Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Flintlock]

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).

Well yeah, its a perfectly reasonable position.

If Kashmir returns to normalcy and development takes place, then there is no need to change things.

However, if things don't work out as planned, (and Pakistan isn't involved in any of the trouble) then India will consider a different option.

Its a far better position than "We'll pretend to care about kashmiris while we covertly send over Afghan fighters to bomb them"

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.

The fact is, that all the while when India was "wasting time", so was Pakistan.

I ask this: If Pakistan was so sincere about giving freedom to Kashmir, why didn't it apply these principles to iAK?

Besides, by creating unrest and distrust in the valley, it didn't allow India the chance to integrate the valley at all.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

When did the UN resolutions first mandate a plebiscite? I can't remember off hand.

I refer to AK as "autonomous", which it is to a large part - and your argument over "free Indian Kashmir" is one of technicalities, since the population regards any control under India as "occupation".

What they have are "rights", not freedom. But this discussion (anout which side is more free) is somewhat tangential - it is the perception and official position of each country that matters.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

i think i should leave now, i'm started to look like a freak who has no life. Look at how much posts I have.

 

[Flintlock]

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?

The point is, that Pakistan doesn't want Kashmir to be a part of India, and it has tried to wrest the region by hook or crook.

As far as I'm concerned, India hasn't supported any insurgencies in Paksitan to any appreciable degree.

If Pakistan continues to terrorize Kashmir, as I said earlier, India will simply clamp down harder and all opportunity will be lost.

Do you realize, that at this moment, formally pro-India parties are actually talking about separatism? This is true freedom of speech. I wonder if Pakistan has been able to offer this to any of its insurgency-ridden territories.

You have to realize that Pakistan can't "wrest" kashmir from India. India is too strong for that.

So IMO, the most viable option is to move towards making Loc the border.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well yeah, its a perfectly reasonable position.

If Kashmir returns to normalcy and development takes place, then there is no need to change things.

Its disputed territory tat has divided a people - there needs to be a resolution to this dispute, You can't pretend it doesn't exist.

However, if things don't work out as planned, (and Pakistan isn't involved in any of the trouble) then India will consider a different option.

Its a far better position than "We'll pretend to care about kashmiris while we covertly send over Afghan fighters to bomb them"

You can "improve things" once the kashmiris vote to be part of you. Till then why should we accept illegal Indian occupation of disputed territory, where India refuses to implement UNSC resolutions?

I ask this: If Pakistan was so sincere about giving freedom to Kashmir, why didn't it apply these principles to iAK?

They are applied to an extent, they have autonomy and we are committed to giving them the right to self-determination as soon as India agrees. We cannot however pull out troops since that would mean that India would simply takeover.

Withdrawing troops and giving Kashmiris true freedom has to be part of a negotiated move between India and Pakistan.

Besides, by creating unrest and distrust in the valley, it didn't allow India the chance to integrate the valley at all.

We don't recognize the territory as Indian. What we saw was a forcible attempt by the Indian military to subjugate the population and we were supporting a freedom movement against that subjugation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Do you realize, that at this moment, formally pro-India parties are actually talking about separatism? This is true freedom of speech. I wonder if Pakistan has been able to offer this to any of its insurgency-ridden territories.

Actually yes - Baluch and Sindhi nationalists are now also voicing similar "soft separatism" (provincial autonomy only - so a little different from Kashmir) claims.

But this argument is getting circular Stealth.

The trust issue remains on both sides. Eventually two democratic governments will have to get together and decide what policy to pursue in the greater interest of the Kashmiris and South Asia.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

i think i should leave now, i'm started to look like a freak who has no life. Look at how much posts I have.

lol - that doesn't say much about me ...

I should leave too

A week off before classes start again so not much to do.

 

[Flintlock]

When did the UN resolutions first mandate a plebiscite? I can't remember off hand.

Neither do I....but this isn't about UN resolutions.

I vividly remember watching the "Jugular vein" speech by ZA Bhutto, which is why I don't buy the idea that Pakistan has always supported Kashmiri freedom.

I refer to AK as "autonomous", which it is to a large part - and your argument over "free Indian Kashmir" is one of technicalities, since the population regards any control under India as "occupation".

Oh and wait...you forgot a technicality:

"Azad Kashmir" is only a tiny part of the Pakistani region. The other huge part, called Northern Areas is directly under Pakistani rule.

Also there's the Trans-Karakoram tract, which Pakistan has gifted to China, further weakning its moral standing.

Maybe you are right...the Kashmiri separatists perhaps consider Pakistan the more favourable party....but that is only because of religion. Not because of any ground realities.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

The Freedom in the World 2006 report categorized the Indian-administered Kashmir as "partly free", and Pakistan-administered Kashmir as well as the country of Pakistan "not free".

What they have are "rights", not freedom. But this discussion (anout which side is more free) is somewhat tangential - it is the perception and official position of each country that matters.

That is perhaps the perception in the kashmir valley. But I believe that is mainly due to the rise of religious extremism, and the pathetic and unsafe conditions in the valley.

I think if Kashmiris are allowed a period of peace and development, they will change their minds.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Hari Singh appealed to the Indian government for military assistance and fled to India. He signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding Kashmir to India on October 26.

Indian and Pakistani forces thus fought their first war over Kashmir in 1947-48. India referred the dispute to the United Nations on 1 January. In a resolution dated August 13, 1948, the UN asked Pakistan to remove its troops, after which India was also to withdraw the bulk of its forces.
A brief history of the Kashmir conflict - Telegraph

 

[mujahideen]

Hari Singh appealed to the Indian government for military assistance and fled to India. He signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding Kashmir to India on October 26.
Indian and Pakistani forces thus fought their first war over Kashmir in 1947-48. India referred the dispute to the United Nations on 1 January. In a resolution dated August 13, 1948, the UN asked Pakistan to remove its troops, after which India was also to withdraw the bulk of its forces.
A brief history of the Kashmir conflict - Telegraph

Hyderabad and Jundagh also aceded to Pakistan, we mustn't forget this when talking about this conflict. Now as far withdrawing troops. Pakistan is partically outnumbered by Indian troops. The ratio is probably like 10 to 1 in India's favour(numbers of the top of my head). It must be noted Pakistan did start to move its troops back but in return India made no witdrawal. Now we or anyone else cant leave the field open, especially in a situation like this.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Acceded?

Any Instruments of Accession?

As far as Junagadh is concerned, have you read the Dewan Bhutto's letter?

 

[mujahideen]

Acceded?
Any Instruments of Accession?
As far as Junagadh is concerned, have you read the Dewan Bhutto's letter?

You cant deny it. Jundagh had officially acceded to Pakistan. Hyderabad was on the verge of agreeing to accede to Pakistan when India invaded. Hyderabad put in a complain at the U.N. which till date is pending their.
Would you like to post this letter you talk of please, I would just like to read it before further advancing my arguement.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

You cant deny it. Jundagh had officially acceded to Pakistan. Hyderabad was on the verge of agreeing to accede to Pakistan when India invaded. Hyderabad put in a complain at the U.N. which till date is pending their.
Would you like to post this letter you talk of please, I would just like to read it before further advancing my arguement.

Instrument of Accession is what each princely state gave.

Hyderabad and Junagad only expressed intent.

Hyderabad put in a complaint to the UN?

The letter, by the Dewan of Junagad, has been posted earlier on this forum. Google and you shall find.

 

[mujahideen]

Instrument of Accession is what each princely state gave.
Hyderabad and Junagad only expressed intent.
Hyderabad out in a complaint to the UN?
The letter, by the Dewan of Junagad, has been posted earlier on this forum. Google and you shall find.

Hyderabad expressed intent, but Jundagh's Instrument of accession was recieved signed and officially it was a part of Pakistan.
Hyderabad made a complaint that its territory was under attack by India. But when the government fell their was no one their to defend Hyderabad, but nonetheless the resulotion is still pending their.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

It may interest you to know that the Nizam signed the Instrument of Accession to India.

Junagad's signing the Instrument of Accession to Pakistan is news to me and Goggling has thrown up no indication that such an Instrument was signed.