Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I will gladly listen to your explanation as to why 'artificially generated separatist sentiments' is same as 'lack of popular support for separatist sentiments', and in what context these become different.

Strawman. I never questioned the popularity, which you keep on implying. I understand that you have to stick with this line of argument, because otherwise your argument falls apart.

Like I said - just more gibberish on your part. How about you define 'artificially created seperatism' in the context of Kashmir, since so far you have merely been jumping around trying to obfuscate. My interpretation of your comments (and my opinion that they are irrational) has been made obvious in past posts.

Not really. UNSC and India have never accepted that Pakistan has a claim. What has been accepted is that Kashimiris will be given an option to decide, to which country they would want to accede their land, once certain conditions are fulfilled. It doesn't give Pakistan any claim. It gives Kashmiris a claim.

More nonsense and distortion of the issue - the fact that the UNSC resolutions call for negotiations on bilateral (not unilateral demilitarization) makes clear that Pakistan is a party to the dispute. The fact that Pakistan is one of the two choices the Kashmiris have to make in the referendum to be conducted in kashmir makes it more than clear that Pakistan has a claim and is a party to a dispute.

What you are deliberately refusing to address is, whether funding of a movement, whatever that movement be, by an interested party makes the movement tainted or not? For example, if a pro-tobacco movement be credible if it is sponsored by tobacco companies. Or if an argument for liberal corporate tax law be credible if the political party pushing it is sponsored by the corporates who benefit from such law. It shouldn't be too difficult to wrap your head around that.

Are you bonkers? If an interested party is not going to support an issue then who on earth is? Your arguments are absolute nonsense at this point. The territory is disputed, Pakistan is a party to the dispute and is supporting the entities in Kashmir that continue to demand their right to self-determination, as has been promised them by the UNSC, India and Pakistan.

Hope you intend to practice what you preach.

I am not the one complaining about Indian funding going into Kashmir and various Kashmiri politicians and entities being on the payroll of India.

It was Pakistani leadership that backtracked on implementing UNSC resolution, that called for unilateral withdrawal of 'tribesmen and Pakistani citizen'. Our commitment was conditional to that, and other factors. None got fulfilled and hence no plebiscite.

We backtracked on nothing - the UNSC resolutions were held up due to Indian obstinacy on refusing to agree to proposals by the UN rapporteur on Indian and Pakistani force levels. All withdrawals were contingent on negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UNSC appointed rapporteur/commission, as has been pointed out to you elsewhere.

 

[DavyJones]

Agnostic Muslim - I don't think anyone in India believes in the UN resolution on Kashmir - it's not gonna happen - no one is going to implement it. UN can't enforce it as well - so realistically Pakistan can forget about it.

The issue is about seperatist leaders - I suggest that they fight elections in Kashmir - win them with massive majorities and then ask for a secession from the Indian state. That can be a form of referendum for them - why haven't they done that ? I'm really perplexed. India will have nowhere to hide in case this happens. They can call for international observors and try to win the elections.

 

[Hulk]

I agree if they win election and then say we want to seperate, they will find lot of traction. Better approach IMO.

In-fact this can be one way of getting referendum, if they have good number thinks will looks serious. All huriyat should fight election with agenda that I want to seperate, then ask for vote on it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Really? then explain the following..

why hasn't Pakistan pulled its troops out from AK?

Because the UNSC resolutions do not call for a unilateral, unconditional withdrawal by Pakistan. The demilitarization was subject to negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UNSC appointed rapporteur/commission. Unilateral withdrawal by either side was quite obviously seen as unfeasible given that neither side trusted the other to follow through.

Why did Pakistan cross the LoC in 1965?

Why did India integrate kashmir into India and the GoI suggest that the status quo was their preferred solution?

Why did Pakistan cross the LoC in 1999?

Why did you invade Siachen in 1984?

What part of the UNSC resolutions has Pakistan implemented over the last 60 years?

More than India - you lot blatantly refuse to implement them.

How can you be so sure about Pakistan's intentions of 'uniting divided Kashmir' if Pakistan has repeatedly failed to do what it asks of India?

We have not failed on anything - our demands remain the same - a free and fair plebiscite to let the Kashmiris decide which nation they wish to be a part of.

It is India that has steadfastly violated its commitment to the UNSC resolutions as well as the promise to the Kashmiris to allow self-determination.

Regardless of whether a unilateral withdrawal is required or not, Pakistan violated the resolutions twice, in 65 and 99.

A unilateral withdrawal is not required and, AFAIK, Pakistan did not cross the LoC to 'strengthen its military positions' but to stir up a rebellion by Kashmiris to force India back to the negotiating table and implement the promise of referendum. The war itself was started by India.

As for the relevant thread - that would be the UNSC resolutions sticky in this section.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I agree if they win election and then say we want to seperate, they will find lot of traction. Better approach IMO.

In-fact this can be one way of getting referendum, if they have good number thinks will looks serious. All huriyat should fight election with agenda that I want to seperate, then ask for vote on it.

The promise of being allowed self-determination has been given them, and endorsed by the UNSC. Whether the separatists participate or not in elections should have no bearing on this. Elections tend to be about multiple local issues, employment, development, etc.

For example, KAGK in NWFP was strongly opposed to the idea of Pakistan and joining Pakistan. His party won the elections before partition overwhelmingly, and yet when the referendum on joining Pakistan was held a year or so later, the people of the NWFP overwhelmingly chose to join Pakistan. So elections will not necessarily provide much of an indicator of what Kashmiri sentiments are, just as they did not provide a good indicator of what Pashtun sentiments towards joining Pakistan were.

In addition, this is an international dispute with Pakistan as a party to the dispute and with a claim to the territory. A referendum specifically on the question of deciding their future status is the only thing that can properly illustrate Kashmiri sentiments on the issue, along with resolving the dispute.

 

[Hulk]

The promise of being allowed self-determination has been given them, and endorsed by the UNSC. Whether the separatists participate or not in elections should have no bearing on this. Elections tend to be about multiple local issues, employment, development, etc.

For example, KAGK in NWFP was strongly opposed to the idea of Pakistan and joining Pakistan. His part won the elections before partition overwhelmingly, and yet when the referendum on joining Pakistan was held a year or so later, the people of the NWFO overwhelmingly chose to join Pakistan. So elections will not necessarily provide much of an indicator of what Kashmiri sentiments are, just as they did not provide a good indicator of what Pashtun sentiments towards joining Pakistan were.

In addition, this is an international dispute with Pakistan as a party to the dispute and with a claim to the territory. A referendum specifically on the question of deciding their future status is the only thing that can properly illustrate Kashmiri sentiments on the issue, along with resolving the dispute.

Agreed but when you fight election with just 1 single agenda, you get good votes then it can lay foundation for future referendum.

If they get million votes together no one can ignore that anymore.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agnostic Muslim - I don't think anyone in India believes in the UN resolution on Kashmir - it's not gonna happen - no one is going to implement it. UN can't enforce it as well - so realistically Pakistan can forget about it.

I suggest Indians give up their colonialist attitude and implement their promises to the Kashmiris and the world community to allow the Kashmiris self-determination.

The issue here is of Indian attitudes, they have to change.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agreed but when you fight election with just 1 single agenda, you get good votes then it can lay foundation for future referendum.

If they get million votes together no one can ignore that anymore.

But people do not vote on a single agenda usually in domestic elections - they vote on multiple issues.

If India were to promise that if the separatists won the elections they would allow the UN to hold a referendum, then I could see the people voting in favor of a single issue.

 

[DavyJones]

AM - you still haven't answered the question ? Why don't the seperatists fight elections - we know that Pak has a hand in that decision - a Frank Answer please!

After they win - they can tell the world what they want as elected representatives - not as lackeys of a foreign power (Pak) - they have no credibilty anymore outside of Pak.

India will have no where to hide after they win elections.

Listen if we talk about promises - The Simla agreement is null and void after Kargil, The Lahore declaration was followed by Kargil. There is no trust anymore. Talking about UN resolutions - before 1989 there was no clamour for that in the valley - Op Gibraltor in 1965 was defeated by Kashmiris - how do you explain that?

The 1989 disturbances and rebellion was incited by Pak flush from beating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan using the jehad banner!
That's the truth my friend.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM - you still haven't answered the question ? Why don't the seperatists fight elections - we know that Pak has a hand in that decision - a Frank Answer please!

I did answer the question in my responses to IndianRabbit - no point repeating them. I imagine you are reading the rest of the posts?

The Simla agreement is null and void after Kargil,

Actually the Simla agreement was null and void after India's Siachen incursion.

Talking about UN resolutions - before 1989 there was no clamour for that in the valley - Op Gibraltor in 1965 was defeated by Kashmiris - how do you explain that?

There was no armed insurgency before 1989, that does not mean the Kashmiris did not want the right to self-determination promised them.

Op Gibralter was defeated because it was poorly planned and discovered before it could be implemented - that some Kashmiris tipped off the Indian authorities does not translate into an argument that most or all Kashmiris were opposed to Pakistan at that time. It would be extremely fallacious to argue that. So there is nothing to explain here.

The 1989 disturbances and rebellion was incited by Pak flush from beating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan using the jehad banner!
That's the truth my friend.

We cannot incite a widespread insurgency without their being simmering local resentment against India. And if that resentment does not exist, the exercise of self-determination in a referendum should clear all doubts, and Indians have nothing to fear.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Also I always wanted to ask this, If Pakistan is for Kashmir’s independence then why don't they make azad Kashmir in to an independent country knowing India won't budge?

Why are Indians so insistent on occupying a people and their land? Is this occupation not precisely what you struggled for against the British?

Your government and your leadership swore repeatedly to grant the Kashmiris the right to self determination, accepted the UNSC resolutions outlining that particular solution - do Indians not see the least bit of moral bankruptcy in violating that promise and occupying a people?

 

[DavyJones]

AM - sorry I did not read your reply before I posted. About multiple issues - Are you scared people will not vote in the seperatists cause they have only one issue ? Not very good leaders are they ?
The Kashmiri people are not daft in thinking that joining with Pak will solve their problems - before the seperatists set up a clear plan for the future, they will continue being mere agitators propped up by Pak who whip up some street protests.
See the Maoists in contrast - alternative government - complete ideaology - more successful than Kashmiri militants and seperatists.


About Siachen - was LoC defined in the Siachen area? It was not - India beat Pak to the area - as a Pak army officer observed -" they beat us by a week - too bad "

The LoC ended just before Siachen - so technically India did not cross the LoC - I hope you agree Smart we Indians!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@Materialistic

No one is denying its muslim majority (68% according to 2001 census). But you are ASSUMING that all muslims would vote to join Pakistan.

No, we would prefer that the Kashmiris exercise self-determination as promised them by the Indian leadership and the UNSC to determine their sentiments, a promise and right India continues to blatantly violate and deny.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Trying to rewrite history ??

Indian army went to kashmir only after the signing up the instrument of accession by the maharaha Hari singh.

That the IA went in after the IoA was signed is disputed since certain events and the logistics required to accomplish the IA deployment do not support the Indian argument.

Secondly, there is doubt over the validity of the Instrument of Accession as well, since (last I checked) no one has seen the original.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM - sorry I did not read your reply before I posted. About multiple issues - Are you scared people will not vote in the seperatists cause they have only one issue ? Not very good leaders are they ?
The Kashmiri people are not daft in thinking that joining with Pak will solve their problems - before the seperatists set up a clear plan for the future, they will continue being mere agitators propped up by Pak who whip up some street protests.
See the Maoists in contrast - alternative government - complete ideaology - more successful than Kashmiri militants and seperatists.

No, I don't think the people will necessarily vote for separatists on one issue, because the separatists winning the elections will not mean that the kashmiris get the choice of separating.

If the GoI were to declare that a separatist win in an election would trigger self-determination, then I see the separatists possibly wining.

About Siachen - was LoC defined in the Siachen area? It was not - India beat Pak to the area - as a Pak army officer observed -" they beat us by a week - too bad "

The LoC ended just before Siachen - so technically India did not cross the LoC - I hope you agree Smart we Indians!

The Simla agreement states the following:

(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.

Indian accounts of the invasion of Siachen indicate that the Indians were concerned over Pakistan granting permits to mountaineering expeditions, which in the Indian opinion went against their interpretation of Siachen as being on their side of the LoC. Those concerns should have been taken up through negotiations and dialog with Pakistan on the issue as prescribed by Simla - instead India chose to invade Siachen.

So yes, it was a violation of Simla.