Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Flintlock]

it's nice to see your points on the other "separatists" hotspots, yet you basically have nothing to say for Kashmir, except that Islam is the problem.

Muslim Kashmiris resented the dogra rule which went against their religious rights. From this, we can most certainly assume that the Kashmiri people wanted to retain their religious ideology.

On what basis are you saying that Kashmiris resented Dogra rule?

Obviously, Kashmiris want to retain their religious ideology....which is Islam...and India isn't stopping from doing that, is it?

This is exactly why India will not hold a plebiscite, based on the fear that Kashmiris will not only break away, but will join Pakistan.

Well, the official reason is that the plebiscite applied to all of kashmir, including the Pakistani part....so if Pakistan isn't ready for it, why should India bother?

 

[Flintlock]

I also disagree with Stealth's analogies because none of the other "hot spots" has the same historical background and dynamics of kashmir - they do not have another sovereign nation arguing in favor of the separatist cause, another nation in favor of their right to self-determination ostensibly providing that right to other Kashmiris on land that it controls, another nation that has the backing of the United Nations in arguing for self-determination.

Ideologically and historically Kashmir is very different from the other situations mentioned.

Again, were India in control of the entire Kashmir valley, it would be a different story.

I"m arguing that in the long run, Pakistan will agree to make the LOC the international border.

Btw...when did Pakistan ask its kashmiris if they want to be a part of Pakistan?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I"m arguing that in the long run, Pakistan will agree to make the LOC the international border.

Btw...when did Pakistan ask its kashmiris if they want to be a part of Pakistan?

Even the solution of an "autonomous" Kashmir does pretty much that since Laddakh, Jammu and the NA's would remain in India and Pakistan respectively - but we shall have to wait and see how things work out.

We haven't made them a part of Pakistan. Its all about perceptions. We haven't integrated Kashmir into Pakistan (despite the criticism of many Kashmiris) because we hold to the policy that there needs to be an independently held plebiscite in the entire Kashmir region. We are not interested in solutions that divide Kashmir (which is what holding a plebiscite solely in AK would entail).

Officially Pakistan is ready to allow self-determination to all the Kashmiris, if India agrees - until such time they are free to live in the autonomous entity of Azad Kashmir.

From a "winning hearts and minds" perspective, India doesn't hold a candle to Pakistan's position.

 

[Flintlock]

We haven't mad them a part of Pakistan. Its all about perceptions. We haven't integrated Kashmir into Pakistan (despite the criticism of many Kashmiris) because we hold to the policy that there needs to be an independently held plebiscite in the entire Kashmir region. We are not interested in solutions that divide Kashmir (which is what holding a plebiscite solely in AK would entail).

Officially Pakistan is ready to allow self-determination to all the Kashmiris, if India agrees - until such time they are free to live in the autonomous entity of Azad Kashmir.

From a "winning hearts and minds" perspective, India doesn't hold a candle to Pakistan's position.

Really? Is Pakistan ready to give up its "Jugular Vein"?

I seriously doubt it.

If anything, Pakistan would want to keep its part, and hence its leverage, over india, as well as its border with China.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

On what basis are you saying that Kashmiris resented Dogra rule?

are you trying to imply here, that kashmiri muslims lived peacefully and obediently during the hindu raja's rule?

Obviously, Kashmiris want to retain their religious ideology....which is Islam...and India isn't stopping from doing that, is it?

It's not only islam that scares india, it's the ideology that muslims should unite with other muslims. Kashmiris would have joined Pakistan, if given the chance.

Well, the official reason is that the plebiscite applied to all of kashmir, including the Pakistani part....so if Pakistan isn't ready for it, why should India bother?

See, Pakistan is ready for it. that's why we request a plebiscite because we know that kashmiris will undoubtedly join us.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Really? Is Pakistan ready to give up its "Jugular Vein"?
I seriously doubt it.
If anything, Pakistan would want to keep its part, and hence its leverage, over india, as well as its border with China.

even if pakistan gave up the northern areas along with india giving up ladakh and so forth, it would in no way harm us. An independent kashmir would also fall into pakistan's interests. through our influence, we would have access to the chinese border and the indus river.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Really? Is Pakistan ready to give up its "Jugular Vein"?

I seriously doubt it.

If anything, Pakistan would want to keep its part, and hence its leverage, over india, as well as its border with China.

Its not about what you "think" Pakistan will give up -its what our official policy is, and that is what the Kashmiris have been hearing us advocate for years, without any major change, that the wishes of the Kashmiris must be respected, and that is the view that is projected, not analysis about jugular veins - which by the way is a self defeating argument since ceding Kashmir would only occur in case of some solution to the Kashmir dispute, which means there won't be any hostility between India and Pakistan, and hence no question of "Jugular veins".

And we are only talking about the Kashmir valley here (AK from Pakistan's side) - not the NA's or Jammu and Laddakh.

 

[Flintlock]

Its not about what you "think" Pakistan will give up -its what our official policy is, and that is what the Kashmiris have been hearing us advocate for years, without any major change, that the wishes of the Kashmiris must be respected, and that is the view that is projected, not analysis about jugular veins - which by the way is a self defeating argument since ceding Kashmir would only occur in case of some solution to the Kashmir dispute, which means there won't be any hostility between India and Pakistan, and hence no question of "Jugular veins".

As far as I know, different Pakistani leaders have taken different stands over the years.

The policy has changed from all-out invasion, to militancy, to cover terrorist acts, to assertions that Kashmir is an integral part of Pakistan.
Musharraf had his own policy, but he didn't last long enough to put anything into practice.

What India says is this: As long as Pakistan supports terrorism in Kashmir, India doesn't trust the sincerety of Pakistan.
Remember, Pakistan tried to (covertly) invade Kashmir as recently as 1999. In sucha scenario, how is India supposed to trust her?

Maybe I'm not updated as far as the official pakistan policy is concerned.
Can you tell me what Zardari and Nawaz Sharif have to say on the issue?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As far as I know, different Pakistani leaders have taken different stands over the years.

The policy has changed from all-out invasion, to militancy, to cover terrorist acts, to assertions that Kashmir is an integral part of Pakistan.
Musharraf had his own policy, but he didn't last long enough to put anything into practice.

Maybe I'm not updated as far as the official pakistan policy is concerned.
Can you tell me what Zardari and Nawaz Sharif have to say on the issue?

Prime Minister Gillani (not Zardari or Nawas Sharif)

May 1 (Bloomberg) -- Pakistan wants ``result-oriented'' talks with India on the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir, the main issue of dispute between the South Asian neighbors, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani said.

``We want friendly relations with all countries, including India,'' the official Associated Press of Pakistan cited Gillani as saying during a visit yesterday to Muzaffarabad, capital of the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir.
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Regardless of the tactics Pakistan has utilized, Pakistan's position has always been the same:

A settlement to the Kashmir issue won't be viable unless it addresses the aspirations of the Kashmiri people, he said.

That position articulated above has been constant, and that is where we win the battle over "hearts and minds".

 

[Flintlock]

And we are only talking about the Kashmir valley here (AK from Pakistan's side) - not the NA's or Jammu and Laddakh.

BTW, wasn't the plebiscite supposed to apply to the entire kashmir, including

Ladakh, Jammu and Aksai Chin?

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

As far as I know, different Pakistani leaders have taken different stands over the years.

The policy has changed from all-out invasion, to militancy, to cover terrorist acts, to assertions that Kashmir is an integral part of Pakistan.
Musharraf had his own policy, but he didn't last long enough to put anything into practice.

Pakistan's policy has pretty much been the same, support for a plebiscite or just plain independence.

What India says is this: As long as Pakistan supports terrorism in Kashmir, India doesn't trust the sincerety of Pakistan.
Remember, Pakistan tried to (covertly) invade Kashmir as recently as 1999. In sucha scenario, how is India supposed to trust her?

Maybe I'm not updated as far as the official pakistan policy is concerned.
Can you tell me what Zardari and Nawaz Sharif have to say on the issue?

I seriously doubt pakistan would have invaded kashmir in kargil to annex the entire region. No air support or naval battle occurred, it was far from a full-out war which would really determine the fate of kashmir.

India forced junagadh to hold a plebiscite, they pretty much got what they wanted. Is it not hypocrisy, india does not apply the same to kashmir?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What India says is this: As long as Pakistan supports terrorism in Kashmir, India doesn't trust the sincerety of Pakistan.
Remember, Pakistan tried to (covertly) invade Kashmir as recently as 1999. In sucha scenario, how is India supposed to trust her?

I think this question of trust is an essential one to address. Pakistan has taken "non-diplomatic" measures because it believes India doesn't really want to address the issue.

You said it yourself, "we will stay in Kashmir until we can integrate the population, and then if we fail we might come back to discuss" (paraphrasing your comments).

With positions like that, there really is no reason for Pakistan to trust India's sincerity, and it obviates the need for diplomacy and dialog since your position indicates that you are engaging in diplomacy only to waste time, not for finding solutions.

 

[Flintlock]

Regardless of the tactics Pakistan has utilized, Pakistan's position has always been the same:

That's not true. Pakistan used to insist that Kashmir belongs to it...I'm not sure about how and when the position changed, but it did change.

Also, regardless of the name "Azad Kashmir" , AK isn't exactly free in any sense of the word.
Technically, Indian kashmir is a lot more free than the Pakistani one.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

BTW, wasn't the plebiscite supposed to apply to the entire kashmir, including

Ladakh, Jammu and Aksai Chin?

This is one of the solutions advocated, that seems more feasible than a full plebiscite, since amount of territory that would be potentially lost by either side will be minimal, and not bear any major strategic implications.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

the point is stealth, as you and some other indian members have mentioned before, India will not let go of territory. It simply comes down to plain force, yet the point of this discussion is to brush off any ridiculous bollywood claims that kashmiris are in favour for india.

for the future I see ahead, Pakistan and India will continue to support insurgencies against each other. the question arises, "can pakistan take over kashmir?"

Well, we'll just have to see in the future. pakistan is now in danger against a far more powerful force on our other side of the border. Will pakistan be able to withstand the pressure?