India, Pakistan cannot sideline Kashmir: Mirwaiz

[Mohammed Azizuddin]

Dyaum Maan.....What the fuss all about???

I know of a permanant solution to kashmir...Give people a chance to decide for themselves...

Have a vote in Kashmir and have a refferandom on the issue, and have it in the whole of Kashmir, the way Kashmir existed before 1947, or upto 1947.

Let Pakistani troops pull-out of Pakistan occupied Kashmir, let Chinese troops pull-out of Aksai Chin, and let Indian troops pull out of Indian Kashmir.Let United Nations conduct the elections,

Let there be voting in Jammu,Srinagar valley, Ladakh, Muzzafarabad, and practically in every village of Kashmir...let the people decide once in for all!!!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I would expect nothing else from an indian but the above statement............the same way india can not comprehend in its wildest dreams to hold a referendum in kashmir ,well its the same when it comes to converting the LOC into a IB for pakistanis.
Lets be truthful at least,if pakistan wants kashmir they have to fight for it.
Do we want the pak army fighting........no
Maybe an amalgamation of the various kashmiri groups into a single fighting force on the lines of hezbollah is what is needed.
Lets be friends on all issues and build economic links but keep fighting for kashmir.......let it burn in the background while we get on with business.

Referendum is no problem actually, provided Pakistan meets the bill.

LC need not be converted to an IB. It is only an option.

Fight on for Kashmir till Doomsday and it will remain the same.

And yet, trade and friendship should be fostered so that it is mutually beneficial and there can be no two opinions on that as suggested by you!

 

[Always Neutral]

Referendum is no problem actually, provided Pakistan meets the bill.

LC need not be converted to an IB. It is only an option.

Fight on for Kashmir till Doomsday and it will remain the same.

And yet, trade and friendship should be fostered so that it is mutually beneficial and there can be no two opinions on that as suggested by you!

I agree. Only thing which has been unsaid is the water issue which will get progressively worse and will lead to somekind of LIC issues in future. Kashmiris have to accept a fate similiar to Tibet.

Regards

 

[Spring Onion]

Dyaum Maan.....What the fuss all about???

I know of a permanant solution to kashmir...Give people a chance to decide for themselves...

Have a vote in Kashmir and have a refferandom on the issue, and have it in the whole of Kashmir, the way Kashmir existed before 1947, or upto 1947.

Let Pakistani troops pull-out of Pakistan occupied Kashmir, let Chinese troops pull-out of Aksai Chin, and let Indian troops pull out of Indian Kashmir.Let United Nations conduct the elections,

Let there be voting in Jammu,Srinagar valley, Ladakh, Muzzafarabad, and practically in every village of Kashmir...let the people decide once in for all!!!

If India has balls to do that what else Kashmiris would want.


Lets do it

 

[Flintlock]

If India has balls to do that what else Kashmiris would want.


Lets do it

Yes Lets do it. Lets start by Pakistan govt. requesting China to withdraw from Aksai Chin.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

If India has balls to do that what else Kashmiris would want.


Lets do it

The word ''balls'' does not sound nice from a lady.

There are many other words that are equally forceful.

OK, so when are all withdrawing?

 

[Energon]

At least you admit that the indian army is commiting human rights abuses........do carry on down that path......more recruits for the cause.
The best way to deal with HR abuses by the indian army is for the kashmiri fighters to take the fight into india.........india army spreads destruction in kashmir do the same back ,give india a taste of its own medicine.

Again, I do not understand the logic behind Islamic terrorism. On one hand you want to engulf an entire region inhabited by Muslims into terrorism using the religion card but you also want to retain the ability to cry about human rights violations when there are reprisals. The two are mutually exclusive. Of course there have been human rights violations in Kashmir; these things things are virtually synonymous with all long term military mobilizations involving insurgencies and even more so when the military in question has limited technology at their disposal. However, what is clear is that the military operations started after the 1989 insurgency and wasn't a preemptive move by the Indian government to harm the people of Kashmir. The Kashmiri fighters have already brought the fight into India, and their actions have brought a lot of harm to their fellow Kashmiris; it is rather ironic that you are promoting their cowardly actions while crying about HR violations instead of blaming them for bringing the problem on in the first place. Nonetheless, if another insurgency is to take shape in the coming years I think it will be tackled in a very different manner this time around.

Up until 9/11 the kashmir freedom fighters where going from to strength to strength.
I dont know where you got "thwarted by the Indian Army by 1996" but if that what makes feel good go ahead and believe it.
9/11 is what put the fight in the background not the indian army.

For someone who touts about having a long list of terrorists in your family involved in this conflict you seem to be rather ill informed about it. I suggest you look into credible published works on the topic. Please PM me if you would like a good reading list. Nonetheless, many other posters have already addressed this point so I won't repeat it again. I think its very important to read about the connection between the destruction of the major insurgent groups in the mid 90s (95-97) and the urgency of the Kargil operation. Lastly, the pressure brought upon Pakistan after the 2002 standoff did a lot more to curb the cross border militancy than 9/11.

Peace with a country that has invaded your land is impossible.....overtly or covertly.

If you're talking about Kashmir; nobody has invaded Pakistan. If you're talking strictly about invasions, then I suggest you look at the history books and tally the number of invasions carried out by each side.

When did the world (US/Europe) support the insurgency in Kashmir..?

The world at large certainly seemed rather uninterested in the Kashmir insurgency when it started in the late 80s. This time around however this will not be the case.

 

[IceCold]

Again, I do not understand the logic behind Islamic terrorism. On one hand you want to engulf an entire region inhabited by Muslims into terrorism using the religion card but you also want to retain the ability to cry about human rights violations when there are reprisals. The two are mutually exclusive. Of course there have been human rights violations in Kashmir; these things things are virtually synonymous with all long term military mobilizations involving insurgencies and even more so when the military in question has limited technology at their disposal. However, what is clear is that the military operations started after the 1989 insurgency and wasn't a preemptive move by the Indian government to harm the people of Kashmir. The Kashmiri fighters have already brought the fight into India, and their actions have brought a lot of harm to their fellow Kashmiris; it is rather ironic that you are promoting their cowardly actions while crying about HR violations instead of blaming them for bringing the problem on in the first place. Nonetheless, if another insurgency is to take shape in the coming years I think it will be tackled in a very different manner this time around.

And you never will, the reason is a differene in opinion. You see it as terrorism and then you relate it with islam, however others see it as a freedom movement. Also the way you express the human rights violations done is kashmir gives readers the impression about how ignorant you are about the massive violations of human rights done by indian army.
The point is dialouge is done at a place where both parties agree that this is indeed a disputed terrority and needs a solution as per the resolutions of the UN, however what will happen if one party backs up and starts calling the disputed terrority as theirs. Pakistan on the other hand has never called AJK as theirs rather when we talk about kashmir we include the whole of it and not just indians. From your post it appears you put all the blame on the freedom movement(terrorism on your part) and competely sideline as to why such movements arose at the first place. The reason is india's stubborness to resolve the issue.

For someone who touts about having a long list of terrorists in your family involved in this conflict you seem to be rather ill informed about it.

Although this post wasnt entitled to me, however i would suggest you to refrain from calling someones family members as terrorists. They maybe for you but for others they are freedom fighters, a matter of opinion.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

Pakistan on the other hand has never called AJK as theirs

And you gleefully handover a part of it to China, Oh .....get down from your moral high horse will you

 

[IceCold]

And you gleefully handover a part of it to China, Oh .....get down from your moral high horse will you

Dude read the article posted in another thread about what are the conditions on which the area is being given to china.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

Dude read the article posted in another thread about what are the conditions on which the area is being given to china.

Dude I had read the thread, whats the difference between terms like lease and security cover and give away, anyways which you had gone ahead and done unilaterally without asking Kashmiris, to serve you nations strategic interest. Whether it is right or wrong I care less, its your nation do whatever you want.

Do you seriously want me to believe that you can make China let go of the land? and again the question here is would you want them to let go of the land in first place when it serves your interest very well.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

One must read the history of how the Chinese Empire expanded into Tibet and Xinjaing.

 

[Spring Onion]

The word ''balls'' does not sound nice from a lady.

There are many other words that are equally forceful.?

Sir i dont know the art of using difficult words and becoming relative of Shakespeare to find an escape everytime when get upset by posts of others.

OK, so when are all withdrawing?

As soon as Indian gund stop spitting fire and as soon as Indian soldiers stop Innocent Kashmiris and as soon as Indian soldiers stop raping innocent Kashmiri women

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Sir i dont know the art of using difficult words and becoming relative of Shakespeare to find an escape everytime when get upset by posts of others.

One does not have to be a relative of Shakespeare to be ladylike and what would be expected from ladies of good society.


The use of sexual organs of menfolk to indicate emotions. no matter how vigorous the emotion is, is surely not the right approach.

As soon as Indian gund stop spitting fire and as soon as Indian soldiers stop Innocent Kashmiris and as soon as Indian soldiers stop raping innocent Kashmiri women

What is 'gund?

Another one like the one you used earlier?

Hardly, in line of what you were arguing about.

But then they say, women are fickle as the wind!

Anyway, please yourself.

No more from me.

 

[Spring Onion]

One does not have to be a relative of Shakespeare to be ladylike and what would be expected from ladies of good society.
The use of sexual organs of menfolk to indicate emotions. no matter how vigorous the emotion is, is surely not the right approach.

Ask the linguistics to denounce use of double meaning words.
Anyway as far as women of good societies well what will you say about those women of your countries being portrayed as naked and those who allow being portrayed so.


It depends on state of mind of a person to take the word "ball" for courage or draw some bad meaning out of it.

A good mind will always go for the first one

What is 'gund?

GUNS i meant Guns it was typo mistake.




well as they say a Fil.thy mind always think fil.thy
(sorry i dint wanted to say this for you Sir but its a pitty you deliberatly changed the meaning of the word although any sane and educated person can well understand that guns emmit fire that kills. )