Kashmir is ours: Pakistan told US in 2002

[Nahraf]

Kashmir Is Ours | Pakistan Told US | Infiltration Across India LoC | 2002 Meeting Documents - Oneindia News

Kashmir is ours: Pak told US in 2002
Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 13:45 [IST]
Save to Oneindia Bookmarks SAVE

Washington, Sep 14: As Kashmir burns, newly released declassified documents have revealed Pakistan's unwillingness to take steps to stop infiltration as it believed that "Kashmir should have been ours".

Buzz up!
The classified documents released on Monday, Sep 13, give details of the developments that took place in 2002, when US asked Pakistan to end infiltration across the Line of Control in Jammu Kashmir.


Responding to this advise, Pakistan had asked US not to "push it too far", asserting that "Kashmir should have been ours".

This was part of communication between Richard Haass, the then Director of Policy Planning Staff at the US State Department, and an unnamed Pakistani military official during a meeting that took place on Oct 31, 2002.

"On Kashmir, Haass stressed the importance of ending infiltration, but the Pak official warned the US not to push Pakistan too far on Kashmir," the documents read.

While Hass argued that putting an end to infiltration and resolving the Kashmir crisis would "help Pakistan's cause with the US and India", the Pak official maintained that Pak’s Kashmir position was "based on justice" despite admitting that the issue was "bedevilling our relations".

"Kashmir should have been ours. The Pakistani people would not agree to make the LOC (Line of Control) the international border. Kashmir had cost Musharraf a lot, as had his decision to help the CT coalition.

"Musharraf's detractors had hit him on both Kashmir and Afghanistan. India had tried to exploit the political atmosphere after 9/11," the Pak official is quoted as saying.

 

[shekhar]

Kashmir Is Ours | Pakistan Told US | Infiltration Across India LoC | 2002 Meeting Documents - Oneindia News

Kashmir is ours: Pak told US in 2002
Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 13:45 [IST]
Save to Oneindia Bookmarks SAVE

Washington, Sep 14: As Kashmir burns, newly released declassified documents have revealed Pakistan's unwillingness to take steps to stop infiltration as it believed that "Kashmir should have been ours".

Buzz up!
The classified documents released on Monday, Sep 13, give details of the developments that took place in 2002, when US asked Pakistan to end infiltration across the Line of Control in Jammu Kashmir.


Responding to this advise, Pakistan had asked US not to "push it too far", asserting that "Kashmir should have been ours".

This was part of communication between Richard Haass, the then Director of Policy Planning Staff at the US State Department, and an unnamed Pakistani military official during a meeting that took place on Oct 31, 2002.

"On Kashmir, Haass stressed the importance of ending infiltration, but the Pak official warned the US not to push Pakistan too far on Kashmir," the documents read.

While Hass argued that putting an end to infiltration and resolving the Kashmir crisis would "help Pakistan's cause with the US and India", the Pak official maintained that Pak’s Kashmir position was "based on justice" despite admitting that the issue was "bedevilling our relations".

"Kashmir should have been ours. The Pakistani people would not agree to make the LOC (Line of Control) the international border. Kashmir had cost Musharraf a lot, as had his decision to help the CT coalition.

"Musharraf's detractors had hit him on both Kashmir and Afghanistan. India had tried to exploit the political atmosphere after 9/11," the Pak official is quoted as saying.

keep dreaming
total army of pakistan ==indian army in kashmir
with huge indian market growing everyday no big nation will dare to go against india on kashmir issue
wih russia our natural ally and to check china usa will support india with indian lucrative market europe will be in our side
so my question is how exactly pak is planning to get kashmir to get kashmir u already lost east pakistan ?
keep supporting kashmir u will end up losing balochistan

 

[somebozo]

keep dreaming
total army of pakistan ==indian army in kashmir
with huge indian market growing everyday no big nation will dare to go against india on kashmir issue
wih russia our natural ally and to check china usa will support india with indian lucrative market europe will be in our side
so my question is how exactly pak is planning to get kashmir to get kashmir u already lost east pakistan ?
keep supporting kashmir u will end up losing balochistan

Every rise has fall..there is no economic miracle which can last forever..read up history of your own nation please...In case of India its turn of economic collapse will be quite bloody because 1.2 billion people fighting for scarce resource is not a circus.

This is the reason why government like yours hyper up war hysteria. Because the sh1t falls they can divert public attention by invading some totally unconcern land. Read up history of british colonism in India this is not a new trick.

Economic growth by population expansion as it cap limits. Even america is not immune to violence cause economic crisis but taking into accounts it land mass versus population it is still sparsely populated.

 

[unforgotton_man]

bull ****, this struggle is lead by Kashmirs

 

[InPhilTraitor]

Just take it man.. its all yours. Hey, do you want Bihar, Bengal... you can take that too... you want Hyderabad .. just take it man.. stop talking start doing it.

 

[IndianArmy]

Kashmir is India's- Hari Singh made it clear to the world in 1947"

 

[Tayyab1796]

Kashmir is either ours or its Independent because whatever India did to it since 1947 was clearly a failure otherwise we won't see this day . Please don't compare Balochistan with Kashmir ... these are two poles apart situations .

 

[sms]

Kashmir is ours?
I was under impression that neighbor on our western front just interested in welfare of people of Kashmir and want them to be independent to let them choose their destiny.

Pity it's just desire to grab more land. Your intentions are exposed.
No one cares about people of Kashmir except India. You’ve done nothing till date except making their life equal to hell and your nation should be hold responsible for death of thousand of Kashmiri people.

 

[Storm Force]

At this moment in time With Pakistan in economic melt down and unable to form a real democractic govt that has international credibility and the WOT eating at the very heart of Pakistan KASHMIR should be last on your list.

Pakistan will do well to stay together never mind taking a entire state from a rising powerhouse with ten times the muscle

 

[prototype]

so now their true face is revealed,this guys talk to much how Azad is Azad Kashmir but they still want Indian Kashmir

 

[Rajput Warrior]

Kashmir is India's- Hari Singh made it clear to the world in 1947"

Nizam deccan,juna garh? remember anything?

 

[nForce]

Nizam deccan,juna garh? remember anything?

Hyderabad

Hyderabad was a landlocked state that stretched over 82,000 square miles (over 212,000 square kilometres) in south-eastern India. While 87% of its 17 million people were Hindus, its ruler Nizam Osman Ali Khan was a Muslim, and its politics were dominated by a Muslim elite. The Muslim nobility and the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, a powerful pro-Nizam Muslim party, insisted that Hyderabad must remain an independent state and stand on an equal footing to India and Pakistan. Accordingly, the Nizam in June 1947 issued a firman announcing that on the transfer of power, his state would be resuming independence. The Government of India rejected the firman, terming it a "legalistic claim of doubtful validity". It argued that the strategic location of Hyderabad, which lay astride the main lines of communication between northern and southern India, meant it could easily be used by "foreign interests" to threaten India, and that in consequence, the issue involved India's peace and security. It also pointed out that the state's people, history and location made it unquestionably Indian, and that its own "common interests" therefore mandated its integration into India.

The Nizam was prepared to enter into a limited treaty with India, which gave Hyderabad safeguards not provided for in the standard Instrument of Accession, such as a provision guaranteeing Hyderabad's neutrality in the event of a conflict between India and Pakistan. India rejected this proposal, arguing that other states would demand similar concessions. A temporary Standstill Agreement was signed as a stopgap measure, even though Hyderabad had not yet agreed to accede to India. By December 1947, however, India was accusing Hyderabad of repeatedly violating the Agreement, while the Nizam alleged that India was blockading his state, a charge India denied.

The situation deteriorated further in 1948. The Razakars ("volunteers"), a militia affiliated to the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen and set up under the influence of Muslim radical Qasim Razvi, assumed the role of supporting the Muslim ruling class against upsurges by the Hindu populace, and began intensifying its activities and was accused of attempting to intimidate villages. The Hyderabad State Congress Party, affiliated to the Indian National Congress, launched a political agitation. Matters were made worse by Communist groups, which had originally supported the Congress but now switched sides and began attacking Congress groups. Attempts by Mountbatten to find a negotiated solution failed and, in August, the Nizam, claiming that he feared an imminent invasion, attempted to approach the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice.Patel now insisted that if Hyderabad was allowed to continue its independence, the prestige of the Government would be tarnished and then neither Hindus nor Muslims would feel secure in its realm. On 13 September, the Indian Army was sent into Hyderabad in Operation Polo on the ground that the law and order situation there threatened the peace of South India. The troops met little resistance and between 13 and 18 September took complete control of the state. The Nizam was retained as the head of state in the same manner as the other princes who acceded to India.He thereupon disavowed the complaints that had been made to the UN and, despite vehement protests from Pakistan and strong criticism from other countries, the Security Council did not deal further with the question, and Hyderabad was absorbed into India.


Junagarh


Although the states were in theory free to choose whether they wished to accede to India or Pakistan, Mountbatten had pointed out that "geographic compulsions" meant that most of them must choose India. In effect, he took the position that only the states that shared a border with Pakistan could choose to accede to it.

The Nawab of Junagadh, a princely state located on the south-western end of Gujarat and having no common border with Pakistan, chose to accede to Pakistan ignoring Mountbatten's views, arguing that it could be reached from Pakistan by sea. The rulers of two states that were subject to the suzerainty of Junagadh—Mangrol and Babariawad—reacted to this by declaring their independence from Junagadh and acceding to India. In response, the Nawab of Junagadh militarily occupied the states. The rulers of neighbouring states reacted angrily, sending their troops to the Junagadh frontier and appealed to the Government of India for assistance. A group of Junagadhi people, led by Samaldas Gandhi, formed a government-in-exile, the Aarzi Hukumat ("temporary government").

India believed that if Junagadh was permitted to go to Pakistan, the communal tension already simmering in Gujarat would worsen, and refused to accept the accession. The government pointed out that the state was 80% Hindu, and called for a plebiscite to decide the question of accession. Simultaneously, they cut off supplies of fuel and coal to Junagadh, severed air and postal links, sent troops to the frontier, and reoccupied the principalities of Mangrol and Babariawad that had acceded to India. Pakistan agreed to discuss a plebiscite, subject to the withdrawal of Indian troops, a condition India rejected. On 26 October, the Nawab and his family fled to Pakistan following clashes with Indian troops. On 7 November, Junagadh's court, facing collapse, invited the Government of India to take over the State's administration. The Government of India agreed. A plebiscite was conducted in February 1948, which went almost unanimously in favour of accession to India.

 

[Rajput Warrior]

Hyderabad

Hyderabad was a landlocked state that stretched over 82,000 square miles (over 212,000 square kilometres) in south-eastern India. While 87% of its 17 million people were Hindus, its ruler Nizam Osman Ali Khan was a Muslim, and its politics were dominated by a Muslim elite. The Muslim nobility and the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen, a powerful pro-Nizam Muslim party, insisted that Hyderabad must remain an independent state and stand on an equal footing to India and Pakistan. Accordingly, the Nizam in June 1947 issued a firman announcing that on the transfer of power, his state would be resuming independence. The Government of India rejected the firman, terming it a "legalistic claim of doubtful validity". It argued that the strategic location of Hyderabad, which lay astride the main lines of communication between northern and southern India, meant it could easily be used by "foreign interests" to threaten India, and that in consequence, the issue involved India's peace and security. It also pointed out that the state's people, history and location made it unquestionably Indian, and that its own "common interests" therefore mandated its integration into India.

The Nizam was prepared to enter into a limited treaty with India, which gave Hyderabad safeguards not provided for in the standard Instrument of Accession, such as a provision guaranteeing Hyderabad's neutrality in the event of a conflict between India and Pakistan. India rejected this proposal, arguing that other states would demand similar concessions. A temporary Standstill Agreement was signed as a stopgap measure, even though Hyderabad had not yet agreed to accede to India. By December 1947, however, India was accusing Hyderabad of repeatedly violating the Agreement, while the Nizam alleged that India was blockading his state, a charge India denied.

The situation deteriorated further in 1948. The Razakars ("volunteers"), a militia affiliated to the Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen and set up under the influence of Muslim radical Qasim Razvi, assumed the role of supporting the Muslim ruling class against upsurges by the Hindu populace, and began intensifying its activities and was accused of attempting to intimidate villages. The Hyderabad State Congress Party, affiliated to the Indian National Congress, launched a political agitation. Matters were made worse by Communist groups, which had originally supported the Congress but now switched sides and began attacking Congress groups. Attempts by Mountbatten to find a negotiated solution failed and, in August, the Nizam, claiming that he feared an imminent invasion, attempted to approach the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice.Patel now insisted that if Hyderabad was allowed to continue its independence, the prestige of the Government would be tarnished and then neither Hindus nor Muslims would feel secure in its realm. On 13 September, the Indian Army was sent into Hyderabad in Operation Polo on the ground that the law and order situation there threatened the peace of South India. The troops met little resistance and between 13 and 18 September took complete control of the state. The Nizam was retained as the head of state in the same manner as the other princes who acceded to India.He thereupon disavowed the complaints that had been made to the UN and, despite vehement protests from Pakistan and strong criticism from other countries, the Security Council did not deal further with the question, and Hyderabad was absorbed into India

Is kashmir a majority hindu region with a muslim ruler?

Junagarh


Although the states were in theory free to choose whether they wished to accede to India or Pakistan, Mountbatten had pointed out that "geographic compulsions" meant that most of them must choose India. In effect, he took the position that only the states that shared a border with Pakistan could choose to accede to it.

The Nawab of Junagadh, a princely state located on the south-western end of Gujarat and having no common border with Pakistan, chose to accede to Pakistan ignoring Mountbatten's views, arguing that it could be reached from Pakistan by sea. The rulers of two states that were subject to the suzerainty of Junagadh—Mangrol and Babariawad—reacted to this by declaring their independence from Junagadh and acceding to India. In response, the Nawab of Junagadh militarily occupied the states. The rulers of neighbouring states reacted angrily, sending their troops to the Junagadh frontier and appealed to the Government of India for assistance. A group of Junagadhi people, led by Samaldas Gandhi, formed a government-in-exile, the Aarzi Hukumat ("temporary government").

India believed that if Junagadh was permitted to go to Pakistan, the communal tension already simmering in Gujarat would worsen, and refused to accept the accession. The government pointed out that the state was 80% Hindu, and called for a plebiscite to decide the question of accession. Simultaneously, they cut off supplies of fuel and coal to Junagadh, severed air and postal links, sent troops to the frontier, and reoccupied the principalities of Mangrol and Babariawad that had acceded to India. Pakistan agreed to discuss a plebiscite, subject to the withdrawal of Indian troops, a condition India rejected. On 26 October, the Nawab and his family fled to Pakistan following clashes with Indian troops. On 7 November, Junagadh's court, facing collapse, invited the Government of India to take over the State's administration. The Government of India agreed. A plebiscite was conducted in February 1948, which went almost unanimously in favour of accession to India.

Same question.....

u occupied them coz they had majority HINDU population and a Muslim, ruler?

While in Kashmir it was the opposite!Hence according to u... the non muslim ruler went in favour of india but the majority MUSLIM population DIDNT?!

Thts called Hipocrisy and biggotry..

 

[nForce]

Is kashmir a majority hindu region with a muslim ruler?

You are wrong.At the time of partition,Kashmir was a muslim majority region with a sizable population of Hindus and Buddhists and a Hindu ruler.

Same question.....

u occupied them coz they had majority HINDU population and a Muslim, ruler?

While in Kashmir it was the opposite!Hence according to u... the non muslim ruler went in favour of india but the majority MUSLIM population DIDNT?!

Thts called Hipocrisy and biggotry..

Firstly Hyderabad is a different issue altogether.Nizam of Hyderabad wanted to remain independent.He did not want to be part of India or Pakistan.While the land was a part of British India and a bit too much historically,socially,politically and economically connected to the other parts for not to be a part of India.If we let go of Hyderabad then by same logic we had to let go off the other Princely states as well.That is neither possible nor feasible.

Secondly,Junagarh was didnt actually share a border with Pakistan.So it was decided by the bureaucrats of that time,led by Lord Mountbatten to make such territories a part of India.We just cannot create islands of Pakistan in between a sea of India,each time we see 10 muslims sitting together.Such an idea is utterly unrealistic as just creating a country is not the end of the problem,rather its the beginning of a bigger problem.Any such childish move will lead to administrative,economic,bureaucratic,social and political problems and discrepancies in future.The creation of Bangladesh may serve as a good example for you.


In case of Kashmir,the ruler of Kashmir,Hari Singh willfully acceded to India,and the legitimacy of Pakistan's claim was turned void by its action to take the state by force.Hence,it went to India,while a part of it is still maintained by Pakistan.The hypocrisy actually lies in calling that part Azad

 

[Leviza]

You are wrong.At the time of partition,Kashmir was a muslim majority region with a sizable population of Hindus and Buddhists and a Hindu ruler.



Firstly Hyderabad is a different issue altogether.Nizam of Hyderabad wanted to remain independent.He did not want to be part of India or Pakistan.While the land was a part of British India and a bit too much historically,socially,politically and economically connected to the other parts for not to be a part of India.If we let go of Hyderabad then by same logic we had to let go off the other Princely states as well.That is neither possible nor feasible.

Secondly,Junagarh was didnt actually share a border with Pakistan.So it was decided by the bureaucrats of that time,led by Lord Mountbatten to make such territories a part of India.We just cannot create islands of Pakistan in between a sea of India,each time we see 10 muslims sitting together.Such an idea is utterly unrealistic as just creating a country is not the end of the problem,rather its the beginning of a bigger problem.Any such childish move will lead to administrative,economic,bureaucratic,social and political problems and discrepancies in future.The creation of Bangladesh may serve as a good example for you.


In case of Kashmir,the ruler of Kashmir,Hari Singh willfully acceded to India,and the legitimacy of Pakistan's claim was turned void by its action to take the state by force.Hence,it went to India,while a part of it is still maintained by Pakistan.The hypocrisy actually lies in calling that part Azad

They hypocrisy is that Indian army killing innocent Kashmiri people and saying they are being funded by Pakistan....

By the same examples you have given to Hyderabad and Junagarh , the ruler of kashmir had no right to go against majority of Muslim population and he did which is totally utterly unrealistic and childish move which now leads to administrative,economic,bureaucratic,social and political problems in kashmir.....

I hope you got the actual picture and dont always see that side of coin which you like.... see the other side too....
In one case for like head side of coin and on other tail (coz thats what suits your needs)

Innocent people are suffering so please see both sides of coin...