Infiltration bid foiled along LoC, JCO killed

[Rafi]

We don't consider the indian's as Jatts, they are like all the other meek indians and don't count.

 

[ExtraOdinary]

We don't consider the indian's as Jatts, they are like all the other meek indians and don't count.

Does it matter what you guys think

 

[dekho]

We don't consider the indian's as Jatts, they are like all the other meek indians and don't count.

Jatt or no Jatt every Indian thinks himself only a an Indian. India has more ethnicities than any other country but they are all united when integrity of nation is in question. This makes the soveriegnty of India unquestionable.

Paltry things such as ethnicity are pride of many muslim countries and look what situation are they in now.

 

[Shardul.....the lion]

Rest in peace.................

 

[Ayush]

We don't consider the indian's as Jatts, they are like all the other meek indians and don't count.

We don't consider the indian's as Jatts, they are like all the other meek indians and don't count.

 

[Dushmann]

self delete

 

[dabong1]

....and what is the solution? Let us have your take than this standard bit about turning on the tap. These days we have the money to divert a river, what to talk about some tap....... If you have a solution that you think will find takers in India, I would like to hear it. Pakistanis seem to be unable to actually point out what it is that they bring to the table other than "limiting terrorism". That, after all, is a card that is not available for only one side to play . If you have a practical solution to Siachen, I would like to hear it; if you have one for Kashmir, I would like to hear that.

Joint control.......i can start with a hardline position and insist on a "UN resolution" and you can counter and say "integral part" and we can go and on and get nowhere.


1.Kashmir elects a joint govt and chooses a prime minister.
The kashmiris are given a kashmir citizen cards but hold on to there respective pak-indian passports.

2.Kashmir president rotate between the indian president and pak presidents.

2.Pak kashmir holds election with pakistan and send members to islamabad.
3.Indian kashmir holds election with india and sends members to delhi.
This stops the problem for govts of "selling out" from right wing groups.

4.All public building fly all three nations flags.


5.Pak-Ind rupee can be used all over kashmir.
You have dual pricing in europe.

6.Right of return for all refugees......pakistan pay the resettlement of all kashmiri refugees in living in india and india do the same for the refugees in pakistan.

7.Kashmir govt to have no military but a police force made up 60% kashmiris 20% indian police and 20% pakistani police.

8.A truth and reconciliation process takes place.

9.Kashmir govt has no foreign - defence ministry but is given access (kashmir consulate)in pak-ind embassy's to further there economic-education goals.

 

[Armstrong]

@dabong1 : I like the propositions but they're probably not going to materialize till much later in the peace process ! Khair are you a Kashmiri by any chance ?

 

[anyrandom]

This is true and this is the situation that confronts diplomats on both sides. But like I said when you have such bad blood on both sides, when you have such animosity, when you have one side backing terrorists and sending them to kill innocents in the cities of the other and letting these masterminds of such atrocities roam free- WHAT DO YOU DO? It is a cycle of hate that goes round and round and no one seems to have an answer.

The overall gist of your answer is correct but no need to be impartial by putting india in the same club as pakistan. We all know that it is only one side which involves in such kind of heinous activities and killing innocent citizens in indian cities and all that...

 

[dabong1]

A simple fact is, No amount small scale militancy, terrorism, infiltration can create a new nation.

No ones creating a nation....kashmir has existed for ages.
So all the wars of liberation-Resistance just fought in the past century(vietnam-afghanistan-Algeria-Loads in africa ect) didnt create any nations or did not get called the same "militancy, terrorism, infiltration" by the attacking force?

When India liberated E.Pakistan, we fought a full scale war with Pakistan on all fronts, defeated her and then only Bangladesh came into existence.

And?

Now here is difference b/w India and Pakistan. We are simply too big for you to defeat.

Our economy is Nine times larger than you, our defence budget is seven times your's, our armed forces is more than twice your size, and have a consistent growth rate three times yours.

You simply can not beat those odds, a fact which your armed forces realizes.

The size of your army means nothing now......with nukes both sides have to be careful they dont end up in a full scale war, if anything its to pakistan advantage that he nukes have come into play as this is a guarantee to some extent that the indians will not cross the IB in case of kashmir blowing hot again.

When we liberated E. Pakistan ..it was seven months of small scale fighting backed by a full scale war effort

I think pakistan being a few thousand miles away from bangladesh played a part.....dont you think?

It has been almost two and half decades ..since you started cross border insurgency in Kashmir..still no results.

Maybe a quick non indian history lesson is in order

1977 Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front started the struggle for freedom after decades of broken promises by the indian govt.

1987:Indian govt rigs the elections and sends the Muslim United Front (MUF) leader Mohammad Yousuf Shah ( later to become Syed Salahuddin, chief of Hizb-ul-Mujahedin) and imprisons him.
His election aides including yasin malik join the JKLF.

1988-1990: Protests begin in the Valley along with anti-India demonstrations, followed by police firing and curfew.
Young disaffected Kashmiris in the Valley join JKLF .
Amanullah Khan takes refuge in Pakistan, after being deported from England and begins to direct operations across the LoC. Amanullah Khan was the chief architect in Starting the armed freedom struggle in 1988 in Indian controlled Kashmir.

On 20 January, an estimated 100 people are killed when a large group of unarmed protesters are fired upon by the Indian troops at the Gawakadal bridge. With this incident, it becomes an insurgency of the entire population. On March 1, an estimated one million take to the streets and more than forty people are killed in police firing and after that you get full scale pakistani involvment.

From 2001 up until now other then a few instances of fighting ,there has been no major "cross LOC movement" that the indian govt can point to.

The setup created for supporting such a long insurgency has its blowback.

And oppressing a whole nation also has "blowbacks"

 

[Bang Galore]

Joint control.......i can start with a hardline position and insist on a "UN resolution" and you can counter and say "integral part" and we can go and on and get nowhere.


1.Kashmir elects a joint govt and chooses a prime minister.
The kashmiris are given a kashmir citizen cards but hold on to there respective pak-indian passports.

2.Kashmir president rotate between the indian president and pak presidents.

2.Pak kashmir holds election with pakistan and send members to islamabad.
3.Indian kashmir holds election with india and sends members to delhi.
This stops the problem for govts of "selling out" from right wing groups.

4.All public building fly all three nations flags.


5.Pak-Ind rupee can be used all over kashmir.
You have dual pricing in europe.

6.Right of return for all refugees......pakistan pay the resettlement of all kashmiri refugees in living in india and india do the same for the refugees in pakistan.

7.Kashmir govt to have no military but a police force made up 60% kashmiris 20% indian police and 20% pakistani police.

8.A truth and reconciliation process takes place.

9.Kashmir govt has no foreign - defence ministry but is given access (kashmir consulate)in pak-ind embassy's to further there economic-education goals.

Ok, finally someone offering any type of a solution short of the usual rhetoric. However I don't think what you are suggesting is being thought of. What is on the table is a much more limited in the sense that while it does speak of greater autonomy & more freedom of movement, there is not a concept of shared control. Even the freedom of movement is difficult to achieve considering the present run of militancy in Pakistan. I don't believe that any major militant group (& they are all non-Kashmiri )would agree to the solution being formulated & loose borders might only mean more violence.

Thanks for engaging in the discussion. We might meet somewhere in the middle. Btw, do you have an opinion on the supposedly low hanging fruit of Siachen?

 

[ExtraOdinary]

You forgot to add religious and ethnic cleansing by militants in the valley in 1990. That is a major event in the timeline of the conflict.

Your solution, though I admit you are sincere and genuinely want to end the conflict, is very complicated and unpractical. Best solution on table is finalising LOC as IB and allow movement of Kashmiris to meet their families. As time passes and both our countries mature, these borders will become irrelevant.

 

[peep]

No ones creating a nation....kashmir has existed for ages.
So all the wars of liberation-Resistance just fought in the past century(vietnam-afghanistan-Algeria-Loads in africa ect) didnt create any nations or did not get called the same "militancy, terrorism, infiltration" by the attacking force?





And?



The size of your army means nothing now......with nukes both sides have to be careful they dont end up in a full scale war, if anything its to pakistan advantage that he nukes have come into play as this is a guarantee to some extent that the indians will not cross the IB in case of kashmir blowing hot again.



I think pakistan being a few thousand miles away from bangladesh played a part.....dont you think?





Maybe a quick non indian history lesson is in order

1977 Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front started the struggle for freedom after decades of broken promises by the indian govt.

1987:Indian govt rigs the elections and sends the Muslim United Front (MUF) leader Mohammad Yousuf Shah ( later to become Syed Salahuddin, chief of Hizb-ul-Mujahedin) and imprisons him.
His election aides including yasin malik join the JKLF.

1988-1990: Protests begin in the Valley along with anti-India demonstrations, followed by police firing and curfew.
Young disaffected Kashmiris in the Valley join JKLF .
Amanullah Khan takes refuge in Pakistan, after being deported from England and begins to direct operations across the LoC. Amanullah Khan was the chief architect in Starting the armed freedom struggle in 1988 in Indian controlled Kashmir.

On 20 January, an estimated 100 people are killed when a large group of unarmed protesters are fired upon by the Indian troops at the Gawakadal bridge. With this incident, it becomes an insurgency of the entire population. On March 1, an estimated one million take to the streets and more than forty people are killed in police firing and after that you get full scale pakistani involvment.

From 2001 up until now other then a few instances of fighting ,there has been no major "cross LOC movement" that the indian govt can point to.






And oppressing a whole nation also has "blowbacks"

totally not true ! Otherwise India = China Pakistan = US and lastly the drones would have stopped long time back !

As for the 1971 war, two things :
1. Pakistan transgressed the borders first.. Why would it do that if your distance theory carried that weight among the PA generals.
2. What transpired during '71 is much much more grand than just two neigbouring nations squabbling and one winning because of some geographical advantage The truth is the ACC which made a visit to Bay of Bengal was so large that even PN can never dream of operating one like that even in next 20 years !! GoI didn't budge. USSR backing and etc etc are true but point is the war was fought at a global level figuratively if not literal sense.. Hence a new country.. ! Two nations fighting never gave birth to a new nation ! PERIOD !

 

[dabong1]

there is not a concept of shared control.

By shared control i mean political control......with a rotating presidency this gives a certain amount of power to both india and pakistan.
The same kashmiri politicians that that get elected to the pak-ind parliaments are the same people that make up the kashmir parliament-assembly.This by default will make the pak-indian govt work together through a third party(kashmiris) that will wield influence in both capitals.

Even the freedom of movement is difficult to achieve considering the present run of militancy in Pakistan.

The majority of the problem is in the tribal areas and doesn't really affect pak-kashmir,. I dont really see how that come into play and even id does for now in the next few years it will be a non issue once the the US leaves afghanistan.
Excuse for not doing things are plenty and easy to bring up.

I don't believe that any major militant group (& they are all non-Kashmiri )

Most indians on this forum say that the "major militant group" are run by the pak army and i would have to agree in the majority of the cases.If you accept that the pak army train-funds-equips these groups then dont you thing they will toe the pak army line when it comes to achieving an agreement on kashmir?.....LET would be a good example of a group that has ceased all major operations once the order was given.(Your always going to get small breakaway groups the goes solo).

would agree to the solution being formulated & loose borders might only mean more violence.

Having thousand of solders on the border didn't really make a difference to the level of violence in kashmir post 2001 and i would guess that if the pak army made the choice of sending fighters over the LOC again it would not make a big difference now.
The LOC has to vanish the same way the berlin wall did and for there to be a unification.......i think that in my proposal the kashmirs have given a lot away and they should also get some sort of "compensation" for there demands.Going from total Independence to asking to able to travel freely with no restriction is not asking for to much.

Thanks for engaging in the discussion. We might meet somewhere in the middle.

I should be thankin you for nice civil debate.

Btw, do you have an opinion on the supposedly low hanging fruit of Siachen?

Go back to pre 1984 postions.

 

[dabong1]

You forgot to add religious and ethnic cleansing by militants in the valley in 1990. That is a major event in the timeline of the conflict.

And i think you seem to have forgotten the "religious and ethnic cleansing" pre 1990.
According to official records of the United Nations Security Council, Meeting No. 534, March 6, 1951: "Shortly after the terrible slaughters in India, which accompanied Partition, the Maharaja set upon a course of action whereby, in the words of the special correspondent of The Times of London published in its issue of 10 October 1948, "in the remaining Dogra area, 237,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated, unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border, by all the forces of the Dogra State headed by the Maharaja in person and aided by Hindus and Sikhs"."

The 1947 carnage left several Muslim majority populated villages in Jammu district alone totally Hindu or Sikh populated. In Jammu district alone, which is a part of the larger Jammu province, Muslims numbered 158,630 and comprised 37 per cent of the total population of 428,719 in the year 1941. In the year 1961, Muslims numbered only 51,693 and comprised only 10 per cent of the total population of 516,932. The decrease in the number of Muslims in Jammu district alone was over 100,000.

editor of "Statesman" Ian Stephen, in his book "Horned Moon" wrote that till the end of autumn 1947, more than 200,000 Muslims were assassinated.

Your solution, though I admit you are sincere and genuinely want to end the conflict, is very complicated and unpractical.

Maybe you could point out which one of my proposal you find "complicated and unpractical" and i could work on it.

Best solution on table is finalising LOC as IB and allow movement of Kashmiris to meet their families. As time passes and both our countries mature, these borders will become irrelevant.

Why not just leave the LOC and do all the above as you say.."both our countries mature, these borders will become irrelevant".
I think i understand the pakistan-indian "red lines" which they will not cross when it comes to kashmir.
Knowing that i have made my proposal the most amendable to the both nations but i think you dont understand pakistans "red lines".....one being the LOC being turned into IB.