Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Tiki Tam Tam]

AM,

There are too many post to address individually.

It was a wise move of Pakistan to not include the Northern Areas as Kashmir, even though they are a part of Kashmir. his ensured that it was not 'disputed' and beyond the purview of the UN.

On the issue or religion and ummah I have a different take.

Religion and ummah is an exercise that only the rich and those who have guaranteed two square meals a day can have the luxury to subscribe to.

In today's world where there is economic disparity, people are more concerned about their well being. It does not mean that they have forsaken religion, it is just that they have upgraded survival of their family over religion, even if marginally!

Religion can feed the soul, but not the stomach and when the stomach growls day in day out and when the mind becomes weak with the lack of food, then religion does take a second seat!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Pakistan has a notional control over Baluchistan, Northern Areas, FATA and other such areas of rebellion.

To feel that there is total peace is misplaced.

The greatest input to divide Pakistan is the Punjabis and their false superiority complex. Even Nawaz Sharif, who has hardly enough to save his 'face' is acting as if he runs the govt!!

His demand over the judges has been accepted! Who is he?

 

[IceCold]

Pakistan has a notional control over Baluchistan, Northern Areas, FATA and other such areas of rebellion.

To feel that there is total peace is misplaced.

The greatest input to divide Pakistan is the Punjabis and their false superiority complex. Even Nawaz Sharif, who has hardly enough to save his 'face' is acting as if he runs the govt!!

His demand over the judges has been accepted! Who is he?

Just one question here? all the places that you just mentioned having a freedom struggle, you might have forgot that india too faces the same in many of her parts, but what is the connection of all of this with kashmir is simply beyond understanding. How can you compare an area that india itself took to UN and accepted it as a disputed terrority with what is going on inside pakistan and also within india. If we go by your theory about the freedom struggle in baluchistan fata, falsely trying to relate it with kashmir, then those indian parts like Assam etc should also be brought under the same category.
Also when you claim about punjabis having false superiority complex, lets say for your argument sake, do you think indians dont have the same, specially upper class hindus like the brahmins towards their low class shudras.
NS has won seats in punjab and because his and PPP are the two main collation parties in forming the government, therefore its obivious that he will have a say in the politics. As for the rest in restoration of the judiciary, zardari is consulting everyone even with the PML(Q).

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Pakistan has a notional control over Baluchistan, Northern Areas, FATA and other such areas of rebellion.

To feel that there is total peace is misplaced.

The greatest input to divide Pakistan is the Punjabis and their false superiority complex. Even Nawaz Sharif, who has hardly enough to save his 'face' is acting as if he runs the govt!!

His demand over the judges has been accepted! Who is he?

not so fast, there's no need to wet your pants. Pakistan has full control over Balochistan and where did Northern Areas come from? MOD EDIT: Inappropriate language

FATA has always been traditionally under the control of the tribals, as the name suggests. that was our agreement with them then and is still now.

 

[UnitedPak]

Salim and Stealth have missed the point entirely and gone off topic again. This discussion is not about Baluchistan, but why Kashmiris shouldnt be able to decide their own future.
The argument is simple really: Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris, let them have that vote, and stop speculating on what they will vote for to deny them the vote altogether.

 

[roadrunner]

Pakistan has a notional control over Baluchistan, Northern Areas, FATA and other such areas of rebellion.

To feel that there is total peace is misplaced.

The greatest input to divide Pakistan is the Punjabis and their false superiority complex. Even Nawaz Sharif, who has hardly enough to save his 'face' is acting as if he runs the govt!!

His demand over the judges has been accepted! Who is he?

the difference between balochistan, fata, northern areas etc, and kashmir, is that the instrument of Partition was followed for balochistan, fata, and northern areas, but it was not followed for Kashmir. This would make Kashmir occupied by international law.

Even states in India have rebellions of the size going on in Balochistan, bigger in some cases. This does not mean the majority of the people want separation necessarily. The Baloch joined Pakistan fair and square under the rules of Partition, the Kashmiris did not join India though of their own free will (or even legally) as it was a land grab. Plus, they obviously don't want to live under India (and perhaps not Pakistan, but pakistan has already given them independence).

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

only the khan of Kalat, who controlled a part of balochistan wanted independence. what people don't reveal is the fact that the same Bughti tribe we know today went against this and joined pakistan. there were many other baloch tribes that chose to live as a part of pakistan, against the khanate of Kalat.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Salim and Stealth have missed the point entirely and gone off topic again. This discussion is not about Baluchistan, but why Kashmiris shouldnt be able to decide their own future.
The argument is simple really: Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris, let them have that vote, and stop speculating on what they will vote for to deny them the vote altogether.

it's because they have no argument for your posts, so they always play it off by bringing in balochistan. of course, salim mentioning northern areas is laughable.

 

[Flintlock]

FATA has always been traditionally under the control of the tribals, as the name suggests. that was our agreement with them then and is still now.

Yeah, India too made such "agreements" with the Maharajas about autonomy and privy purse and separate laws etc. etc.
Everything was scrapped when Patel decided enough is enough, if India has to survive as a single entity, it will need a single code of law, and a single code of governance.

The inability to bring FATA under rule of law isn't because of some time-honoured agreement, but because the Pakistani state was unable to do so.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan has periodically said that it supports the moral solution, while its actions have been anything but more. However, that's besides the point.

Assuming that Pakistan is willing to let go of the strategic advantage offered by occupying Kashmir, and also the fact that Kashmir probably makes up more than 10% of its territory, will Pakistan be willing to engage China in resolving the dispute regarding the areas under its occupation?

You don't have to assume - as long as Pakistan has advocated the UN resolutions as a solution to the dispute, Pakistan has essentially put on the line the territory under its control. You may think its a bluff, but then India has never had the courage to call that bluff.

That is a good move. So now with Northern Areas as a province of Pakistan, the validity of the LOC has inched one more step towards validity as the border.

As a side note, do the people of NA even want to be a part of Pakistan?

Stealth, that isn't the governments position - those were opinions of locals belonging to local and national organizations and political parties - so I would say that while a small snapshot, they are an indicator of what the people of the NA want.

That's absurd. The US is on the other side of the planet. It can't effectively administer any territory here.
Moreover, the cultural difference is too great.

I merely mentioned "small states", not where the states would be - and my point is that if "economic benefit and prosperity" were the only thing people cared about, then why not simply merge with the US (even if halfway around the world) - you get to be citizens, get a share of budgetary funds, all that expertise in every field, and the US is an open society, welcoming of everyone regardless of "cultural differences".

Thats essentially the argument you are advocating - that to win over the Kashmiris to supporting India, you will offer them jobs and development- but that approach does not address the underlying "estrangement of identity" -

Why don't they want to be part of India in the first place?

Also, if Pakistan is being so idealistic on the Kashmir issue, why not display the same idealism in dealing with its own separatist movements?

The root cause of Kashmiri separatism is the ideology of Pakistan and the identity of the Kashmiri - the root cause of Balochistan's issues is the lack of development and too little local control.

The people of Baochistan and the NWFP voted freely to join the Pakistani federation, and as RR pointed out, the instrument of partition was followed correectly, so I would say we did implement the "idealistic solution" at our conception.

I would argue that the prosperity and freedom of Indian Kashmiris is far more important than where their loyalties lie at the moment.
If they are happy as Indian citizens, their loyalties will change.


I say that if Pakistan will stop its propaganda/moral support campaign in Kashmir, the problem will resolve itself.

I think that while India is controlling IAK, it should ensure the prosperity and rights of Kashmiris - my skepticism is entirly over whether "jobs and development" can change the inherent identity problem that arises in Kashmir due its status, the claim of Pakistan, the presence of AK and the UNSC resolutions.

My argument may be completely wrong, since I can see into the future, but that is how I view the situation based on the reasoning in my posts.

I agree with you that were Pakistan to stop supporting the Kashmiri cause you would have a far stronger chance of "winning hearts and minds". Pakistan's support and claim on Kashmir, and support for Kashmiri self determination bilaterally and internationally, contributes a large degree to the continuation of the alienation of the Kashmiri identity from India.

But then that is why the two sides have to get together to work out a solution that does not affect the strategic position of either to any great degree, nor results in any great territorial loss.

I would say separating the Kashmir valley from the NA's, Jammu and Laddakh, and moving towards joint control achieves all of that, and also sets the stage for a much greater cooperation and a larger confederation down the road. But thats just me.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Stealth:

The "lack of sincerity" on the part of India to do anything to resolve the Kashmir issue, and essentially waste time, summed up quite well in this article:

No nation regards Tibet as disputed territory, while every country, India included, places J&K in that category. (These days we are not allowed to refer to it as ‘disputed', but the Simla Agreement as well as our commitment to the United Nations makes clear it is).

Though we accuse Pakistan of occupying a chunk of our turf, we do nothing about that, apart from marking every imported atlas with a stamp saying the borders of India as depicted are inaccurate.

If Pakistan brings up Kashmir at multilateral forums, we complain it is contravening the Simla Agreement. But when it presses for bilateral talks, as recommended by that Agreement, we insist J&K is an internal matter. We parrot the slogan about the valley being an integral part of India, in the face of the fact that all nation-states are provisional entities.

During times of terror, we insist violence must cease before talks can be held. In periods of relative calm, we complacently conclude there's no need to rock the houseboat.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/11277-free-tibet-what-about-kashmir.html

 

[Flintlock]

Stealth:

The "lack of sincerity" on the part of India to do anything to resolve the Kashmir issue, and essentially waste time, summed up quite well in this article:

There is no question of "lack of sincerety" as far as India is concerned.

India's official position is that Kashmir is a part of India. I don't think that line has ever changed.

You might consider that insincere, but from a nationalistic point of view, it is the only sincere position.

 

[UnitedPak]

There is no question of "lack of sincerety" as far as India is concerned.

India's official position is that Kashmir is a part of India. I don't think that line has ever changed.

You might consider that insincere, but from a nationalistic point of view, it is the only sincere position.

You denying the problem is never going to solve anything. That in itself is a "lack of sincerity".

Kashmir has been disputed from Day 1. And there is no reason for not treating it as such.
Simply throwing across statements like "Kashmir is an integral part of India" are meaningless to Pakistan and the world. They wont change the fact that the territory is considered disputed. Such approaches just confirm that India is not sincere with any kind of progress in the region.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

why are we waisting time with this guy, he's going around in circles?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no question of "lack of sincerety" as far as India is concerned.

India's official position is that Kashmir is a part of India. I don't think that line has ever changed.

You might consider that insincere, but from a nationalistic point of view, it is the only sincere position.

That position is insincerity and double speak, because as the quote indicates, you are committed by virtue of being part of the UN and recognizing its charter (and being the one to take the dispute to the UN) to the solution proposed by it.

You are committed via the Simla Accord to resolving the dispute bilaterally - yet your nation merely snivels and backtracks from one position to the next, when it becomes clear that adherence to any agreement, international or bilateral, will not result in what India wants.

Its Real Politik - every nation does it, but don't attempt to keep up the charade that India has a lick of a moral position in Kashmir, or that it is any better than Pakistan in "advocating peace".

You want to refuse to come up with any solution with Pakistan that takes the Kashmiris wishes into account, and simply attempt to cajole and force them with a combination of development and military force into eventually accepting India, then say so and leave the rest aside.

We have nothing to discuss at that point, war is not going to resolve the issue, and if India wants to be short sighted enough to perpetuate this hostility for ever, than that is your choice.

We know where each stands,and it is unfortunate that is your nation's position.