India-Occupied Kashmir Uprising; Azad Kashmir Polls; RNC Convention; Qandeel Baloch

[Razia Sultana]

Those are not my interpretations...

Anyway, Let's leave aside for the moment what Indian or Pakistani official position is and consider what some experts on International Law have to say on this matter.


The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is an international human rights non-governmental organization based in Geneva. The Commission itself is a standing group of 60 eminent jurists(including senior judges, attorneys and academics) dedicated to ensuring respect for international human rights standards through the law. Commissioners are known for their experience, knowledge and fundamental commitment to human rights.)


ICJ sent a fact finding mission to Kashmir in 1995. The final report published not only challenged the accession of Kashmir to India, it went on to say "If as the ICJ mission has concluded , the people of Kashmir have a right for self determination, it follows that their insurgency is legitimate " ... (p.84-98)



About Simla Agreement, it says:

.....The Simla Agreement is clearly binding on Pakistan and deprives the Pakistan Government of lociu dtandi to intervene in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and neither India nor Pakistan, both of which had conflicts of interest with the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir can be regarded as having authority to bind them. The members of the ICJ mission do not see, therefore, how the Simla Agreement can be regarded as having deprived the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir of any rights of self-determination to which they were entitled at the time of the Agreement... (p.92)

And

Both India and Pakistan should recognise and respond to the call for self-determination for the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir within its 1947 boundaries, inherent in the relevant United Nations resolutions. The United Nations should re-activate its role as a catalyst in this process. (p.98)



Full Report can be downloaded from their website:

http://www.icj.org/category/publications/reports/page/33/

You know very well that we don't entertain any third party opinion on a bilateral matter.

 

[M. Sarmad]

You know very well that we don't entertain any third party opinion on a bilateral matter.

You may believe in whatever you want, but I was talking about International Law.



1) India itself took the dispute to the UN Security Council in 1948, where it is still registered as such and thus remains a pending agenda till it is resolved.


2) The Indian Representative, in his letter to the President of the Security Council, regarding the status of the State clarified that finally "its people would be free to decide their future by the recognised democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices"


3) The UN Security Council discussions led to the resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, which clearly laid down that "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite."


4) These UN resolutions are still valid . They can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and viod.


The legal process is that if "Pakistan, India and Kashmiris reach an agreement on the settlement of the Kashmir dispute, they would have to go back to the UN Security Council to get another resolution to endorse that procedure" ... Until then Kashmir will remain a disputed territory (under international law)

 

[ebrahym]

Rigging elections are a passe. Advanced technology has made it impossible now plus the international observers and large number of journalist covering them

yeah no shit

The legal process is that if "Pakistan, India and Kashmiris reach an agreement on the settlement of the Kashmir dispute, they would have to go back to the UN Security Council to get another resolution to endorse that procedure" ... Until then Kashmir will remain a disputed territory under international law

guess 1974 was not properly executed

 

[M. Sarmad]

guess 1974 was not properly executed

The very fact that India acknowledged Kashmir as a disputed territory in the Simla Agreement, negated its claims of Kashmir being its integral part.

 

[Razia Sultana]

You may believe in whatever you want to, but I was talking about International Law.



1) India itself took the dispute to the UN Security Council in 1948, where it is still registered as such and thus remains a pending agenda till it is resolved.


2) The Indian Representative, in his letter to the President of the Security Council, regarding the status of the State clarified that finally "its people would be free to decide their future by the recognised democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices"


3) The UN Security Council discussions led to the resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, which clearly laid down that "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite."


4) These UN resolutions are still valid . They can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and viod.


The legal process is that if "Pakistan, India and Kashmiris reach an agreement on the settlement of the Kashmir dispute, they would have to go back to the UN Security Council to get another resolution to endorse that procedure" ... Until then , Kashmir would remain a disputed territory under international law

Thing is that we are trying to find a solution that will result in a win-loss situation and therefore it will never be resolved. We have to reach a win-win solution or else it wont be a solution at all. Have we thought of a solution that will not hurt the national psyche of India or Pakistan? It requires a lot of soul searching on both sides.

 

[ebrahym]

Thing is that we are trying to find a solution that will result in a win-loss situation and therefore it will never be resolved. We have to reach a win-win solution or else it wont be a solution at all. Have we thought of a solution that will not hurt the national psyche of India or Pakistan? It requires a lot of soul searching on both sides

and your stance on kashmir which you said and i quote is that only AJK is under disscusion and IOK is integral part of india is not a win-win solution bro ...... a few decades back world was listening to us on kashmir right now its listening to you ..... what makes you think the future will be certain ...... sooner or later you will have to disscuss it solve it for the sake of both countries ..... or at least stay engaged in talks so the relations can normalise but this attitude of "integral part " is simply not gonna do it.............. thats my take

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Personally, I strongly believe India has to come to an arrangement with Pakistan on Kashmir. May be not today, but some day.

1. Both India and Pakistan believe Kashmir is disputed territory per international law. There is no avoiding this issue. Indian claims of Kashmir being an integral part of India might be valid on some level, but is it legally and politically? I don't know.
2. India is spending billions of rupees and basing hundreds of thousands of soldiers, paramilitaries, police, etc., to control a population of how many people? How long can this go on? This situation pleases both China and Pakistan as troops sent to Kashmir can't be used elsewhere.
3. Sooner or later, opinion is going to turn against India internationally. Yes, Pakistan fumbled attempts on Kashmir is partially to blame, but sooner or later it is going to get its act together and press its case.
4. Forget plebiscite and UN resolutions. This is not going to happen. The only solution is a negotiated settlement between India, Pakistan, and Kashmiri people.

These are my thoughts on the issue. Agree or disagree. I'm in my 40s, and Kashmir has been issue since the insurgency started in the late 1980s.

You should also be aware of what China has done in Tibet and XInjiang

What Russia did to Chechnya and Dagestan ;Ukraine and Crimea

What US does all round the world

What Turkey does to Kurdish Rebels

What Israel does to Palestinians

And lastly what is happening in Baluchistan

There are NO saints in this world ; It is all about Power and self interest

What does Pakistan offer to the world ; why will the OIC support Pakistan

As long as India is an attractive economic partner for the Rest of the World

It will always be India's word against Pakistan

 

[Indika]

2) The Indian Representative, in his letter to the President of the Security Council, regarding the status of the State clarified that finally "its people would be free to decide their future by the recognised democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices"

As per UN resolution, if and only if.
A.
1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

 

[M. Sarmad]

As per UN resolution, if and only if.
A.
1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

India claims that acceptance of Resolution 47 (1948) was stated by Nehru to be conditional on the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from territory within the 1947 boundaries of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in accordance with the terms of that Resolution. Pakistani forces have, of course, never been withdrawn.


The factual position is as under:-


(a) The demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir was to take place in a synchronized manner on both sides of the ceasefire line. It was India which refused to implement the process of demilitarization.


(b) The proof of Indian refusal to demilitarize is to be found in the report of Sir Owen Dixon (an eminent Australian Jurist and United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan) to the Security Council, contained in Document S-1971, in which he concluded as follows:-

"In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperilled."(Para 52 of Document S/1971).


(c) It should also be noted that after a thorough examination of the matter the Security Council in its Resolution No. 98(1952), adopted on 23rd December 1952, allowed both India and Pakistan to maintain a limited number of their forces on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization in order to maintain law and order. This number was to be between 3000-6000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistani side and 12000-18000 remaining on the Indian side of the cease-fire line. Pakistan agreed to this proposal; India did not.


(d) To claim, in the face of this clear and irrefutable evidence, that the plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces, is patently an attempt to deceive the world. The simple truth is that India did not allow the creation of conditions necessary for the holding of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices.



https://defence.pk/threads/autonomy...cipe-for-disaster.440287/page-10#post-8504217

 

[RiazHaq]

How does the #Indian media toe the government line to define a terrorist? #Kashmir #BurhanWani http://www.kashmirmonitor.in/Details/107220/how-exactly-does-the-indian-media-define-a-terrorist/ … via @kashmir Monitor

On July 10, India woke up to startling pictures of massive crowds at the funeral of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani in Tral, Kashmir.
The disconnect between Kashmir and the rest of India was captured by the fact that even as Wani was a figure of mass adulation in the Valley, large sections of the Indian media had described him as a “terrorist” as it had reported on his killing by Indian security forces on July 8.
This included the Times of India, Times Now as well as NDTV – even as the Telegraph, Indian Express and Business Standard stuck to the plain vanilla “militant”.
How these respective organisations differentiated between a “terrorist” and a “militant” was unclear and undefined.
This might seem like hair splitting around semantics but it’s actually far deeper than that – even if this is a discussion that’s not been had in India.

“Terrorism” and “terrorist” are words laden with value judgment, used often by political players as a means of getting their own message and viewpoint across. In reality, there are few definitions of the word “terrorist” accepted across the board. Indeed, it is for this reason that a number of global publications have strict guidelines on how to use the term. In India, however, few press outlets seem to have rules about the T-word and much of its use in the country, it seems, is driven either by Arnab Goswami-esque jingoism and/or India’s highly troubled relationship with Kashmir.

There are few words in the English-language which have had as tumultuous a life as “terrorism”. In fact, the word didn’t even start its life in English but in French where the regime de la terreur was a label adopted by the new French state to establish order after the first uprisings of the French Revolution in 1789. The first avatar of the word “terrorism” was therefore almost completely different from its modern meaning.

------

“Terrorism” is, of course, exactly the sort of “meaningless word” that Orwell railed against, used not for its lexical meaning but to serve various political agendas.
In most cases, the Indian media uses it either to suit the purposes of the state or various nationalist narratives. The sharp difference between the way it is used when Muslims/Kashmir are involved versus other instances such as the North-East also points to a subtle anti-Muslim bias.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

WE will NEVER GIVE Kashmir to Pakistan

Such Internet and TV and Newspaper campaigns WILL NOT get you KASHMIR

KUCH NAHI MILEGA

FIGHT a WAR for Kashmir

We don't want Kashmir; big misconception within you Indians. We want Kashmiris to decide who and what Kashmir belongs to.

 

[Asian.Century]

Graphic campaign launch video to how violence in Kashmir :

https://twitter.com/x/status/758028985024425984

 

[RiazHaq]

#Facebook is censoring posts on #Indian-Occupied #Kashmir. #India #Pakistan #BurhanWani

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-censoring-posts-on-indian-kashmir-some-say/


NEW DELHI — Film makers, activists and journalists accused Facebook of blocking their accounts this week after they posted messages and images related to the violence in the trouble-torn province of Kashmir.

In recent weeks, the India-administered, Muslim-majority Kashmir state has been facing violence and curfews after protests erupted against the killing of a popular leader of a terrorist group.

As people posted images, videos and stories about police violence and people injured by pellet wounds on Facebook, some discovered their accounts were disabled.

On Monday, the account of Arif Ayaz Parrey, an editor with an environmental magazine in New Delhi, was disabled for more than a day. He administers the Facebook account of a discussion group called the Kashmir Solidarity Network, whose page was also removed.

“The Kashmir Solidarity page was started by a Kashmiri anthropology student in New York. This is not a hate forum, we share stories,” Parrey said.

More than 47 people have died and hundreds injured in angry clashes between the police and protesters in Kashmir this month, the worst outbreak of bloody violence in six years in the region claimed by both India and neighboring Pakistan.

Authorities banned newspapers for four days and restored cellphone service on Wednesday after it was out for 20 days.

“Our Community Standards prohibit content that praises or supports terrorists, terrorist organizations or terrorism, and we remove it as soon as we’re made aware of it,” said a Facebook spokesman in India. “We welcome discussion on these subjects but any terrorist content has to be clearly put in a context which condemns these organizations or their violent activities.”

India and the United States topped the list of governments that request Facebook for details of accounts in the second half of 2015.

India has more than 340 million mobile Internet users and has the second largest number of Facebook users after the United States. The company is seeking to expand its footprint here by introducing a pared down version called “Free Basics.” But earlier this year, New Delhi shot it down, saying service providers cannot charge discriminatory prices for Internet users.

A journalist in Kashmir said that many who shared stories about a new band of militants and videos of police brutality have been blocked.

“It looks more like Facebook censorship rather than something initiated by the government. Maybe they are trying to please the government proactively,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Center for Internet and Society. “Nevertheless it will have a chilling effect. You will think twice before exercising free speech on Facebook now.”

Ather Zia, a political commentator from Kashmir who teaches anthropology at the University of Northern Colorado, said after her account was disabled on Tuesday: "It is safe to assume creating awareness for Kashmir using social media or writing about the ground reality is under severe threat."

Meanwhile, users struggled to restore their accounts on Wednesday as they uploaded new documents requested by the company.

“I use my Facebook account not as a personal page to tell people about my last haircut or last holiday. I use it for work, I share media stories about whatever bothers me in the universe,” said Sanjay Kak, a documentary film maker whose account was disabled Tuesday. “Nothing I shared can be considered inflammatory or incendiary.”

 

[RiazHaq]

Azadi (Freedom) for #Kashmir by Arundhati Roy. #India #Pakistan #BurhanWani

http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/azadi/297536

The people of Kashmir have made it clear once again, as they have done year upon year, decade upon decade, grave upon grave, that what they want is azadi. (The “people”, by the way, does not mean those who win elections conducted in the rifle sights of the army. It does not mean leaders who have to hide in their homes and not venture out in times like these.)
While we denounce—as we must—the gunning down of unarmed protesters by the security forces, the attacks on ambulances and hospitals by policemen, and the blinding of teenagers with pellet guns, we have to keep in mind that the real debate cannot only be about the violation of human rights by Indian security forces in the Kashmir valley. Egregious though they are, those violations are the consequence—the inevitable and unavoidable consequence—of the militaristic suppression of a people’s struggle for freedom. Kashmiris are not fighting for the establishment of the rule of law or an end to human rights violations. They are fighting for azadi. For this, they are prepared to face down bullets with stones. For this, they are prepared to die in numbers. For this, they are prepared to exhibit acts of open defiance that may lead to their death or incarceration in the most densely militarised zone in the world. For this, they are prepared to take to arms, to fight to the death, knowing full well that they will die young. They have proved that with tragic regularity. They have been nothing if not consistent.

-------

If there is to be a solution to this terrible, seemingly endless tragedy, we have to be able to think clearly, speak freely and listen fearlessly to things we may not want to hear. We have to find a new imagination. This applies to everybody, on all sides of the dispute.
Something beautiful could come of it. Why not? Why ever not?

 

[RiazHaq]

It is only with love that we can hold #Kashmir: #India Chief Justice TS Thakur (Kashmiri Pandit) http://dnai.in/dmen via @dna

The problem, was not also, entirely Pakistan's support for militancy in the state, he (Justice Thakur) admitted. "How many of us can vouchsafe that Kashmir was given the same kind of democratic freedom that was given to other parts of the country? In Kashmir, we've heard that mayors are elected, but there were deputy commissioners who would be the returning officers who would reject all the nomination papers and declare the candidate of a particular party as elected and therefore the government would be formed even before the vote being cast."

Finding a solution, he said, appeared to be very difficult as "Jammu wants Article 370 to be abolished. Ladakh wants to be centrally governed, and Kashmir valley wants independence. And within that valley, the Hindus want a separate conclave for themselves".

The only way out, Justice Thakur felt was to embrace inclusiveness. "When we rejected two nation theory we went for an inclusive society. We need to nurture it. It is only with love that we can hold Kashmir," he said.