Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Hulk]

This is acceptence that they support terrorist otherwise what does he mean by it.

 

[Novice09]

We lost the best chance in 1971 to resolve J&K issue at our own terms.

Now, both sides have just two options:

1. Talks
2. War

I'll prefer 1st option since war will result in doom for both (winner and looser).

 

[EjazR]

I don't agree that India is happy with status quo on kashmir. Although it can afford to do so, it is unwise and counterproductive. There are every day reports of 'quiet diplomacy' and now 'withdrawal of troops' and 'autonomy proposals' which show that there is considerable movement there. Sartaj Aziz the Pakistani negotiater on Kashmir had mentioned that broad contours are already in place for the solution. And Mushrraf and MMS both have said that they were very close to a solution before his ouster because of his frankly speaking stupid mistakes.

So this makes me think that at a politcal level there is considerable movement happening. The end result should be open or blurring of borders for people of J&K as MMS said. Although it is going to be a long time in the making before that happens. At a time when countries around the world are blurring borders and willingly joining and giving up soverignity around the world to form economic unions like EU, ASEAN GCC e.t.c., it would be a step backwards if we in south asia end up going in the opposite way.

 

[EjazR]

Backdoor channel diplomacy on Kashmir issue made headway: Kasuri - GEO.tv

Updated at: 2348 PST, Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Backdoor channel diplomacy on Kashmir issue made headway: Kasuri LAHORE: Former foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri said Wednesday that progress was made on the Kashmir issue through backdoor channel diplomacy.

Speaking at a forum held on Pakistan-India ties, he said that the issue would head toward solution whenever the situation between the two countries improved.

On the other hand, he noted that corruptions on part of the rulers had left negative implications on the national morale. Pakistan have many internal and external enemies, he said, adding that time was not right for being emotional.

Kasuri further observed that India could not wage war with Pakistan directly but it could increase its infiltration in FATA and Balochistan.

 

[Pro Pak]

This forum has nothing to do with Pakistan.

It is a mouth piece for Ultra Secular ex-pakistani traitors.

The proper name of this forum should be ZIONIST INDIAN FORUM.

The mods and admin has nothing to do with Islam and Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This forum has nothing to do with Pakistan.

It is a mouth piece for Ultra Secular ex-pakistani traitors.

The proper name of this forum should be ZIONIST INDIAN FORUM.

The mods and admin has nothing to do with Islam and Pakistan.

If you don't like the forum then don't post here - otherwise stay on topic and follow the rules.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

At a time when countries around the world are blurring borders and willingly joining and giving up soverignity around the world to form economic unions like EU, ASEAN GCC e.t.c., it would be a step backwards if we in south asia end up going in the opposite way.

Economic unions and greater cooperation cannot come about while disputes fester and a sense of injustice prevails - to not resolve these disputes and talk of 'economic unions' and the like is to put the cart before the horse.

If the people of various nations perceive unions as being in their interest then unions will happen regardless of whether territorial disputes are settled one way or another - South Asia is not Europe, the wounds are too fresh and the disputes still fester and the nations too young to give up sovereignty as part of a union any time soon. Settling Kashmir by allowing the Kashmiris in some way to exercise their right to self determination in some format, even if a decade down the line, is the moral solution.

Irfan Hussein's observations in his recent column on how the youth in both nations is in fact becoming more antagonistic and viewing the other side with even more hostility bears out my point about how a lack of progress on dispute resolution is not going to smooth the way for broader engagement.

 

[EjazR]

@AM
When I referred to moving forward in the EU context, I was mainly referring to the non-viability of the emergence of an independent Kashmir valley state (as these are the people that mostly want it). They can’t survive without economic integration with their neighbours, so having a nominal independence surrounded by three nuclear powers would hardly solve their problem. Although ofcourse the same argument applies to wider SAARC region.

Was it not just 60 odd years ago that the people Germany and Italy were humiliated with a crushing defeat? Infact, Germany was divided and under de-facto occupation of western powers and USSR till 1991. The Europeans killed millions of their people not in some unplanned riots that states were trying to control but with state sanctioned intentions and modern weapons of all kinds. Their wounds and our wounds are equally fresh or old and brutal. And when Germany was finally getting united, there were apprehensions that the Germans would turn back into a militaristic state but they didn’t. It’s about thinking with a vision towards the future.

Pakistan can’t succeed without economic co-operation with its neigbour region and neither can India achieve its true potential by having an antagonistic Pakistan. Just because the youth on both sides don’t “think” this way doesn’t change this fact. That is why IPI and TAPI are important to having joint stake hold of peace in the region. Same goes for upholding the Indus Water Treaty for example. This is how “antagonistic thoughts” will be changed. What I am talking about is long term, say 2 -3 decades in the future obviously with progressively improving relations and resolution of outstanding disputes.

 

[toxic_pus]

Hogwash - you need to actually pay better attention to the UNSC resolutions:

PART II​

TRUCE AGREEMENT

Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.

1. (l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavor to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

========

As you can clearly see above, the withdrawal of the Tribesmen (whose presence in J&K any more I am not aware of) was also contingent on the tripartite negotiations mentioned.

BS. You have just rehashed your same-size-fits-all argument of 'tripartite negotiation'.

Part II.A had limited application and was meant for the immediate aftermath of cease fire. Part II.B on the other hand lays down the conditions for withdrawal of Indian troops which, in no uncertain terms, state that removal of 'tribesmen and citizens' has to be completed, before India even agrees to reduce its troop strength. The reason was simple. India had complained that the presence of 'tribesmen and Pakistani citizens' had necessitated mobilization of Indian troops in Kashmir. If these 'citizens' were withdrawn, it would mean that the situation had diffused. Therefore, the need for Indian troops to stay in Kashmir would cease. The process of demilitarization could then begin.

In fact, India had made it clear to Frank Graham, who was responsible to formulate the demilitarization plan (not Owen Dixon, btw), that India needed more troops in the valley, than it was proposed in the plan of demilitarization, because of the presence of these 'citizens', almost all of whom were armed, and a significant number of whom were even trained and formed a part of 'Azad Kashmir force'.

So why didn't Pakistan agree to withdraw its 'tribesmen and citizens', which clearly would have weakened India's position? Why didn't Pakistan 'negotiate' on this particular issue? A better question would be, what did Pakistan expect to negotiate with India, with regard to withdrawal of its own 'citizens'?

And Owen Dixon's report does lay the blame on India's doorstep, and that position is in fact validated by Indian analysts as well, who try to justify that obstructionism by arguing that any thing aside from the Indian position of a unilateral, unconditional withdrawal by Pakistan would be tantamount to 'rewarding' Pakistani aggression.

Owen Dixon's comments, that you so love to quote every once in a while, were made after the talks with Nehru and Liaquat failed. That was not the end of negotiations though. It was only after this failure, Dixon came up with the concept of 'partial plebiscite' on Nehru's advice. That failed, because Dixon wanted to dismiss Abdullah's elected government, in the event of 'partial plebiscite'. Thats another topic. Maybe some other time.

'Unilateral, unconditional' withdrawal of Pakistani forces is a matter of technicality which GoI officially maintains to this day. In reality, while negotiating with Dr Frank Graham, India had agreed to his plans of demilitarization, provided Pakistan removed all its armed 'citizens' and disarmed 'Azad Kashmir' force. Else India be allowed to retain a higher number of troops in Kashmir, along with 'artillery and armour'.

So once again: What stopped Pakistan from withdrawing its own 'citizens' from Kashmir, when clearly UN had recognized that only the withdrawal of 'tribesmen and Pakistani citizens' would be considered as the cessation of the situation requiring the presence of Indian troops in Kashmir? Answer to this will also lead to the original question that I had asked earlier - has Kashmir resorted back to the pre-conflict situation, that a plebiscite could be held?

 

[EjazR]

Rising Kashmir, Daily Newspaper, Srinagar Jammu and Kashmir - Delhi ready to discuss self-determination, says PC

Srinagar, Dec 02: Admitting that there was a remarkable reduction in violence across J&K during 2009, Union Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram Wednesday said government of India was ready to discuss even the demand for right of self-determination. Speaking to the Parliament on Wednesday Chidambaram disclosed that a substantial number of troops would be withdrawn from J&K as a mark of confidence building measure.

“Some groups have put forth a demand for self determination or self rule. However, I feel that a lot of water has flown under the bridge since 1947. So, I don’t think the Government should shy away from talks only because some groups have put forth certain kind of demands.” Without disclosing who amongst the separatist groups had asked for self-determination, Chidambaram said, "At the appropriate stage, I will share with the House the contours of the settlement that may emerge. I cannot share details of the talks at this moment.”
Asked if J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah too shared the Centre's perception of having "quiet talks", he said, “I think I know Omar Abdullah's position. We are on the same page.”

The Home Minister’s remarks came just days after Omar, in a shift of stand, favoured triangular talks among India, Pakistan and separatist leadership.

Omar had also offered to be a facilitator if militant outfit Hizbul Mujahideen wanted to come to the negotiating table.
Chidambaram said that Centre will withdraw a significant number of security personnel from Jammu and Kashmir.

The move to withdraw forces is the result of a substantial improvement in the security situation in the state, Chidambaram informed the Rajya Sabha.

Gradually, the handling of law and order in the state will be handed over to the police, he added.

The Home Minister said that the incidents of violence in Jammu and Kashmir have been lowest this year. “Problems in J&K are not over; there is still infiltration, but we have given more and more duties to the state police,” he said.

 

[gubbi]

We would have absorbed it after having the UN hold a plebiscite there and if it was in our favor, since Pakistanis at least are not afraid of letting the Kashmiris express their opinion in such a plebiscite.

this argument of Pakistan unilaterally satisfying conditions has been clearly shown to be Indian propaganda - creating conditions conducive to a plebiscite in Kashmir was to be arrived at through a consultative process, as mentioned in the UNSC resolutions.

No - the responsibility lies with the party that reneged on its commitment (of holding a plebiscite to determine final status) to the UNSC resolutions, to the international community, to Pakistan and most importantly to the Kashmiri people, and unilaterally and illegally annexed the section of J&K under its control.

If it werent for Pakistani aggression in '47, the Maharaja of Kashmir wouldnt have needed to ask India for help (whatever your argument of helping people there against the King's misrule are unfounded because you chose to poke your nose in another state's internal matter). Anyhow, he did agree to concede to India and not to Pakistan. The condition for India was to hold a referendum in the future. However Pakistan's aggression complicated the process and now you have only Pakistan to blame for the mess, in the region as well as for the mess it finds itself in.

The decision to pursue a political vs a violent path does not indicate that the desire for separatism is gone -
....a political process as an occupied people does not mean they want the status quo to continue - participation in the political process is a means to address daily needs such as socio-economic development etc.

That doesnt give any outside party (read Pakistan) the right to interfere in what is basically India-Kashmiri problem. It doesnt give others the right to arm people and instigate them to kill innocents in the name of "freedom struggle".
India could have followed the Chinese way (a la Tibet) of implementing socio-economic development in Kashmir, but it chose not to. Speaks a lot about the common man's desire to participate in the political process.

Heck, Indians themselves don't buy into this bunk you are selling since they continue to oppose giving Kashmiri's their right to self-determination out of fear that the Kashmiris will choose Pakistan.

You, my friend are living in a dream land if you think the Kashmiris will chose Pakistan instead of India. No way, because I know. Given a choice they will opt for freedom from both India and Pakistan, but Pakistan will not let them be, so the next best option for them is India. And might I add, apart form those brainwashed morons which some elements in Pakistani establishment support, Kashmiris are pretty satisfied.

As for Pakistan - while the desire to pursue a violent solution to Indian occupation was high Pakistan supported the Kashmiris in that struggle, but to argue that Pakistan continues to do so is the height of ignorance given the record low levels of violence and infiltration (you cannot reduce it 100% given the terrain) and the fact that the GoI has already withdrawn 15,000 troops and Chidambaram today talked of possibly significantly further reducing troops because of the peace there.

Thank the Indian forces and the Indian govt for efficiently dealing with terrorists, and not Pakistani establishment. If you are saying that Pakistan's govt had a hand in reducing this infiltration, it implies that the GoP knows something which would be very bad for Pakistan's health. Anyhow, if given a chance, or if they find an opportunity, those terrorists and their supporters would go for it with renewed vengeance.

Don't be childish. Either refute the argument or don't. The position espoused by many Indians that Kashmir is legally theirs simply because the Indian constitution says so is completely akin to the example of India trying to annex California and Texas by amending its constitution to declare them Indian states. Its an absurd argument on your part.

California/Texas do not border India, they have never asked for Indian military help against outside aggressors and they do not share a history with us.
Dont just argue for argument's sake!

Hogwash and Indian propaganda as pointed out to Toxic Pus - please read through my responses to him.

I did read that. It is not Indian propaganda. India and Pakistan went to the UN when Pakistan invaded Kashmir and failed leading to a military stalemate. had it not been for this blatant aggression against a supposedly independent state, kashmir would never have invited India. So your argument doesnt stand, you are basically beating around the bush.

It is better to give them all the rights and privileges of being a citizen, and opportunities at good governance, while also not illegally annexing the territory, than to illegally occupy and annex them as India has done, in violation of its commitment to the Kashmiris and others.

Oh and Pakistan stands exonerated of its sins? By not annexing the area but yet showing it as part of Pakistan, and hoping that they join Pakistan instead of India. Yeah, apparently give them the illusion of rights of being a citizen with no voice or representation at the central level, and yet impose your constitution and laws on the people. Very interesting. What does that tell you? What if China imposed its constitution and laws on Bangladesh without annexing it and yet giving all Bangladeshis rights (whatever little they might be) very equal to those enjoyed by Chinese citizens. Or what if Iran does that in Baluchistan?
Why this farce called "Support for Freedom Struggle" when Pakistan so badly wants Kashmir to satisfy its bruised ego?

 

[toxic_pus]

The accession was itself subject to plebiscite, indicated in Mountbatten's acceptance of the instrument of accession (as was done in Junagadh), a position that was endorsed by India's leaders repeatedly - which was never conducted, so you have no locus standi.

And the GoI took the issue to the UNSC, and accepted the recommendations issued there, which also pointed out the disputed nature of the state.

I forgot to respond to this post.

India is not legally obligated to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. There is no bipartite/tripartite agreement that binds India legally to plebiscite. Not even UN.

India's 'obligation' arises out of gesture of goodwill. Nothing more.

If annexation of Kashmir is 'illegal', please cite which law did India break.

 

[toxic_pus]

Either refute the argument or don't. The position espoused by many Indians that Kashmir is legally theirs simply because the Indian constitution says so is completely akin to the example of India trying to annex California and Texas by amending its constitution to declare them Indian states. Its an absurd argument on your part.

If the Governors of California and Texas had exercisable sovereign powers and accordingly they chose to sign an Instrument of Accession, then yes, California and Texas would have become a part of India, by simply amending Indian constitution.

Please see my responses to Toxic-Pus above - this argument of Pakistan unilaterally satisfying conditions has been clearly shown to be Indian propaganda - creating conditions conducive to a plebiscite in Kashmir was to be arrived at through a consultative process, as mentioned in the UNSC resolutions.

[...]

Hogwash and Indian propaganda as pointed out to Toxic Pus - please read through my responses to him.

At least allow your opponent to respond before doing that i-have-debunked-the-whole-world dance routine.

 

[makikirkiri]

The Sunday Telegraph (London) recently carried out a full page article on the extent of Naxals insurgency detailing that it has spread to 23 Indian States.

If you could kindly provide the links to the articles you are talking about, I could educate my poor self of the spread of naxals to "23" out of 28 indian states.

Oh if it's not misconception, it's misinformation, hell the British media is loosing all it's credibility.

Oh my!you don't need to be so hasty.may be you could enlighten me by giving references.

 

[ajpirzada]

what does mr manmohan has to say now about not goin the chinease way.....