What's new

Kashmir is Pakistan!

A.Rafay

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
11,400
Reaction score
10
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Kashmir dispute is a bone of contention between Pakistan and India. If the Indian Illegally Occupied Kashmir (IIOK) was a part of India, then what is the issue? Nevertheless, the dispute is that Kashmir, which should have been part of Pakistan, is illegally occupied by India.
A recent statement issued by Pakistan’s Interior Ministry, reportedly, equates Kashmir and other troubled regions in India with Balochistan; it is, indeed, despicable. Whether it was a misstatement or misunderstanding is unknown. However, it is culpable; the statement needs to be clarified. The Kashmiri freedom fighters cannot be equated with militants of different hues in Indo-Pakistan or elsewhere.
Firstly, the IIOK (about two thirds as one-third was liberated in the 1948 Kashmir war) is the leftover legacy of 1947. The ‘unfinished’ business of partition - the main dispute between Pakistan and India is Kashmir and its river waters.
People: The Kashmiri people are akin to Pakistanis. Their right to join Pakistan was to be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial UN sponsored plebiscite, which is tragically denied till date.
Geography: From a geographical viewpoint, a look at the map confirms Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. In the imperfect partition of 1947, the regions of Pathankot-Gurdaspur were mischievously taken by India. Otherwise, India would have had no access or land routes to Kashmir. It would have simply been part of Pakistan.
River Waters: Pakistan’s river waters emanate from Kashmir. Without water, Pakistan’s agriculture, and perhaps demography, is simply not sustainable. India on account of its size and diversity has other water sources, but Pakistan has none! The next war may be a water war. A peaceful solution to a nuclear conflagration is in everybody’s interest.
Secondly, Kashmiris have been struggling against the Indian tyranny since 1947. Historically, their freedom movement has much earlier roots. The Kashmiri freedom fighters are waging a just struggle for national liberation. India’s plans to equate Kashmir with the militants was facilitated by the 9/11 terrorism syndrome. The freedom fighters include not only men, but also women and children. India has been inflicting all sorts of atrocities on the hapless Kashmiris.
The Indian forces, reportedly, committed genocide by killing thousands of Kashmiris. An estimated over 25,000 Kashmiri women have been raped or injured by them. Widows in Kashmir are in thousands, while children have suffered the most. By repeating the mantra of ‘cross-border terrorism’, India has tried to blame Pakistan for its crimes in Kashmir. Mass graves of over 2,000 people have been discovered in Kashmir. Yet, the flame of freedom cannot be extinguished, since the Kashmiris don’t want to be a part of India.
The question, however, is: how can the Indian government commit such excesses and claim Kashmir to be its toot ang? Even worse, how can Pakistan forsake the support to Kashmiris for the sake of keeping New Delhi in good humour?
Thirdly, Pakistan’s Kashmir policy has not changed. Nor can it be changed for anyone, including some ill-informed government officials. The reason is simply that Kashmir is not a part of India. In case, anyone has doubts, a referendum can be held in Pakistan on Kashmir being given to India. In a democratic Pakistan, the people decide on key national issues - Kashmir being primary. The people and soldiers of Pakistan are nationalistic and believe that Kashmir has to return to Pakistan. And no sane political leader in Pakistan will relent on the Kashmir cause, as complete national consensus prevails.
Finally, all kinds of stratagems have been tried, but failed to break the will of Kashmiri people. India has fought numerous wars, near wars and even risked nuclear exchange with Pakistan over Kashmir. The world is partly aware of the Kashmiris’ plight and needs to be further galvanised. India supported militants in Balochistan partly as a ‘Strategy of Deflection’ to embroil Pakistan on its Western borders. Else to equate trouble in Balochistan with Kashmir. Hoping to achieve leverage or quid pro quo, New Delhi strives to equate Pakistan’s internal matters with India-Pakistan interstate disputes.
The tragedy of Kashmir cannot be neglected for long, nor is there any viable solution other than the withdrawal of all Indian security forces from Kashmir. The Kashmiris want freedom from India and will settle for nothing less. Pakistan and the world at large must support their right of self-determination. The US, which stands for human rights, should support the Kashmiri people’s struggle for freedom.
Pakistan and India need to resolve the Kashmir dispute on priority basis, rather than relegate it for a later, albeit explosive, timeframe. It is just a matter of time before the Kashmiri people will be masters of their own destiny.

The writer is a retired brigadier and has authored a book titled Gwadar on the Global Chessboard.Blog: wwwpakistangeopolitics.blogspot.com

Kashmir is Pakistan! | The Nation
 
.
Looking at the map, Kashmir belongs to Pakistan :lol:

Kashmir people are akin to pak

Author can say anything under the sun, but Kashmir is legally acceded to India.
 
. .
LOC=international border

or
give kashmir independance
 
. .
Typical dribble from Pakistan's Executive with no "on the ground action", or sincerity for the people of Kashmir. And no, Kashmir isn't Pakistan -- it belongs to the Kashmiri people, something that the UN Resolutions touted by Pakistan state as well.

Looking at the map, Kashmir belongs to Pakistan :lol:

Kashmir people are akin to pak

Author can say anything under the sun, but Kashmir is legally acceded to India.

India is also a democracy, and the right to self determination is an integral part of democracy (that and free thought, expression, political freedom) -- all this is denied in Kashmir. Also, the Maharaja of Kashmir expressly wished for the people of Kashmir to choose their future.

If all India has is a half-assed legal argument that wouldn't stand up in a proper Court of Law, that which was signed under duress, then that is a very weak argument. Furthermore, it is documented substantially that the military of Gilgit Baltistan rebelled against the Maharaja, hence, the people rejected the rule of a tyrant, and if India truly was a democracy, it would have accepted that.
 
. .
Typical dribble from Pakistan's Executive with no "on the ground action", or sincerity for the people of Kashmir. And no, Kashmir isn't Pakistan -- it belongs to the Kashmiri people, something that the UN Resolutions touted by Pakistan state as well.

India is also a democracy, and the right to self determination is an integral part of democracy (that and free thought, expression, political freedom) -- all this is denied in Kashmir. Also, the Maharaja of Kashmir expressly wished for the people of Kashmir to choose their future.

If all India has is a half-assed legal argument that wouldn't stand up in a proper Court of Law, that which was signed under duress, then that is a very weak argument. Furthermore, it is documented substantially that the military of Gilgit Baltistan rebelled against the Maharaja, hence, the people rejected the rule of a tyrant, and if India truly was a democracy, it would have accepted that.

No action on the ground ?

What was 47-48 , Op gibraltar, 65,71, active insurgency in 80's etc ?

Pak has tried everything - and failed.

As rgds Indian right to self determination, its within the ambit of the Indian Constitution only. That has been exercised repeated by the ppl of J&K during national & state elections.

If the legal document wouldn't have stood in a court of law wouldn't have Pak tried it so far ?
 
.
No action on the ground ?

What was 47-48 , Op gibraltar, 65?

Pak has tried everything - and failed.

Who told you this Mr genius, your dreams or indian education system? Pakistan had crushed india in 48, 65 & 99 wars.

As rgds Indian right to self determination, its within the ambit of the Indian Constitution only. That has been exercised repeated by the ppl of J&K during national & state elections.

If the legal document wouldn't have stood in a court of law wouldn't have Pak tried it so far ?

Voting in elections doesn't mean that it is right of self determination, when Subcontinent was British Colony people used to fight for their right of self determination & at the same time vote too. As for your constitution, it is NOT valid in IOK/Maqbooza Kashmir because IOK/Maqbooza Kashmir is illegally occupied & is disputed territory.
 
.
Who told you this Mr genius, your dreams or indian education system? Pakistan had crushed india in 48, 65 & 99 wars.

Voting in elections doesn't mean that it is right of self determination, when Subcontinent was British Colony people used to fight for their right of self determination & at the same time vote too. As for your constitution, it is NOT valid in IOK/Maqbooza Kashmir because IOK/Maqbooza Kashmir is illegally occupied & is disputed territory.

Well, if you believe what you have written then why are you cribbing in post No 6 of ' no action on the ground ' by Pak. Thats what I wrote - Pak tried & failed,

If India was ' crushed ' then it must be the 1st example of a nation crushed in a war and still holding on to disputed territory which the aggressor wanted.

As regds the elections , in India things change only through the ballot.

J&K is India so this applies to J&K as well . If someone has a problem..its his problem.

India is happy with what it has & covets no more.
 
.
No action on the ground ?

What was 47-48 , Op gibraltar, 65,71, active insurgency in 80's etc ?

Pak has tried everything - and failed.

As rgds Indian right to self determination, its within the ambit of the Indian Constitution only. That has been exercised repeated by the ppl of J&K during national & state elections.

If the legal document wouldn't have stood in a court of law wouldn't have Pak tried it so far ?

It's clear you haven't read my post, Pakistan has repeatedly -- like India -- invaded Kashmir for its own, imperialist aims. The reference to "no action on the ground" was the empowerment of Kashmiris, to exercise their right to self determination.

The insurgency -- which began in the 70s, mind you -- was originally started by Kashmiri Nationalists, the JKLF and its leader, Maqbool Bhatt. It was then later hijacked by the ISI through the usage of extremist elements.

You cannot compare an election at the local level to a referenda, you're missing the idea of democracy right there. A referenda is an issue to decide on a single issue -- I expect the Scots all want to be Brits since they vote in elections, right? Wrong, that's why there's a referenda for 2014, to decide on their future. The argument you make is a weak one with a warped version of democracy.

"The Indian Constitution" does not cater for self determination, nor is it an integral part to Indian Policy making -- if it was, why are the rights of these so-called 'Indians' being trampled on by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act?

And woah there, buddy. Notice how I said proper court -- an Indian, nor Pakistani court, would be "proper" -- bias would exist in both cases, at an extreme level. From a historical perspective, the UN has de-facto rejected the Instrument of Accession, through resolutions calling for the right to self determination to be exercised. That said, the International Courts have only been around for just over a decade or so.

I don't see why I'm defending Pakistan here, though, you're just as bad as each other when it comes to political freedom.

And pakistan 0ccupied kashmir is our's !!

:coffee:

I welcome you to take it any time you wish. Don't worry, we'll all be there with a few 'firecrackers' for what I am sure, would be an eventful welcome. :sniper:
 
.
It's clear you haven't read my post, Pakistan has repeatedly -- like India -- invaded Kashmir for its own, imperialist aims. The reference to "no action on the ground" was the empowerment of Kashmiris, to exercise their right to self determination.

The insurgency -- which began in the 70s, mind you -- was originally started by Kashmiri Nationalists, the JKLF and its leader, Maqbool Bhatt. It was then later hijacked by the ISI through the usage of extremist elements.

You cannot compare an election at the local level to a referenda, you're missing the idea of democracy right there. A referenda is an issue to decide on a single issue -- I expect the Scots all want to be Brits since they vote in elections, right? Wrong, that's why there's a referenda for 2014, to decide on their future. The argument you make is a weak one with a warped version of democracy.

"The Indian Constitution" does not cater for self determination, nor is it an integral part to Indian Policy making -- if it was, why are the rights of these so-called 'Indians' being trampled on by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act?

And woah there, buddy. Notice how I said proper court -- an Indian, nor Pakistani court, would be "proper" -- bias would exist in both cases, at an extreme level. From a historical perspective, the UN has de-facto rejected the Instrument of Accession, through resolutions calling for the right to self determination to be exercised. That said, the International Courts have only been around for just over a decade or so.

I don't see why I'm defending Pakistan here, though, you're just as bad as each other when it comes to political freedom.

Well since you are making a point against India and Pakistan you need to revise the history part.

back in 47 the erstwhile princely states had only two option - India or Pak.

Independence simply wasnt an option.

Therefore it had to be India or Pak.

Hope this helps
 
.
Well, if you believe what you have written then why are you cribbing in post No 6 of ' no action on the ground ' by Pak. Thats what I wrote - Pak tried & failed,

If India was ' crushed ' then it must be the 1st example of a nation crushed in a war and still holding on to disputed territory which the aggressor wanted.

What you indians don't realise is that in 65 war Pakistan has liberated many parts of Kashmir whereas india did a clear violation & attacked Pakistan crossing legally marked borders gaining few areas in Punjab & Sind, even when Pakistan had almost no army force in Punjab at the start of war still it had pushed indian forces not only back into their territory but capturing few parts also. Later at Tashkent deal, Pakistan & india both agreed to move to pre-65 controlled areas. 48 is visible victory even now, 7 districts of Kashmir are called Azad Kashmir.

As regds the elections , in India things change only through the ballot.

J&K is India so this applies to J&K as well . If someone has a problem..its his problem.

India is happy with what it has & covets no more.

IOK/Maqbooza Kashmir is not part of india it is Occupied territory & disputed, so rest all your post makes no sense.
 
.
Looking at the map, Kashmir belongs to Pakistan :lol:

Kashmir people are akin to pak

Author can say anything under the sun, but Kashmir is legally acceded to India.


Mate looking at the map India belongs to pakistan :woot:

What you indians don't realise is that in 65 war Pakistan has liberated many parts of Kashmir whereas india did a clear violation & attacked Pakistan crossing legally marked borders gaining few areas in Punjab & Sind, even when Pakistan had almost no army force in Punjab at the start of war still it had pushed indian forces not only back into their territory but capturing few parts also. Later at Tashkent deal, Pakistan & india both agreed to move to pre-65 controlled areas. 48 is visible victory even now, 7 districts of Kashmir are called Azad Kashmir.



IOK/Maqbooza Kashmir is not part of india it is Occupied territory & disputed, so rest all your post makes no sense.

Biggest comedy... if pakistan attacks it is called 'liberation', when india counter attacks, its international aggression and violation :P
This is more definition of hypocricy...
 
.
What you indians don't realise is that in 65 war Pakistan has liberated many parts of Kashmir whereas india did a clear violation & attacked Pakistan crossing legally marked borders gaining few areas in Punjab & Sind, even when Pakistan had almost no army force in Punjab at the start of war still it had pushed indian forces not only back into their territory but capturing few parts also. Later at Tashkent deal, Pakistan & india both agreed to move to pre-65 controlled areas. 48 is visible victory even now, 7 districts of Kashmir are called Azad Kashmir.

IOK/Maqbooza Kashmir is not part of india it is Occupied territory & disputed, so rest all your post makes no sense.

Which parts of J&K were ' liberated' in 65 other than Chamb where the IA fell back from ??? Pak reached almost upto Akhnoor & fell back when pressure was put on Lahore.

India sees J&K as India. Therefore if India is attacked it reserves the perogative to counter attack at any place of its chosing - some thing Pak learnt the hard way.

As regards 48, India couldnt have stepped in till Hari Singh signed on the dotted line. India does not covet what Pak has - no anymore now. Pak is welcome to the 7 distts.

J&K is India and so shall it remain. It makes perfect sense to us Indians - thats why its been like this since accession.

The rest of the world will have to reconcile to this.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom