What's new

Iran ready to mediate in Kashmir dispute says Iranian Ambassador to Pakistan.

Iranians will never take our side, no matter how many Muslims in Kashmir are oppressed. Same with Saudis/Arabs. It's not like we give a shit about these people. We will do what it takes to ensure freedom for the people of Kashmir, whether we have to go even deeper than hell. Iranians may give a shit, If the entire Kashmir valley follows their Ayatollah. :lol:
 
Interesting remarks.. Seems all regional countries are in favor of Kashmir plebiscite .

Khamenei`s remarks on Kashmir issue

THE Indian external affairs ministry has issued a demarche to Iran over what it called supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's 'adverse' remarks on the Jammu and Kashmir issue (Nov 20).

In a message to Haj pilgrims, the Iranian leader had asked Muslims across the world to back the pro-liberation campaigns in Kashmir, equating the region with Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Ayatollah had also called upon the pilgrims that “today the major duty of the elite of the Ummah is to provide help to the Palestinian nation, to sympathise and provide assistance to the nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Kashmir to engage in struggle and resistance against the aggression of the US and the Zionist regime”.

The statement came at a time when Iran and India have been enjoying good economic relations.

Without being expedient and taking into consideration the commercial interests, the Iranian leader spoke on a just cause and also highlighted the close and brotherly relations between Pakistan and Iran.

Pakistan and Iran are neighbour countries. People of Pakistan can never forget Iran's help and assistance in its hours of crisis in the past.

There is not even an iota of doubt in the minds of the Pakistanis that the destiny of the two brotherly countries and their survival is linked with each other.

With unity and mutual cooperation they can surmount all difficulties.

BUSHRA SIDDIQUI
Islamabad
https://www.dawn.com/news/1003990/khamenei-s-remarks-on-kashmir-issue
 
Doval wants the USA to take action against Taliban and Iran for supporting the Taliban. It was in your papers a couple of weeks back.
I searched for it and found few gems.

http://www.pressreader.com/india/hindustan-times-jalandhar/20170320/281530815841135
"
New Delhi feels the Islamic State of Wilayat Khorasan is being propped up by Pakistan and Iran’s agencies to accord credibility to the Taliban. Other West Asian nations are worried about Iran’s role in the region and in Afghanistan, a fact conveyed to Doval by his counterparts during a visit to Kuwait last week.

With both Mattis and McMaster having battlefield experience in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, Doval will discuss the recent spate of terrorist attacks in the region, with Pakistan’s Punjab emerging as the new theatre of terror.

India is worried about Islamabad, with terror groups such as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan taking on the Pakistani Army and hitting at soft targets in Punjab and Sindh.
"
 
Interesting remarks.. Seems all regional countries are in favor of Kashmir plebiscite .

Khamenei`s remarks on Kashmir issue

THE Indian external affairs ministry has issued a demarche to Iran over what it called supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's 'adverse' remarks on the Jammu and Kashmir issue (Nov 20).

In a message to Haj pilgrims, the Iranian leader had asked Muslims across the world to back the pro-liberation campaigns in Kashmir, equating the region with Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Ayatollah had also called upon the pilgrims that “today the major duty of the elite of the Ummah is to provide help to the Palestinian nation, to sympathise and provide assistance to the nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Kashmir to engage in struggle and resistance against the aggression of the US and the Zionist regime”.

The statement came at a time when Iran and India have been enjoying good economic relations.

Without being expedient and taking into consideration the commercial interests, the Iranian leader spoke on a just cause and also highlighted the close and brotherly relations between Pakistan and Iran.

Pakistan and Iran are neighbour countries. People of Pakistan can never forget Iran's help and assistance in its hours of crisis in the past.

There is not even an iota of doubt in the minds of the Pakistanis that the destiny of the two brotherly countries and their survival is linked with each other.

With unity and mutual cooperation they can surmount all difficulties.

BUSHRA SIDDIQUI
Islamabad
https://www.dawn.com/news/1003990/khamenei-s-remarks-on-kashmir-issue

Published 2010. ;)
 
ROFL @BHarwana thanx for the info. btw where was Iran in subsequent months after the death of Burhan Wani? Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Geelani penned a letter in July 2016 urging many muslim countries incl. Iran to help KAshmiris under severe occupation with ppl being murdered in custody and young guys getting disappeared.


There was just one statement by the Ayatollah Khamanei late as August with mild wording. India-Iran tie-up kept shia population in Kargil division away from the issue, leaving 10 districts of Kashmir alone to suffer and face full strength of Indian Occupation.

Will Iran provide Kashmiris with material support same manner as shia militias in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria?

Will Iran finance, build Zainabiyoun like army against India?

@BHarwana your actions are really funny

The most responsible nation after India in crushing Kashmiris ruthlessly is Iran, when it killed OIC resolution favor of KAshmir in 1995.
Don't expect too much from thi self-cnetered nation that is hateful of Pakistan also.
Look it is very simple when USA got near India Pakistan moved away from USA more towards China and when India gets near USA and Israel Iran will move away from India. Indian and Israeli relations are always a key pivot point for Iran. There are always self interests of every nations and currently India interests are in collusion course with Iran. It would be better for Pakistan to exploit the situation to our own interest.
There are few hot zones in the world that are left and day by day these hot zones are increasing instead of decreasing. Syrian war or Yemen war will not start world war but Kashmir, Palestine, Disputed region between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Crimea these are will result in a world war for the future. There has been a steady increase in the disputed regions of the world. for a very long time Nukes have kept the world safe with not letting any nation break major confrontation which would have been impossible to stop with the attitude of USA towards the rest of the world. The most dangerous region of the world which can spark a world war is south asia. India and Pakistan have immense military and with every day passing the risk of war is increasing. India Pakistan war will drag in China on Pakistani side which is confirm and then USA will also step in using the excuse of communist regime China trying to take over worlds biggest democracy the same world war 2 excuse. Russia will go against USA no matter what so the Russian's will be followed by Europe as they consider Russia as an enemy. Now the middle east will flow towards Israel and GCC will stay away from south asia but at first they will counter Iran but later they will also join Iran against Israel. this is the current world picture. At the moment no alliance is a strong one so the room for diplomacy is the biggest and things if managed with a good plan can result in ones favor.
 
Pakistan ready to do " Abba dabba jabba ".

ABBA were a Swedish pop group formed in Stockholm by Agnetha Fältskog, Björn Ulvaeus, Benny Andersson, and Anni-Frid Lyngstad. They became one of the most commercially successful acts in the history of popular music, topping the charts worldwide from 1974 to 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABBA
 
That's really nice of Iran, but the fact is that:

1-There is no dispute per say.
2- We don't want to involve outsiders for our internal matters.

Appreciate their gesture for peace though.
 
Just heard the News that IDF commandos deployed to Kashmir by India and this Irani statement come in retaliation to that. If Israel goes to Kashmir Iran will fight in Kashmir this development is good for Pakistan.
Mention the source of this news in bold..Thank you

Does it matter ? . policy ever changed ? ;)
Yes it does change ....and change by the same country..that practically support India on kashmir issue in past...while passing verbal comments for Pakistan..
 
Last edited:
I request readers incl. Bro @BHarwana to read this how Iran destroyed the OIC resolution on Kashmir .
this is by indian diplomat BhadraKumar published in 2005

The Rediff Special/M K Bhadrakumar

Revealed: What Iran did for India and why it is hurt

October 03, 2005


Strikingly similar to the crisis that Iran faced at the IAEA Board meeting in Vienna last weekend, India too found itself in a tight spot in April 1994 at the United Nations Human Rights Commission's annual session in Geneva.

Iran vote and after: Complete coverage

Curiously, India and Iran found themselves entangled with each other then too, as of now -- but with an entirely different body language.

If there is a Shakespearean touch to the sense of betrayal that Iran is so evidently harbouring today over India's vote against it at Vienna, how much of that harks back to silent memories of what had transpired between the two countries in 1994, we shall never quite know.

Persians may find it to be in bad taste to be blunt and forthright on such delicate issues as trust and betrayal.

In April 1994, when the UNHRC was assembling in Geneva, India faced an ugly situation. We were just pulling out of a grave economic crisis (of our own making, though) and were extremely vulnerable to the goodwill of international financial institutions.

More importantly, the Kashmir valley was burning -- witnessing some of the bloodiest violence in its unhappy history. The country itself was panting and heaving from the bloodletting of communal violence -- hidden medieval passions were tearing it apart.

Back in 1994, India was not yet possessed with the swagger and all-knowing cockiness of its current middle class optimism -- or, for that matter, its frightening pragmatism that is determined to make every relationship outright profitable.

The politics of reciprocity

Internationally too, the climate was uncertain. Boris Yeltsin's Russia was lurching toward the West in drunken stupor, and there was a big question mark as to the availability of a 'Soviet' veto if the Kashmir file ever again got reopened in the UN's business dealings.

Technically, if the UNHRC in Geneva adopted a resolution condemning India for grave human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, a pathway would have opened for any of India's detractors (not only Pakistan) for referral of the 'Kashmir problem' to the UN in New York
. The crisis was comparable to what could happen today if the IAEA indeed decided on a UN Security Council referral apropos of the Iran's 'nuclear problem.'

The assessment in the foreign policy establishment in Delhi at that time was that in the event of the Kashmir resolution coming up in Geneva, it had a strong possibility of getting adopted.

The draft resolution enjoyed the support of the 54-member states of the Organisation of Islamic conference and possibly some faraway countries in the Western world. Of course, Pakistan was its prime mover.



Thus it was that on a cold wind swept morning in late March in 1994 with the Elbruz Mountain still wrapped in sheets of snow that an Indian military plane landed in Teheran airport bearing the then Indian external affairs minister Dinesh Singh and three accompanying officials from Delhi as his co-passengers.

The minister was visiting Iran to deliver in person an urgent letter from Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao addressed to Iranian President, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rao was seeking Iran's last-minute intervention at the OIC with a view to ensuring that the Kashmir resolution did not pass through the UNHRC.

The OIC (like the IAEA) too had a convention that all decisions had to be arrived at through consensus. So, Rao shrewdly assessed that if a prominent OIC member like Iran were to abstain, there would be no 'consensus.' Rao was greatly averse to Dinesh Singh undertaking the mission, as the minister was seriously ill from the multiple strokes he had suffered a few months ago.



But Dinesh Singh ("Raja Saheb") would have no one else undertake such a crucial mission -- and Rao reluctantly gave in. Sadly, that also happened to be the last mission undertaken by Dinesh Singh in a diplomatic career spread over five decades.

In fact, after one look at Dinesh Singh alighting from the aircraft, Iranian Foreign Minister Dr Ali Akbar Velayati, who was waiting at the tarmac, impulsively asked what on earth could be of such momentous importance for the minister to undertake such a perilous journey in such a poor state of health.

Dinesh Singh went through his 'Kashmir brief' diligently through the day's meetings with his Iranian interlocutors -– apart from Dr Velayati, President Rafsanjani and the Speaker of the Iranian Majlis Nateq-Nouri. The Iranian side politely noted the minister's demarche.

All in all, the business was transacted in a matter of 6 or 7 hours. Dinesh Singh left immediately for the airport for his return journey.



As he was emplaning, Dr Velayati who had come to the airport, reached out and holding Dinesh Singh's hands together in his, said: 'Ali Hashemi (President Rafsanjani) wanted me to convey his assurance to Prime Minister Rao that Iran will do all it can to ensure that no harm comes to India.'

After the plane took off, Dinesh Singh and his three co-passengers pondered over the import of what Velayati said. Did it mean that Iran would get the OIC resolution watered down? Or, would the resolution leave out any outright condemnation of India that attracted the UN's wrath?

It took 72 anxious hours more for Delhi to realise that instead of a halfway solution, Iran went ahead with surgical skill and literally killed the OIC move to table the resolution at a UN forum. We heard later that as the Pakistani ambassador sought to move the OIC resolution, his Iranian counterpart in Geneva acted on directives from Teheran and made an intervention.

He said that for Iran, both Pakistan and India were close friends, and Iran would be loathe to the idea that problems between friends could not be sorted out between the two of them, and needed instead to be raised at an international forum.

That was the last time that Pakistan sought to get a resolution over Kashmir issue tabled at a UN forum.


Thus, when the head of Iran's National Security Council, Ali Larijani said last Tuesday with a palpable sense of hurt: 'India was our friend. We did not expect India to do so' -- he would have had much more in mind than the 'shock and awe' that India administered to Iran last weekend at Vienna.


Larijani's erudite mind could not have missed the dramatic irony of it all -- that Teheran should have salvaged India's day at the OIC 11 years ago, and Delhi having a sudden, unexplained, inexplicable memory lapse in the IAEA.

And, on both occasions, it boiled down to how to kill a mocking bird -- how to keep a festering wound from being prised away for therapy in distant New York.

M K Bhadrakumar is a former Indian ambassador with extensive experience in handling India's relations with Iran
 
Last edited:
I request readers incl. Bro @BHarwana to read this how Iran destroyed the OIC resolution on Kashmir .
this is by indian diplomat BhadraKumar published in 2005

The Rediff Special/M K Bhadrakumar

Revealed: What Iran did for India and why it is hurt

October 03, 2005


Strikingly similar to the crisis that Iran faced at the IAEA Board meeting in Vienna last weekend, India too found itself in a tight spot in April 1994 at the United Nations Human Rights Commission's annual session in Geneva.

Iran vote and after: Complete coverage

Curiously, India and Iran found themselves entangled with each other then too, as of now -- but with an entirely different body language.

If there is a Shakespearean touch to the sense of betrayal that Iran is so evidently harbouring today over India's vote against it at Vienna, how much of that harks back to silent memories of what had transpired between the two countries in 1994, we shall never quite know.

Persians may find it to be in bad taste to be blunt and forthright on such delicate issues as trust and betrayal.

In April 1994, when the UNHRC was assembling in Geneva, India faced an ugly situation. We were just pulling out of a grave economic crisis (of our own making, though) and were extremely vulnerable to the goodwill of international financial institutions.

More importantly, the Kashmir valley was burning -- witnessing some of the bloodiest violence in its unhappy history. The country itself was panting and heaving from the bloodletting of communal violence -- hidden medieval passions were tearing it apart.

Back in 1994, India was not yet possessed with the swagger and all-knowing cockiness of its current middle class optimism -- or, for that matter, its frightening pragmatism that is determined to make every relationship outright profitable.

The politics of reciprocity

Internationally too, the climate was uncertain. Boris Yeltsin's Russia was lurching toward the West in drunken stupor, and there was a big question mark as to the availability of a 'Soviet' veto if the Kashmir file ever again got reopened in the UN's business dealings.

Technically, if the UNHRC in Geneva adopted a resolution condemning India for grave human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, a pathway would have opened for any of India's detractors (not only Pakistan) for referral of the 'Kashmir problem' to the UN in New York
. The crisis was comparable to what could happen today if the IAEA indeed decided on a UN Security Council referral apropos of the Iran's 'nuclear problem.'

The assessment in the foreign policy establishment in Delhi at that time was that in the event of the Kashmir resolution coming up in Geneva, it had a strong possibility of getting adopted.

The draft resolution enjoyed the support of the 54-member states of the Organisation of Islamic conference and possibly some faraway countries in the Western world. Of course, Pakistan was its prime mover.



Thus it was that on a cold wind swept morning in late March in 1994 with the Elbruz Mountain still wrapped in sheets of snow that an Indian military plane landed in Teheran airport bearing the then Indian external affairs minister Dinesh Singh and three accompanying officials from Delhi as his co-passengers.

The minister was visiting Iran to deliver in person an urgent letter from Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao addressed to Iranian President, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rao was seeking Iran's last-minute intervention at the OIC with a view to ensuring that the Kashmir resolution did not pass through the UNHRC.

The OIC (like the IAEA) too had a convention that all decisions had to be arrived at through consensus. So, Rao shrewdly assessed that if a prominent OIC member like Iran were to abstain, there would be no 'consensus.' Rao was greatly averse to Dinesh Singh undertaking the mission, as the minister was seriously ill from the multiple strokes he had suffered a few months ago.



But Dinesh Singh ("Raja Saheb") would have no one else undertake such a crucial mission -- and Rao reluctantly gave in. Sadly, that also happened to be the last mission undertaken by Dinesh Singh in a diplomatic career spread over five decades.

In fact, after one look at Dinesh Singh alighting from the aircraft, Iranian Foreign Minister Dr Ali Akbar Velayati, who was waiting at the tarmac, impulsively asked what on earth could be of such momentous importance for the minister to undertake such a perilous journey in such a poor state of health.

Dinesh Singh went through his 'Kashmir brief' diligently through the day's meetings with his Iranian interlocutors -– apart from Dr Velayati, President Rafsanjani and the Speaker of the Iranian Majlis Nateq-Nouri. The Iranian side politely noted the minister's demarche.

All in all, the business was transacted in a matter of 6 or 7 hours. Dinesh Singh left immediately for the airport for his return journey.



As he was emplaning, Dr Velayati who had come to the airport, reached out and holding Dinesh Singh's hands together in his, said: 'Ali Hashemi (President Rafsanjani) wanted me to convey his assurance to Prime Minister Rao that Iran will do all it can to ensure that no harm comes to India.'

After the plane took off, Dinesh Singh and his three co-passengers pondered over the import of what Velayati said. Did it mean that Iran would get the OIC resolution watered down? Or, would the resolution leave out any outright condemnation of India that attracted the UN's wrath?

It took 72 anxious hours more for Delhi to realise that instead of a halfway solution, Iran went ahead with surgical skill and literally killed the OIC move to table the resolution at a UN forum. We heard later that as the Pakistani ambassador sought to move the OIC resolution, his Iranian counterpart in Geneva acted on directives from Teheran and made an intervention.

He said that for Iran, both Pakistan and India were close friends, and Iran would be loathe to the idea that problems between friends could not be sorted out between the two of them, and needed instead to be raised at an international forum.

That was the last time that Pakistan sought to get a resolution over Kashmir issue tabled at a UN forum.


Thus, when the head of Iran's National Security Council, Ali Larijani said last Tuesday with a palpable sense of hurt: 'India was our friend. We did not expect India to do so' -- he would have had much more in mind than the 'shock and awe' that India administered to Iran last weekend at Vienna.


Larijani's erudite mind could not have missed the dramatic irony of it all -- that Teheran should have salvaged India's day at the OIC 11 years ago, and Delhi having a sudden, unexplained, inexplicable memory lapse in the IAEA.

And, on both occasions, it boiled down to how to kill a mocking bird -- how to keep a festering wound from being prised away for therapy in distant New York.

M K Bhadrakumar is a former Indian ambassador with extensive experience in handling India's relations with Iran
Where have I denied what you have written but the game face has changed. Once Russia always voted in the UN against Pakistan but last time they voted in favor Masood Azhar and against India. You are looking at the small pictures Bro but if you bring the wider prospect in picture you will understand what is happening. I have a question let me see how you answer it. On whose request did Pakistan gave nuclear technology to Iran? @A.A. Khan
 
Where have I denied what you have written but the game face has changed. Once Russia always voted in the UN against Pakistan but last time they voted in favor Masood Azhar and against India. You are looking at the small pictures Bro but if you bring the wider prospect in picture you will understand what is happening. I have a question let me see how you answer it. On whose request did Pakistan gave nuclear technology to Iran? @A.A. Khan
Russia supported UN resolution against masood azhar it was china that vetoed it
 
Back
Top Bottom