What's new

Kashmir A Nuclear Flash Point

Our land our will !!!! Why don't you withdraw occupation forces from p-o-k ?




Srinagar: In occupied Kashmir, clashes broke out today, near the venue of the ‘Big Kashmir Marathon’ at Hazratbal in Srinagar, Kashmir Media Service (KMS).
The twenty-one-kilometer marathon was to begin from Naseem Bagh at Kashmir University and go along the scenic Dal Lake. Media reports said that youth shouted slogans in favor of freedom and pelted rocks on the forces guarding the venue in the varsity.
Police and paramilitary forces fired teargas shells on protesters at Habak crossing near the venue. “The marathon has been turned into a disaster,” a protester said. “Pakistan flags were also raised at the venue.”
The clashes, they said, were going on at the time of filing of this report.
Organizers said the aim of the marathon, in which professional runners from outside India also participated, was to promote healthy lifestyle and raise awareness about the need to protect dying water bodies. However, everything took a worse turn for India when the participants started shouting pro-freedom and Pro-Pakistan slogans.
 
It is not a matter of inattention. UN and the international community are willing to help resolve the Kashmir issue but they are bound by the provisions of the Simla Agreement between Pakistan and India that renders it a bilateral issue with no third party mediation possible without both parties agreeing to it.

Pakistan must realize that peacefully settle the disputes instead of wasteful attempts to drag UN, China and USA into the dispute.
Thank God India made Pakistan sign it or else the current situation would have been very different.
 
Pakistan must realize that peacefully settle the disputes instead of wasteful attempts to drag UN, China and USA into the dispute.
Thank God India made Pakistan sign it or else the current situation would have been very different.

That realization must happen on both sides for the process to work.
 
Read again

There is a danger of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan but the resolution of the nuclear issue lies in the resolution of the Kashmir issue, I think Kashmir is the flash point. Its vulnerability and a threat for the whole humanity has been acknowledged by many leaders of the world, especially US President Bill Clinton, who named Kashmir as a nuclear flash point between two nuclear powers.Source: Kashmir A Nuclear Flash Point

It is not what you think of Kashmir is important. It is what Indian government thinks that matters. India doesn't think Kashmir is the nuclear flash point. Now it is up to Pakistanis convince otherwise, but they failed to do so in last 70 years.

As on international community involvement, there is very little interest on Kashmir. Moreover, India's emergence as a economic power means even few countries will want to get involved without hurting themselves. As the size of India's GDP grows even fewer countries can go against India's wishes. Tibet is good example...almost everyone forgot Tibet once China emerged as economic power.
 
Why not to disarm occupation forces in IOK?

It is not possible. Pakistan peacefully vacating Azad Kashmir is the only way forward. Nothing more.

And, it is not IOK, just Jammu and Kashmir is enough. That is what it is called in our law books and recognized by the world (including China).
 
You should read the Simla Agreement, Sir. It clearly describes the situation as I have mentioned above. Kashmir is a bilateral issue between Pakistan and India and both countries have signed the Agreement. You are correct in saying that it can be a nuclear flashpoint and that concerns the whole world, but no one can mediate unless both parties agree to such a third party.

Forget about Simla Agreement

Simla Agreement, 2 July 1972

This agreement on Bilateral Relations between India and Pakistan was signed after the 1971 India-Pakistan War, in which Pakistan was defeated conclusively and which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. India refrained from attacking or finishing off Pakistan and signed this agreement with the hope that henceforth the countries in the region would be able to live in peace with each other. The then Pakistani Prime Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, also promised the then Indian Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi, that his country would accept the Line of Control (LOC) in the state of J&K as the de facto border and would not try ot de-stabilise it. This was not formally entered in the agreement because Bhutto said it would cause domestic problems for him at this juncture. Mrs Gandhi magnanimously accepted his promise and did not formalise that part of the agreement. But Pakistan, as later events were to prove, never kept its part of the deal.

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflct and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their peoples.

In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Govern- ment of Pakistan have agreed as follows:

(i) That the principles and purposes off the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries;

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations.

Failed

(iii) That the pre-requisite for reconciliation, good-neighbourliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both countries to peaceful co-existence, respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty and non-interference in each other's internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit;

Failed

(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedevilled the relations between the two countries of the last twenty-five years shall be resolved by peaceful means;

Failed

(v) That they shall always respect each other's national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality;

Violation of LOC

(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other;

(II) Both Governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda direcdted against each other.

Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them;

(III) In order progressively to restore and normalize relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that;

(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land including border posts, and air links including overflights;

(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country;

(iii) Trade and co-operation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible;

(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.
In this connextion delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.

(IV) In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both Governments agree that:

(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border;

(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat of the use of force in violation of this line;

(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this Agreement and shall be completed within a period of thirty days thereof.

(V) This Agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the Instruments of Ratification are exchanged.

(VI) Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that, in the meanwhile, the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of a durable peace and normalization of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of displomatic relations
 
Forget about Simla Agreement

Sir, you may want to forget the SImla Agreement, but the UN or any other party cannot ignore this part of the text:

"(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations."

I agree with that.

It is perhaps more important for India to realize that it cannot realize its potential without settling matters with its neighbors, particularly Pakistan.
 
Sir, you may want to forget the SImla Agreement, but the UN or any other party cannot ignore this art of the text:

"(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations."

His interpretation is wrong and is based on the first point. The first point doesn't mention anything about dispute resolution while the second point does.
 
His interpretation is wrong and is based on the first point. The first point doesn't mention anything about dispute resolution while the second point does.

He is entitled to his opinion, Sir. I am just pointing out the sound legal basis for the United Nation's stance in this matter.
 
(i) That the principles and purposes off the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries;

As it does the relations of most countries. Unexceptionable.

(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other;

Yep. Use of terrorists is in violation of that part.


(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border;

Correct. The LoC represents that wrt Kashmir.
 
It is not what you think of Kashmir is important. It is what Indian government thinks that matters. India doesn't think Kashmir is the nuclear flash point. Now it is up to Pakistanis convince otherwise, but they failed to do so in last 70 years.

As on international community involvement, there is very little interest on Kashmir. Moreover, India's emergence as a economic power means even few countries will want to get involved without hurting themselves. As the size of India's GDP grows even fewer countries can go against India's wishes. Tibet is good example...almost everyone forgot Tibet once China emerged as economic power.


Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in May 1998 not in 1947.
 
As it does the relations of most countries. Unexceptionable.



Yep. Use of terrorists is in violation of that part.




Correct. The LoC represents that wrt Kashmir.

Also, the original UN resolutions are nullified in 1965. There is a point in the UN resolution that say that no country will unilaterally try to alter the LOC until the final settlement.

Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in May 1998 not in 1947.

I am talking of Kashmir and not on nuclear tests. You people could not convince India of the urgency to solve Kashmir for the last 70 years.
 
It is perhaps more important for India to realize that it cannot realize its potential without settling matters with its neighbors, particularly Pakistan.

Sir, I do not agree with that.

Reasons:

Economy:

Relationship with Pakistan does not help India in anyway but it is the other way around.
Indian markets provide more opportunities to your businessmen than Pakistan markets can provide to us.

Diplomacy:

We have cordial relationship with every other country in South Asia and our interests will not be maligned because of Pakistan. Same applies to India. Doesn't Pakistan survive without a cordial relationship with India ?

Defense:

We are capable to thwart any aggression to safeguard our boundaries.

International Recognition:

Well I do not have to speak much about this and your heart knows the truth.
India's image has replicated in past two decades. We achieved that when we had Kargil conflict with you.
I see limited chances for war in future, so it is going to help us more in brand building.
 
Back
Top Bottom