If Kashmir blows up, all bets off: US

[Munir]

If the US have a big mouth when it comes to free and fair elections why do they move away when it comes to Kashmir? Sofar democracy have only brought onesided actions...

 

[Solomon2]

Exactly, that's the spirit, I won't even argue that to not to scare you guys away... Do the vote, yes you guys will win!

I originally suggested two years because sooner might be unfair to Pakistan. Really, I'm most interested in the Kashmiris "winning" (in the sense of achieving self-determination: India, Pakistan, or none-of-the-above). If they become independent two years from now, they could choose to merge with Pakistan the decade after that, yes?

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

I originally suggested two years because sooner might be unfair to Pakistan. Really, I'm most interested in the Kashmiris "winning" (in the sense of achieving self-determination: India, Pakistan, or none-of-the-above). If they become independent two years from now, they could choose to merge with Pakistan the decade after that, yes?

It won't really matter, because the Islamist forces that have been lying dormant or been suppressed by the security forces will turn Kashmir into another nightmare for the whole region.
Even if the above doesn not happen, the legions of jehadis who are fighting for hte kashmiri 'cause' are not going to stop at what the kashmiri masses thing as 'freedom', but what they think is freedom, whose details I think are quite obvious .

Considering all this, all Pakistan has to do is nudge and wink in order to strengthen the pro-Pakistani forces in Kashmir and the next thing we know India has to contend with Pakistani army right upto the Indian plains on 3 sides. That's one thing that's never going to happen as long as statesmen are in charge of the Indian government.

 

[Awesome]

That's so damned ridiculous. On one hand you openly claim that you will send fighters and use all manner of propaganda to Islamicize

No, no, before you invent words for me, let me stop you right there.

1. No propaganda. We just would kill Indian soldiers. Which is totally legitimate since Kashmir is disputed territory, they shouldn't be there in the first place. It's like they are the insurgents for us.

2. Islamize? I'm talking about Freedomize!

the people of Kashmir and turn them against the state, and on the other you want India to hold a plebescite based on a UN resolution that has been deemed obsolete by none other than the Secretary General himself?

How will we TURN the people against India, we're giving India an option to remove its troops from its Kashmir, we'll remove troops from our Kashmir (only bring it down to the levels specified in UN resolution 98), and then let the UN conduct its plebiscite.

Ok I give you a full chance, that you may try to turn the people against Pakistan for one year and then conduct the plebiscite! Where will we even get the chance? We won't send the fighters once the UN takes command of Kashmir for the plebiscite.

The plain fact is that Nehru was a true democrat who had the plain decency to approach the UN when Pakistan played dirty in Kashmir.

Or maybe he was scared of the advancing troops of Pakistan in 1948? Or maybe lets for argument sakes lets say that he was a democrat who was decent...

Even then, Pakistan did not bother to follow the directives and create the conditions for plebiscite

Again you repeat this sorry excuse of an answer, Pakistan FOLLOWED the resolutions to the letter. The resolutions called for India and PAKISTAN both to withdraw forces, India pretends that it is only Pakistan who has to withdraw. Read the UN resolution number 98 it clearly mentions number of troops for India and Pakistan.

Perhaps the PM of Pakistan should approach the UN because nearly half of Pakistani territory is claimed by Afghanistan.

Deflecting... Wimping...

The point is that allowing the separatist/Islamist forces to succeed in J&K will lead to geopolitical consequences that nobody, least of all India, wants to contend with. That's the greater scenario. Internally, Kashmir is considered an integral part of India and whichever political party attempts to change that will not survive to tell the tale. That's democracy for you.

IF you're confident Kashmiris, KASHMIRIS, not Indians, or what India's constitution calls an integral state... IF you ARE confident, as in not a wimp, that Kashmiris would vote for India, then let them vote and lets find out...

We are THIS confident and this confidence earns us the arrogance to call ourselves brethren with the Kashmiris!

Americans should get this thing in their heads. Pakistan is pretty much ruled by Kashmiris. You know the guy who thought about the idea that there should BE a Pakistan... Allama Iqbal, he was a Kashmiri. Most business people in Pakistan are Kashmiris. Nawaz Sharif, 2 times Prime Minister, the currently most popular leader of Pakistan, arguably the second riches man in Pakistan... Guess what? A Kashmiri.

Me, half Kashmiri. You'll find Kashmiris in every wake of Pakistani life. We're not letting go of Kashmir, till the plebiscite is held and we will continue to kill Indian soldiers occupying Kashmir till they stop doing so.

So yes Ms. Clinton, If Kashmir blows up, all bets are off!

 

[Awesome]

I originally suggested two years because sooner might be unfair to Pakistan. Really, I'm most interested in the Kashmiris "winning" (in the sense of achieving self-determination: India, Pakistan, or none-of-the-above). If they become independent two years from now, they could choose to merge with Pakistan the decade after that, yes?

The emphasis remaining on... if the Kashmiris CHOOSE to. If they choose to, they can do anything right? Although it would be highly unlikely, if they go independent, they have enough resources to run their own country. Its a large territory.

 

[Solomon2]

AA, biologists tell us all humans share a common orgin. When did the Chinese stop being Africans? You yourself don't need Kashmir for security or economic necessity. At some point, people should just let go, don't you think?

 

[Awesome]

AA, biologists tell us all humans share a common orgin. When did the Chinese stop being Africans? You yourself don't need Kashmir for security or economic necessity. At some point, people should just let go, don't you think?

Not at this point, why should this philosophy come in with the Kashmiris? Everyone should be liberated except for the Kashmiris because economics don't allow it?

 

[Solomon2]

AA, the people who live in Kashmir are Kashmiris. The people who don't live in Kashmir and claim to want to live there again, I'm not so sure about. I'm a second-generation American myself; but I don't pine for the towns and fields of my German heritage; I let go of that. Can you explain why you can't do the same?

 

[paritosh]

on one hand you support sri lanka in crushing it's tamil separatists...and on the other you support the kashmiri separatists?
i couldn't help but notice the parallels...

 

[qsaark]

You yourself don't need Kashmir for security or economic necessity. At some point, people should just let go, don't you think?

Actually we do. Kashmir is the source of the fresh water reservoirs. It is less about the Kashmiris but more about the water.

 

[Awesome]

Also may I also point out here that keeping Kashmir forcibly is just India's stubbornness. Indians have no real love for Kashmiris or the other way round. Indians have even tried renaming the Islamabad district of Srinagar to some Hindu like name of Anantnag, the Kashmiris still call it Islamabad. There are Pakistani flags hoisted in Kashmir, the Pak Sar Zameen (Pak National Anthem) was rated as the most famous mobile ringtone of the Kashmiris.

Pakistani anthem rings out across Kashmir
Pakistani Flag Hoisted in Kashmir University

Azaadi!

 

[Awesome]

on one hand you support sri lanka in crushing it's tamil separatists...and on the other you support the kashmiri separatists?
i couldn't help but notice the parallels...

Yes we don't support Indian terrorists! Whether the uniformed ones in Kashmir or the ones wreaking havoc in the countries of our Allies!

 

[Solomon2]

the Pak Sar Zameen (Pak National Anthem) was rated as the most famous mobile ringtone of the Kashmiris.

There you go! There's still hope that Kashmir may yet merge with Pakistan - assuming there will be a Pakistan around to merge into. For now, Pakistani efforts are best directed at preservation, don't you think? I would have thought the disaster of 1971 would have taught that by attempting to keep a grasp of everything at once, something is bound to go wrong...

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

No, no, before you invent words for me, let me stop you right there.

1. No propaganda. We just would kill Indian soldiers. Which is totally legitimate since Kashmir is disputed territory, they shouldn't be there in the first place. It's like they are the insurgents for us.

Yes sir! I so completely believe you! (sarcasm).

You've not only been killing Indian soldiers, but also spreading the rather vile form of Islamic ideology, which btw is now taking over Paksitan as well. As a result the rich kashmiri culture has been reduced to a ghost of itself. I distinctly remember during the 1990s Islamists used to roam the streets ordering men not to shave and women to wear burkha. That's just the visible aspect of it of course.
The liberal attitudes of most kashmiris are long gone now. And you have the gall to promise 'no propaganda'. Really?

Secondly, your insurgents have killed scores of civilians over the years by blasting bombs and opening fire in crowded streets and marketplaces. Ill-trained and nervous as they are, they end up killing far more civilians and soldiers and create an environment of fear and suffering. Hence the term 'terrorists'.

2. Islamize? I'm talking about Freedomize!

Big difference between ground reality and your rhetoric.

How will we TURN the people against India, we're giving India an option to remove its troops from its Kashmir, we'll remove troops from our Kashmir (only bring it down to the levels specified in UN resolution 98), and then let the UN conduct its plebiscite.

Yes sir, Pakistan's honesty and integrity while dealing with such matters is well known. Forget about removing troops, first try to uphold your earlier promise of stopping the insurgents from crossing over.

Ok I give you a full chance, that you may try to turn the people against Pakistan for one year and then conduct the plebiscite! Where will we even get the chance? We won't send the fighters once the UN takes command of Kashmir for the plebiscite.

Is this some kind of a joke? And again, sorry but Pakistan is in no position to promise anything of the sort. First sort out the insurgency within your own country before making promises like 'we won't send the fighters'. It doesn't matter because the fighters are now out of your control.

Or maybe he was scared of the advancing troops of Pakistan in 1948? Or maybe lets for argument sakes lets say that he was a democrat who was decent...

He was an idealist to a fault, and that ultimately proved to be his and India's undoing.

Again you repeat this sorry excuse of an answer, Pakistan FOLLOWED the resolutions to the letter. The resolutions called for India and PAKISTAN both to withdraw forces, India pretends that it is only Pakistan who has to withdraw. Read the UN resolution number 98 it clearly mentions number of troops for India and Pakistan.

Nope, that's just so completely false, but we can discuss it later.

Deflecting... Wimping...

Simply putting your false sense of moral superiority into perspective here. Has Pakistan ever considered approaching the UN to solve the territorial disputes with Afghanistan? Forget about that, has it even attempted to demarcate its borders?
Last week 3 prominent Baloch leaders were shot dead, leading to widespread discontent and violence. Where was your democracy when you continued to kill leaders who were opposed to the Pakistani state?

IF you're confident Kashmiris, KASHMIRIS, not Indians, or what India's constitution calls an integral state... IF you ARE confident, as in not a wimp, that Kashmiris would vote for India, then let them vote and lets find out...

Nice attempt at "trash-talk". As I have already explained, no political party in India will survive which attempts to do anything of the sort.

We are THIS confident and this confidence earns us the arrogance to call ourselves brethren with the Kashmiris!

Your arrogance is quite misplaced. Your brainwashed, ill-trained insurgents have caused more violence and mayhem than few other places on earth. They have spread their vile ideology among Kashmiris which is now coming back to haunt Pakistan.

If this is what you call being brethren then perhaps you should indulge in some introspection.

Americans should get this thing in their heads. Pakistan is pretty much ruled by Kashmiris. You know the guy who thought about the idea that there should BE a Pakistan... Allama Iqbal, he was a Kashmiri. Most business people in Pakistan are Kashmiris. Nawaz Sharif, 2 times Prime Minister, the currently most popular leader of Pakistan, arguably the second riches man in Pakistan... Guess what? A Kashmiri.

Me, half Kashmiri. You'll find Kashmiris in every wake of Pakistani life. We're not letting go of Kashmir, till the plebiscite is held and we will continue to kill Indian soldiers occupying Kashmir till they stop doing so.

So yes Ms. Clinton, If Kashmir blows up, all bets are off!

Nice speech, and widely exaggerated claims. Pakistan is not run by Kashmiris.

If these are the standards you've set then one can begin to claim Pakistan by saying that India is run by Pakistani migrants. India's PM was born in today's Pakistan, India's leader of opposition was born in Pakistan, and many of their richest businessmen (many sikhs, sindhis, punjabis) came from Pakistan. I'd say India's case for conquering Pakistan is quits strong, if your logic is to be used.

 

[paritosh]

kashmir is a functioning democracy now...they recently elected a pro-indian govt.