Indian army looking to secede ‘Azad Kashmir’ from Pakistan on BD pattern

[Paan Singh]

The people of Azad Kashmir are so anti indian that even in a Bollywood movie it's hard to imagine such a script by the banias

So? in few parts of kashmir people are too against.
Does it make difference?

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

So? in few parts of kashmir people are too against.
Does it make difference?

Ground sentiment matters. It's the difference between being welcomed versus having your soldiers spit on and verbally abused, having your flag removed (while Pakistan flags are displayed quite openly even at Lal Chowk as we saw)

 

[vsdoc]

Ground sentiment matters. It's the difference between being welcomed versus having your soldiers spit on and verbally abused, having your flag removed (while Pakistan flags are displayed quite openly even at Lal Chowk as we saw)

If AK were to be taken, and soldiers were doing the taking, I am pretty certain the local populace would be very careful to do no spitting or taking down of flags.

Soldiers in combat are a different breed to peacekeeping forces.

 

[INDIC]

The people of Azad Kashmir are so anti indian that even in a Bollywood movie it's hard to imagine such a script by the banias

I read that people in Azad Kashmir don't have Azadi (note: Freedom House report)

 

[OrionHunter]

Azad Kashmir fought against India. It was not Pakistan who chose Azad Kashmir, but Azad Kashmir who chose Pakistan.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Kashmiris in Pak Administered Kashmir did NOT choose Pakistan. The Pak Army invaded and captured the area. Read some history before spouting nonsense. I'll help you out here.

View: The 1947-48 Kashmir War —Ishtiaq Ahmed

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

I was quite intrigued by the convoluted reasoning underpinning Riaz Shahid’s op-ed, ‘Reassessing Liaquat Ali Khan’s role’ (Daily Times, February 15, 2010). In it he assailed Liaquat Ali Khan for a number of wrong decisions, among which one that generated controversy was the allegation that he appointed Ayub Khan as Pakistan’s army chief when the latter had allegedly been given very bad references for timidity and lack of leadership during World War II when he was posted on the Burmese Front; more damning than that was, according to Riaz Shahid, Ayub’s absence from the Kashmir War. The lack of battle experience, argues the author, rendered him unfit to be promoted as the highest soldier of Pakistan.

Since I am in the process of completing a book on the role of the Pakistan military in Pakistani politics, I have had to go through the literature on the Kashmir War as well. I must say that with or without Ayub Khan’s participation, initiating hostilities in Kashmir cost us that state.

Mian Iftikharuddin, Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Dr MD Taseer had been tasked to woo Sheikh Abdullah over to the Pakistani point of view on Kashmir. They gave up in despair when scores of tribal warriors backed by Pakistani regulars and irregulars entered Kashmir in the last week of October to liberate it from Dogra rule.

The tribal warriors quickly forgot the mission they were supposed to achieve, and succumbed prey to a vice deeply rooted in their culture and history — looting, pillaging and raping. Among their victims were some European nuns, presumably engaged in meditation and helping the poor. Why some of our senior officers could not keep such characters under control is of course another matter, but Kashmiri opinion quickly turned against the infiltrators. The rape of the nuns brought along international disapprobation and condemnation.

The tribal warriors had no clue that something called the Accession Bill privileged the rulers of princely states to determine their state’s relationship with India and Pakistan. That Pakistani officers and jawans were also oblivious of the same is rather astounding. The fact is that even Quaid-e-Azam did not realise the great folly in going into Kashmir. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that he had instructed a number of ministers to help the ‘freedom fighters’ whereas Liaquat and some others were lukewarm in their support. This difference of opinion in the central cabinet comes out clearly in Major (retd) Agha Humayun Amin’s book on the Pakistan Army to which Riaz Shahid has referred in his above-mentioned essay.

But here are some arguments to prove that the Kashmir War actually set in motion a process that diminished our claim on Kashmir. Maharaja Hari Singh Dogra had no intention of merging his state with either India or Pakistan. The Pakistan-sponsored insurgency forced him to choose sides. The Indian emissary, VP Menon, arrived in Srinagar with a document that stipulated Indian military help only if the Maharaja signed the Accession Bill. There is some dispute as to the actual date on which it was signed, but the document that the Indians have in their possession gives October 26 as the date on which it was signed.

Even more importantly, it is now time to wonder if our leaders acted responsibly in opening a front in Kashmir when more than 14 million people had been uprooted, some 1-2 million killed — of which at least half of the fatalities were that of Muslims — in the rioting, and hundreds of thousands of women abducted by men from the ‘enemy religions’. Pakistan was on the verge of bankruptcy. In 1948, the Pakistani international border with India was as vulnerable — in fact infinitely much more — as in 1965.

Take up any book published in Pakistan on the division of the common assets of the Indian Royal Armed Forces and you will find Pakistan, justifiably, claiming that it was not given a fair share of the tanks, guns and ammunition and so on. Had the Indians opened the front at Lahore or Sialkot in 1948 as they did in 1965, our bluff would have been called forthwith.

The fact remains that the British Acting Commander-in-Chief, General Gracey (the C-in-C General Messervy was away on leave) did not let down Pakistan by dissuading Jinnah to let the conflict escalate. He did a favour. This does not sound very patriotic, but as a scholar I must speak the truth. The 1947-48 Kashmir war was a much more irresponsible adventure than the one that was initiated in 1965.

Ishtiaq Ahmed is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore. He is also Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Stockholm University. He has published extensively on South Asian politics. At ISAS, he is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a Garrison State?


Deny ignorance even if the truth hurts.

 

[third eye]

The people of Azad Kashmir are so anti indian that even in a Bollywood movie it's hard to imagine such a script by the banias

Why do ppl have to willfully use derogatory language while referring to another ?

In retaliation if someone were to use similar derogatory words like ' Katuas" it would be unacceptable.

Lets keep things civil please.

 

[Paan Singh]

Ground sentiment matters. It's the difference between being welcomed versus having your soldiers spit on and verbally abused, having your flag removed (while Pakistan flags are displayed quite openly even at Lal Chowk as we saw)

It does not matter and most likely they will run into other parts of ur country .

 

[vsdoc]

Why do ppl have to willfully use derogatory language while referring to another ?

In retaliation if someone were to use similar derogatory words like ' Katuas" it would be unacceptable.

Lets keep things civil please.

Katua or kattu is not uncivil. Its an anatomical classification of human sub-species per Indian Medical curriculum.

 

[third eye]

Katua or kattu is not uncivil. Its an anatomical classification of human sub-species per Indian Medical curriculum.

Hi Doc, long time..

Good to see you.

 

[Armstrong]

Yeah I got misled by the partial quote of the source.
Need to go through some of my 1971 bookmarks from which I got this info. But then again they were not in set-in-stone explicit format. You know how this works.

Yes I do know how this works; conjecture, extrapolations, exaggerations & media frenzy is the name of the game ! Unfortunately none of them settle for even circumstantial evidence.

Kargil, I dont know what you guys means quibble about. Day after day for months everything at our disposal was thrown at hunting and evicting the pakistani regulars and mujaheddin out. Sure we did not cross the LoC, but that was the ably complemented by the diplomatic blitz by Jaswant Singh which made Pakistan the international pariah in that matter and even Pakistans blood brothers Saudi and China did not condemn Indian actions. As I have always maintained Pakistan must start reading up what diplomacy actually means and how to effectively use it. It was because of the diplomatic effort of India after Kargil that no one even started touching Pakistan's position on Kashmir with a 10 ft barge pole.

As for Operation Parakram - I know an entire generation of Pakistanis and Indians are brought up on the notiion it was a failure. no it was not. Lucky (ironically) timing ensured that US intervened and forced Musharraf to shut down most of the militant camps on the P-O-K region so that Pakistan does not get distracted in the looming war on the western front.

Mumbai - I repeat I am one of those who believe it was repaid in kind. Take what you will out of it.

I agree that Kargil was a diplomatic failure & I do agree that it could have been executed exponentially better than it was. I also agree that Pakistan is abysmally bad at public relations & India has a knack for them going back to the beginning. What I fail to understand is how this continued 'Do it once more & then you'll see' BS gets translated into 'measured restraint' after 'restraint' !

And do enlighten me what were we repaid in kind after Mumbai & what did Operation Parakram exactly achieve ?

 

[Screambowl]

this is a play, when elections come, these fat arses speak out useless thing like this. No where in the country just for the a seat in government any politician does so. This is very unfortunate that we have people like this.

 

[Rafael]

Indian army does not have to do anything special to get Kashmir. Our generals and politicians will hand it over in a plate if offered few billion dollars.

 

[INDIC]

UNHCR | Refworld | "With Friends Like These...": Human Rights Violations in Azad Kashmir

 

[INDIC]

Azad Kashmir fought against India. It was not Pakistan who chose Azad Kashmir, but Azad Kashmir who chose Pakistan.

So called Azad Kashmir never chosen Pakistan. Pashtun lashkars even looted the Muslims in Muzaffarabad in 1947.

 

[Areesh]

So called Azad Kashmir never chosen Pakistan. Pashtun lashkars even looted the Muslims in Muzaffarabad in 1947.

Keep deluding yourself.