Infiltration bid foiled along LoC, JCO killed

[dabong1]

I am sure you know too, that those words of Nehru were nothing but words and Nehru and everyone else knew that too.

Except the Kashmirs.

Fact is, Majority of the population is Muslim, and they very much wanted to join Pakistan, if not freedom

I think they would have gone for freedom over joining pakistan.

(It is completely the opposite now, but what does it matter anymore?)

Come on bro!......if that was the case you would have held a referendum in kashmir by now.

. Had the majority been with India, there would be no such thing as article 370 in the Indian constitution. At that time India was too weak to sway the world opinion and the UN did have some power and was not meaningless as it is today. So of course, Indians had to show that they wanted Kashmir for the benefit of the inhabitants, which included Muslims as well as Pundits.

But the reason why India keeps Kashmir at such considerable costs (lobbying for the world opinion, subsidies, army expense etc.) has nothing to do with the inhabitants, whether they are Muslims or Hindus. It has to do with the border that stretches up to Siachen and keeping the Indian Army at an advantageous position vis a vis Pakistani Army. It is just a highly strategic position that India intends to keep at all costs.

So whenever there are talks about Kashmir or Siachen, you ought to understand that it has nothing to do with democracy, population, or religion. So whatever Nehru said, doesn't matter. What matters is what happened and what is happening.

By the way, I am not the kind who would boast about Indian democracy or GDP or heritage or any such things. It is akin to saying that you are proud to be a Muslim/Pakistani, as if it were some sort of achievement or accomplishment by your own self to have been born in a Muslim/Pakistani family. Well, may be you indeed are that kind, many are not.

I cant refute your logic but just think if kashmir had not been a problem for both nations ,there would be no need for any confrontation and "keeping the Indian Army at an advantageous position vis a vis Pakistani Army." would have been a pointless exercise.

 

[Not Sure]

Except the Kashmirs.



I think they would have gone for freedom over joining pakistan.



Come on bro!......if that was the case you would have held a referendum in kashmir by now.



I cant refute your logic but just think if kashmir had not been a problem for both nations ,there would be no need for any confrontation and "keeping the Indian Army at an advantageous position vis a vis Pakistani Army." would have been a pointless exercise.

Yar, first of all... India is not as mature a democracy, unlike those of European and North American developed nations, that it would keep the benefit of the inhabitants as a priority over the benefit of the confederation, so whatever Kashmiris think doesn't matter to the government. And no double standards here, the same goes for Tamils and Biharis and Assamese and others too.

And yes, I concede I misstated the fact by saying it is completely opposite, you are right it is not. But the scene has certainly changed drastically if the present times are to be compared with the era of late 40's or 50's.

However, if you really believe that were the Kashmir problem resolved to complete satisfaction of all the three parties there would be no need for confrontations, then sorry to say, I have strong and valid reasons to disagree with you.

The armies of both the countries are very large and powerful institutions that benefit not only the army generals, but the political powers too that are supposed to manage them. Without any confrontations, this big multi-billion dollar business would not survive. Do you think the armies and the politicians would let it happen? If we were to take a practical approach, then we would see that there will always be a very strong, though artificial, reason for such confrontations and intermittent clashes to keep them in business. Heck, if I were a general or a politician benefiting from the maintenance of the army and continuation of the weapons business, I would do anything to keep the confrontation alive and even have them clash with each other ever more frequently.

A peace time just won't make any sense. Remember the very first dialogue from "Lord of War"?

There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?

 

[EXPERIMENT]

The PDF/ International stupidity/ignorance on Kashmir(India) is amazing. My family has been currently/historically deeply involved in keeping peace to say the least.

I have the platform of PDF to voice my opinion. No one enjoys a highly policed state. Despite the fact that it exists is not a fault of the hard working Jawans on the front-line.

It was never and never will be a Hindu Muslim thing. The bull$hit has reached a phenomenal level. We have to cater to a massive change in demographics in Kashmir due to the fear instilled from insurgents and READ MY WORDS they are not local.
Kashmiri Muslims and Pundits have been crying for decades to seal the border The central government is trying its best.

I say this for the last time. Not many people know this:
The creation of another "Bangladesh" out of Kashmir was prevented(hidden history) Many lives were destroyed in that process. I am proud of my family's stance on this. To prevent bigotry and another division based on religion. It is an on going battle now led by the Muslims of Kashmir.

 

[ExtraOdinary]

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.




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





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.

If what you say is true, the same thing happened to Hindus and Sikhs on other side of the LOC in and around Muzaffarabad, Mirpur etc. What happened in 90's to the Pandits polarised opinions in India regarding the issue. Giving in to jeehadi blackmail will embolden other similar groups in India, a risk which we cannot afford to take.

I know Pakistanis are emotional over this issue but they have to get over this religious obsession of theirs and reconcile to the fact that just like Punjab and Bengal, the province of J&K has been partitioned b/w the 2 countries, we are a secular nation with over 200 million muslim citizens and it is not 1947, religious separatism is not acceptable to us.

 

[Bang Galore]

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.

Unlikely to happen.As a status quo power , India is unlikely to agree to anything which is very different from what is currently in place. The deal you are pushing cannot be sold to the Indian people & the parliament, the only thing on the table is what was agreed with Musharraf; more autonomy, freedom of movement etc.

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.

May sound like an excuse but I can assure you that the concern is very real. India does not want to be put in a position where the security gains achieved will be lost and this added to the political capital expended in pushing through the limited solution that was agreed to by MMS-Musharraf, would be pretty much suicide for any Indian political group.

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).

The biggest concern and I mean the biggest concern in India is whether any Pakistani leader who cuts such a deal will be able to sell it, not only to his/her people but also to the military & other militant groups. Even rogue elements can cause much destruction & that will ne unacceptable unless India sees the majority of the Pakistani people(not just GoP) buying into the agreement.

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.

I disagree. It did. Dramatically. PA is not a charity group to do something out of the goodness of their hearts. The layered security system in place now, backed by some pretty advanced technology makes a very effective deterrent for any ingress. It is why so many of these incursions are detected & neutralised. While you may disagree, this is the opinion held here.

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.

That, in my opinion is a pipe dream. There will be freer travel, not free travel .

Go back to pre 1984 postions.

Again won't happen. Nobody will just give up something for nothing. Maybe as a part of a overall Kashmir solution but as a stand alone, Pakistan will have to give something in return.

 

[dabong1]

The armies of both the countries are very large and powerful institutions that benefit not only the army generals, but the political powers too that are supposed to manage them. Without any confrontations, this big multi-billion dollar business would not survive. Do you think the armies and the politicians would let it happen? If we were to take a practical approach, then we would see that there will always be a very strong, though artificial, reason for such confrontations and intermittent clashes to keep them in business. Heck, if I were a general or a politician benefiting from the maintenance of the army and continuation of the weapons business, I would do anything to keep the confrontation alive and even have them clash with each other ever more frequently.

You hit the nail on the head
I would add though if we could have sorted out the kashmir problem earlier i dont think the military industrial complex in both nations would have reached the position of influence they now enjoy.

There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?

lol

 

[dabong1]

The PDF/ International stupidity/ignorance on Kashmir(India) is amazing. My family has been currently/historically deeply involved in keeping peace to say the least.

It was never and never will be a Hindu Muslim thing. The bull$hit has reached a phenomenal level. We have to cater to a massive change in demographics in Kashmir due to the fear instilled from insurgents

Could you explain a bit more about your family keeping the peace in kashmir?

and READ MY WORDS they are not local.

No disrespect bro......the indian army are not locals also.

Kashmiri Muslims and Pundits have been crying for decades to seal the border The central government is trying its best.

I am pretty sure if a survey asked the people of kashmir if the wanted a "berlin wall" like structure along the LOC or free movement across the LOC, i would guess the latter would take the vote.

 

[dabong1]

If what you say is true, the same thing happened to Hindus and Sikhs on other side of the LOC in and around Muzaffarabad, Mirpur etc. What happened in 90's to the Pandits polarised opinions in India regarding the issue.

The point about hindu kashmiris being forced out from there homes is bought up a lot of the times but never in the context of both communities suffering from the same thing......one being chased out by "terrorist" and the other being chased out by "state terrorist".

Giving in to jeehadi blackmail will embolden other similar groups in India, a risk which we cannot afford to take.

Do tell me which other predominately muslim region in india ihas been fighting the indian army for decades which will somehow get "emboldened" by kashmir agreement?
Weak excuse!

I know Pakistanis are emotional over this issue

And the indian govt is "logical" and "straight headed" about the issue.

but they have to get over this religious obsession of theirs

Hold on.....Pakistan has never voted into power a political party that has been based on religion unlike india with the BJP.

and reconcile to the fact that just like Punjab and Bengal, the province of J&K has been partitioned b/w the 2 countries, we are a secular nation with over 200 million muslim citizens and it is not 1947, religious separatism is not acceptable to us.

We agreed to partition punjab and bengal.....not kashmir
The entire partition thing was based on majority muslims areas making up pakistan while the majority hindu regions made up india.Under those conditions punjab and bengal had to be split as there was larger precentage of each other faiths in these provinces unlike kashmir which was predominately muslim.

 

[ExtraOdinary]

The point about hindu kashmiris being forced out from there homes is bought up a lot of the times but never in the context of both communities suffering from the same thing......one being chased out by "terrorist" and the other being chased out by "state terrorist".




Do tell me which other predominately muslim region in india ihas been fighting the indian army for decades which will somehow get "emboldened" by kashmir agreement?
Weak excuse!



And the indian govt is "logical" and "straight headed" about the issue.



Hold on.....Pakistan has never voted into power a political party that has been based on religion unlike india with the BJP.



We agreed to partition punjab and bengal.....not kashmir
The entire partition thing was based on majority muslims areas making up pakistan while the majority hindu regions made up india.Under those conditions punjab and bengal had to be split as there was larger precentage of each other faiths in these provinces unlike kashmir which was predominately muslim.

Religion based insurgencies included Khalistan movement and also some Christian fundamentalists in North East. Making any concession will embolden them. And obviously we are logical, we have no desire for your part of Kashmir but we shall keep ours.

 

[dabong1]

Religion based insurgencies

You might want to call it a "Religion based insurgency" or some other fancy name to water down the actual essence off the kashmir freedom movement but at the end all it comes down to is that its a disputed region , recognized as such by the UN-international community.

included Khalistan movement and also some Christian fundamentalists in North East. Making any concession will embolden them.

As i said before these are internal matters for the indian govt and non of the groups-issues you mention have UN resolutions on the issue.
The "maoist" are the biggest threat to india and you should be worries about them.

And obviously we are logical, we have no desire for your part of Kashmir but we shall keep ours.

How about using the same logic on the chinese border issue.....why dont you just let them keep there bit and you can just keep your bit .......seems logical.