shout really loud, same is the case with kashmir, the fringe groups shouting aloud about pakistan doesn't represent kashmiris in general.

If you could , you would , mate . Despite the fact that it would be/have been in India's best interest to do so , because it will break the momentum of the secessionist movement , relieve the pressure off you , discredit the whole thing , muddle and confuse and put the pro Pakistan Kashmiris in trouble . There's more that comes with supporting insurgency in Pakistan Administered Kashmir and you know that . But since the people of those both territories are happy with Pakistani rule , you cant really do that . The support for such a thing , just isn't there .

by the same logic people in other parts of pakistan must be really pis$$ed off with pakistani government, right? I am making this point not to derail the thread but to remind you the folly of underestimating state sponsored terror mechanism.

You aren't a saint , I told you , earlier . Stop acting like one . As for the asymmetric agendas , both countries have been involved in a lot of things . Why should then , the Pakistani administered Kashmir be any different ? If not for the reasons of people's allegiance and content with Islamabad's rule . The Indians have been doing all of this , in Baluchistan and KPK and by extension in the whole Pakistan , supporting TTP and BLA , even today .

A good player knows when to call it quits, but it seems pakistans gamble hasn't payed off and yet pakistan keeps hedging its bet on kashmir year after year. And please let the nonsense of India helping taliban go in to the trash can, there is nothing more absurd than that.

 

[ranjeet]

brown b*stards are one of us they exist everywhere
some are clean shaven
some are bearded
some are pseudo liberals
some are religious fanatics
some are called Bhagwan daas
some are called Abdullah
some kill in the name of nationalism
some kill in the name of religion

and the dying victim says, why does it matter who is my killer and how am being murdered by LeT or RSS fanatic?
I am loving my life without a fault of my own and just happen to be where this demented life taker happens to be striking.


PS: dont get weighed down by names, they are used as a reference and analogy

It's a sad reality Sir, but we all are small people with big egos and unfortunately we haven't grasped the art of reasoning.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

I remember foxbat once saying he is a Kashmiri, I also remember foxbat saying that foxbat and karan are colleagues. I could be wrong.

karan 1970 said to me that his ancestors r from Pakistan, they migrated to Srinagar where he was born then now they r settled in Dehli with complete family.

 

[Joe Shearer]

An elite Pakistani kashmiri member on PDF said that India IS not Holding Referendum and it Rejected 11 UN RESOLUTIONS. .. Is it True.* @Joe Shearer

this is what was said-

I didn't open up every Resolution & counted each whether it added up to 11; I relied instead on an Article written in the Times in 1957 where the author had quoted the Pakistani Foreign Minister as saying thus : Since 1949, noted Noon, "eleven proposals for settling the differences [have been] put forward. Pakistan accepted each; India rejected every one."


Apparently neither the Author nor anyone else disputed this fact !



Source -http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,723783,00.html

You'd need a subscription for that but you could read it here instead


Kashmir-A Nationless Nation: KASHMIR: India Grabs it


and this was his reply to UN RESOLUTION OF 1948 which Pakistan and India accepted. However, later on Pakistan backed out of it and asked for Amendments. -

Part 1 of the Resolution reads : The High Commands of Indian and Pakistan forces agreed to refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (For the purpose of these proposals "forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides).

We maintain that instead of adhering to the above, India moved into consolidate her position in Kashmir ! Therefore how can we initiate Part 2 of the Agreement when Part 1 wasn't being adhered to ?


u see,that member is well versed with this topic,so it left me confused.. any comments mate?? @Joe Shearer sir

Wholly incorrect.

At the outset, there were two Resolutions, one after the other, #38 and #39, followed by #47, some time later. I suggest, to keep the facts firm in your mind, you read them, both of them, and then read #47 also.

It is crystal clear from these what was required to be done, and it is crystal clear that intransigence on the part of one side led to an impasse where the UN leaned more and more to the Pakistani POV.

You have been fed a series of subsequent events, a series of documents dating from