Jihad only solution to Kashmir issue: Nizami

[Bhim]

@American eagle
Your admiration for Yasin Malik is quite amazing.
If he is so popular then why doesn't he win elections.
And why Chinese held Kashmir is a different issue?
Yasin would be appreciated by every one if he condemned terrorist attacks, participated in the Democratic process.
One division of India by British on religion, now
Another division would be last thing India wants.
India does not need advice or theories from any one.
Finally I don't get it from where you dreamt of this Andorra model,I would
Like the Goa model.
It is a Christian state of republic of India.
So tell your friend yashin Malik to be a good citizen first.

 

[American Eagle]

So far, as an American who only served 1963-65 in then West Pakistan, but has tried to keep up, admittedly more heavily tried to keep up informationally since 911, I am still reading very short term thinking which does not discuss the Confidence Building Measures, which are on going, the reality of how many years, generations, of hate, mistrust, and above all, religious hatred and intolerance, all of which are why as a nobody outsider I favor the Andorran Model to let generations live down and outgrow such past attitudes which perpetuate the unpleasant status quo in PAK, IAK, and CAK. Parts of Northern Kashmir were "ceded" to China by Pakistan in the Trans-Karakoram Tract in 1963 which at that time and now I viewed as then Foreign Minister Bhutto, supported by President Ayub Khan, trying to stick a finger in the eye of India.

 

[EjazR]

@American Eagle

The end solution will really depend on how Pakistan plays its role. As long as Pakistan believes that it will get a better deal by supporting Jihadi groups and terrorism in mainland India or even in J&K, don't expect any concessions to Pakistan on Kashmir. This is different from engaging the Kashmiri people themselves with better HR monitoring and economic upliftment. At present, there is the "ideological" part of Pakistani army/ISI that believe that terrorism will be the only way they can get a favourable settlement. And Kashmir is considered a pathway to breaking up India. For them there is no incentive to stop terrorism within J&K or the rest of India. The "rationalists" among the Army/ISI were those under Musharraf who were trying to achieve a settlement that they felt was the best favourable around 2008. Unfortunately the "ideolouges" don't realise that as time goes by, the window of possibility of even getting the Musharraf settlement is closing as the imbalance between India and Pakistan increases.

Also, most people don't realise that the place that there is pro-independance sentiment is only the valley region which consists of 5.5-6million people, while the total population of J&K is around 13 million. GoI can hold on to the territory and has shown resolve to do so for the past 20 years. Short of an military intervention by US or China, GoI will not leave this territory. Even that is suspect as use of nukes would not be ruled on in such a scenario.

Before we even begin to have a solution on Kashmir, India and Pakistan would have to tackle other "easy issues" like Sir creek and Siachin as well as trade and people-to-people contacts. A Kashmir settlement would be the last step, and even that would have to be something along the lines of Mushrraf-Singh forumula where the LoC becomes the IB. J&K will remain a state within the Indian union but possibly with some more autonomy than other states.

 

[Stumper]

i think we are going in circles for the sake of argument. If you read my previous posts no where i mentioned that India centric policies are the only reason for pak's shortcomings.. but it is one of the major factor, which one can not deny. Army has always been active in pak's politics from the time of their existance upto this point. At times they lead from the front like yahya khan, ayub khan, zia & musharraf. rest of the time they influence the governance from the back ground. For the army to have this power, they need to keep india on the boil. otherwise their importance will be undermined by the rest. Do you think if it wasn't for the kargil debacle, musharraf would be taking over pak's control? you might try going in different lanes.. but they all merge at one point!! that is india!!

I agree , we are going in circles for sake of argument ...
"no where i mentioned that India centric policies are the only reason for pak's shortcomings".

" you might try going in different lanes.. but they all merge at one point!! that is india!!"

 

[American Eagle]

Your last paragraph touches on the concept of the Andorran Model I favor.

Sir Creek goes back to the 1965 India Paksitan War as then spoken of as the Rann of Kutch, unless I am mistaken.

The letter outlining my Andorran Model opinions for PAK, IAK, and CAK ran in 2006 in the TIMES OF INDIA. This same letter was repeated by the Peshawar FRONTIER POST around November, 2006. The Pakistan website KHYBER WATCH/GLOBAL HUJARA ONLINEin 2006/early 2007 then picked up the same letter from the FP and ran it as a lead article for around 2 years.

 

[JanjaWeed]

I agree , we are going in circles for sake of argument ...
"no where i mentioned that India centric policies are the only reason for pak's shortcomings".

" you might try going in different lanes.. but they all merge at one point!! that is india!!"

well spotted!! btw there is a difference between 'previous' & 'current'! when you debate you have to take the whole post in a context rather than taking one generic line out of context!

 

[Stumper]

well spotted!! btw there is a difference between 'previous' & 'current'! when you debate you have to take the whole post in a context rather than taking one generic line out of context!

Debating, im not. As my marbles can not make out what exactly your current stand is.

Chill.

 

[Bhim]

First get that part from China, which was so embarrassingly donated to them by Pakistan..

 

[American Eagle]

Can anyone tell me factually if the CAK land voluntarily ceded by Pakistan to Chinas was then the site of the road which China built down to PAK?

Water rights/control of passing and disbursement for various uses of river waters is integral to a proper overall some day, years to time, Kashmir amicable outcome. The Indus, one of several rivers at issue, while commencing in Tibet then flows into PAK but I think (?) has shared used of the Indus River waters between Paksitan and India.

I would appreciate a clam, dispassionate detailed, facts only, no opinions please, step by step factual presentation of all riverw whose waters are supposed to be shared under various River Treaties between Paksitan and India.

Thanks.

 

[alphamale]

Can anyone tell me factually if the CAK land voluntarily ceded by Pakistan to Chinas was then the site of the road which China built down to PAK?

Water rights/control of passing and disbursement for various uses of river waters is integral to a proper overall some day, years to time, Kashmir amicable outcome. The Indus, one of several rivers at issue, while commencing in Tibet then flows into PAK but I think (?) has shared used of the Indus River waters between Paksitan and India.

I would appreciate a clam, dispassionate detailed, facts only, no opinions please, step by step factual presentation of all riverw whose waters are supposed to be shared under various River Treaties between Paksitan and India.

Thanks.

Yes the CAK land was voluntarily ceded by pak to china, plus i want to correct u that indus river commence in tibet, then in enter in ladakh(india) & then enters PAK . indus water treaty was signed b/w india & pak in 1960. according to treaty india will get full rights on water of three eastern rivers viz sutluj, beas & ravi &pakistan will get water of remaining three rivers viz. chenab,jhelum & indus. as far as rivers allocated to pak are concerned india can use them for small purposes but india can't use water of these rivers for collecting water in dams & for irrigation projects.

 

[Soumitra]

It seems a lot of people here misunderstand the meaning of Jihad. In fact Jihad is an approach to push people into achieving something that is beyond their capabilities. And Jihad does not specifically mean violence. If violence is a factor to take into consideration, then it will be there for sure. But not an integral part of Jihad.

In fact, people of other religions can also benefit from Jihad, mainly by applying Jihad-e-Akbar (greater Jihad), that precisely means making our lives more disciplined.

I would request Indian members not to take the word Jihad in a wrong manner simply because some people are using it serve their not so angelic personal agendas.

And no, I do not agree with/appreciate Niazmi's views, that seem to endorse violence as part of the Jihad in Kashmir.

The World knows Jihad = Terrorism

 

[Ahmad]

The World knows Jihad = Terrorism

that is the impresion the world has got, but this is not true.

 

[ares]

that is the impresion the world has got, but this is not true.

Thats may be because most of the world's terrorist use it to further their cause.

 

[Talha Butt]

As a Kashmiri[a pure, ethnic one from the valley] I can definetely say that lakshar e taiba and jaish e muhammad are very popular in kashmir. every kashmiri youth has maulana muhammad azhar's speeches on their computers. Most admire the mujahideeen but don't necessarily think jihad is the BEST option. dialogue is also an attractive process but by not budging from its stubborn position on kashmir, india is only inviting threats upon itself as kashmiris are curently only interested in dialogue because they hope it wins them freedom.

 

[American Eagle]

Thanks for your "river walk through." It is very helpful to us all.