Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Flintlock]

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.

Listen dude. Learn some english. Also open a dictionary and look up the meaning of the words "context" and "perspective".

I am merely stating India's official position, since that particular article accuses India of being insincere in solving the Kashmir issue.

The rest of what I am arguing, regarding making LOC as international border, splitting up Kashmir along ethnic lines, etc. etc. is all just speculation on my part.

 

[Flintlock]

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.

Simla Accord?

Alright, here's the Simla Accord:

Most importantly, it bound the two countries "to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations". It also cemented the Line of Control as something close to a permanent border.

"In Jammu and Kashmir, the Line of Control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side.

Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from threat or the use of force in violation of this Line."

The agreement also paved the way for diplomatic recognition of Bangladesh by Pakistan. As a gesture of goodwill India decided not to try 93,000 (80,000 military and 13,000 civilians) Pakistan prisoners of war for war crimes and released them.


Pakistan has continually tried to alter that border since then, by either waging a proxy war, or by force.

In the Times of India article, the author says that India has tried to avoid resolving the issue whenever there has been peace in the region.
I ask this: Name one year, one month or even one week, which hasn't been disrupted by terrorist activity sponsored by Pakistan.

From a nationalistic point of view, despite having gained a decisive victory in '71, was a bit to magnanimous. It should have asked Pakistan to cede territory.

A more practical solution would have been to declare the LOC as the international border and be done with it.

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".

Of course, India has to secure its strategic interests.

But India is also bound by some moral obligations, which most of the world recognizes that India has tried to adhere to as much as is practically possible.

 

[Flintlock]

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.

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.

Hey, calm down dude. I am not the President of India. I am merely speculating on what happens in the corridors of Delhi.

Yes, I have said that earlier too. India wants a period of peace and development in the valley to see if that changes the sentiments in the valley.

However, I think, that Pakistan knows that it can't afford to let Kashmir settle down. lest it turns pro-India.

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.

Gimme a break.

If Pakistan is sincere in resolving the issue, she should stop the proxy war, let conditions normalize in the valley, and then get on the moral high horse.

Only if that happens, will the world trust Pakistan's good intentions. Till then, you can prepare to be "snivelled" at by India and the world.

 

[roadrunner]

Simla Accord?

Alright, here's the Simla Accord:

Most importantly, it bound the two countries "to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations". It also cemented the Line of Control as something close to a permanent border.

"In Jammu and Kashmir, the Line of Control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side.

Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from threat or the use of force in violation of this Line."

The agreement also paved the way for diplomatic recognition of Bangladesh by Pakistan. As a gesture of goodwill India decided not to try 93,000 (80,000 military and 13,000 civilians) Pakistan prisoners of war for war crimes and released them.

The UN charter and resolutions supercede Simla Accord. It doesn't matter what Simla says if the UN resolutions say something else. And the UN resolutions do call for a demilitarization of Kashmir, to which India does not accept.

I ask this: Name one year, one month or even one week, which hasn't been disrupted by terrorist activity sponsored by Pakistan.

Not a good argument. I would make the argument in return "Name one year, one month, or even one week, which hasn't been disrupted by terrorist activity sponsored by India". Which country has incorporated Kashmir into their Constitution, when the UN resolutions call the land disputed territory that must be settled by plebiscite. This is illegal, illegal acts are terrorist acts? In that case everyday for the last 40 years or so since India incorporated Kashmir into its Constitution, it would have been acting as a terrorist?

I would also disagree that Pakistan is sending freedom fighters into Kashmir. It's acknowledged Hizbul faction are Kashmiris from the Kashmir Valley, not Pakistanis.

But India is also bound by some moral obligations, which most of the world recognizes that India has tried to adhere to as much as is practically possible.

If it was moral obligations that India is bound to, why does it flaunt the UN resolutions, and ignore plebiscite? This is the moral right of Kashmiris is it not, to have the choice of self determination, that was denied them?

Another thing imo, one cannot say this is a proxy war being fought by Pakistan. It is universally acknowledged that the people fighting in the Kashmir Valley are Kashmiris - interesting point - India with its millions of troops cannot secure a border around a quarter the size of the Afghan-Pak border, whilst Pakistan is expected to be responsible to seal the whole of the Afghan-Pak border..impossible I would say.

 

[Flintlock]

Doesn't the Shimla Accord overrule the UN Resolution?

 

[dabong1]

Forget about the UN and the Simla Accord..... Jihad is the only way forward,we need the pak govt to go public and say that the peace process has failed to yeild any positive results and that only an armed struggle will set kashmir free.
All the freedom fighters....LeT,HM,al badr,JKLF need to be combined as one fighting unit under the command of the pakistani army.
The command structure should be along the hezbollah lines.......with the "kashmir hezbollah" being trained in pakistan the way hezbollah is funded and trained by syria and iran.
Past mistakes like fundraising being allowed to be carried out by anybody must be not be repeated.
The "thousand cuts" strategy must be repaced with the "body blows" strategy where attacks are carried out on indian bases and attacks on large formations of indian troops.
The fidayeen would be perfect for this sort of attack.
The media must work together with the freedom fighters and start a blitz on the internet and tv....get the top pakistani artist to do a global tour and raise awareness about kashmir..ect ect.

I think AgNoStIc MuSliM got it spot on about india.

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.

We need to negotiate from a postion of strength!!!!....thats if you really think the indians are sincere when it come to it.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Lets take it point by point.

Who says that India is an island of peace?

You say. I dont.

And I am not a tonga horse with blinkers on as some out here maybe!!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

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.

Are you serious - Day I?

Afghans are Kashmiris?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

AM,

Have your read the resolution?

Read it. Check.

Personally, it is a waste of time - Kashmir.

Give it to the Pakistanis and they wiull give it to the Chinese as they have done for Saksgam!

End of story!

China is more important to Pakistanis than Pakistan as is being displayed on this forum!!

 

[UnitedPak]

AM,

Have your read the resolution?

Read it. Check.

Personally, it is a waste of time - Kashmir.

Give it to the Pakistanis and they wiull give it to the Chinese as they have done for Saksgam!

End of story!

China is more important to Pakistanis than Pakistan as is being displayed on this forum!!

Its simply pathetic how you avoid to bring justice to Kashmiris by bringing in hundreds of completely unrelated arguments. This is not about China, Baluchistan, Afghanistan or the Americans.

The only thing you need to focus on is the UN resolution and the Kashmiri people. Frankly nobody on this planet cares that an Indian from Delhi thinks he personally owns some land in Kashmir.

The only people who should even be having a say here are the Kashmiri people themselves. All of them. We dont need all knowing, self proclaimed experts on Kashmiri opinions to tell us on their behalf.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

United Pak,

Have you read the UN resolution?

Read it and then talk.

In fact, it is neither Pakistan or India who are pathetic. You are.

You don't read and then take off like an unguided missile!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

My apologies to any Indians who might have been offended by my use of the term "snivel" - it was uncalled for.

 

[Flintlock]

To sum-up what I've been saying:

1. India hasn't been dilly-dallying over kashmir any more than Pakistan has been doing for any of its separatist movements, or India has been in Mizoram or Manipur.

2. The UN Resolution, as Salim said, applies to the whole of kashmir. Technically, it cannot be used in its original form.
It would seem more ethical to have a referendum in Kashmir Valley, but India atleast would be unwilling to do so, since it blames Pakistan creating the current anti-India sentiment.

(Officially, India has maintained that the majority of kashmiris are pro-India. This was in fact the case a few decades ago, but surveys done by media companies suggest that kashmiris are not too sympathetic towards the current administration.
The reason is probably a combination of religious sentiment, anger against the inefficient and corrupt government and years of violence.)


3. The only viable solution, in my opinion, is for status quo to be maintained for now
.
There are several separatist parties in Kashmir, none of which enjoy much popularity.
If such a party can participate in elections and get the popular majority, then perhaps there can be a solid reason to implement their agenda.

As long as the separatists as well as the foreign militants continue to employ violent means, I'm afraid that their credibility will remain zero.

 

[ejaz007]

Unfortunately when Indians run out of arguments they link one issue to another completely irrelevant issue. For example on this thread Balochistan, FATA and NA issue has been linked to Kashmir.
Balochistan and FATA are not disputed territories and not claimed by any other country except Pakistan. So that settles the issue. Balochistan joined Pakistan by a decision of the grand jirga and no one even those leaders who are considered separatists have said they want independence. All they are demanding is teir rightfull share of the revenue and development of Balochistan to bring it at par with other provinces of the country. That is fair enough and present government intends to do exactly that. Also foreign hand in Balochistan is also at work, however BLA has almost been crushed and shall not be a meanigful threat in future. As far as FATA is concerned the situation has deteriorated due to war on terror. At the time of independence Quaid-e-Azam has assured the Tribal leaders that army shall not be deployed in the area and their present status shall be maintained. This existed for almost 60 years and we did not had much problem. But come war on terror and due to only easy land route to Afghanistan US involvement increased and tribal people consider them ani islam and thus became involved and we had to deploy army. However the issue hopefully shall be dealt with politically and present government is taking steps to involve political leaders to deal with the problem.
Now coming to Kashmir I believe in 1947 the political force of the Kashmir had made it clear their intention to join Pakistan. The maharaja signed an insrument of accession that was brought to him by an Indian official and perhaps did not even properly read it. The instrument of accession had a flaw as the date of signing was typed wrong and was changed at the time of signing. The Maharaja clearly knew the will of the people but acted against it and as per the rules of partition the will of people had the final say and not the ruler. The same principle was accepted at UN by both India and Pakistan. Nehru during his speaches had said that India did not want forced marriages and those who do not wish to remain part of India should choose their own path. Well why don’t you let people decide. One more thing it was India who took the matter to UN and not Pakistan. So the issue became disputed the day you took it to a third forum and requested for a resolution. If you were not requesting for resolution then what were you doing at the UN?
Please stop distorting the facts and face the reality. Whatever Kashmiris want today one thing is for sure they do not want to live with India not after 90,000 sacrifices.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Unfortunately when Indians run out of arguments they link one issue to another completely irrelevant issue. For example on this thread Balochistan, FATA and NA issue has been linked to Kashmir.
Balochistan and FATA are not disputed territories and not claimed by any other country except Pakistan. So that settles the issue. Balochistan joined Pakistan by a decision of the grand jirga and no one even those leaders who are considered separatists have said they want independence. All they are demanding is teir rightfull share of the revenue and development of Balochistan to bring it at par with other provinces of the country. That is fair enough and present government intends to do exactly that. Also foreign hand in Balochistan is also at work, however BLA has almost been crushed and shall not be a meanigful threat in future. As far as FATA is concerned the situation has deteriorated due to war on terror. At the time of independence Quaid-e-Azam has assured the Tribal leaders that army shall not be deployed in the area and their present status shall be maintained. This existed for almost 60 years and we did not had much problem. But come war on terror and due to only easy land route to Afghanistan US involvement increased and tribal people consider them ani islam and thus became involved and we had to deploy army. However the issue hopefully shall be dealt with politically and present government is taking steps to involve political leaders to deal with the problem.
Now coming to Kashmir I believe in 1947 the political force of the Kashmir had made it clear their intention to join Pakistan. The maharaja signed an insrument of accession that was brought to him by an Indian official and perhaps did not even properly read it. The instrument of accession had a flaw as the date of signing was typed wrong and was changed at the time of signing. The Maharaja clearly knew the will of the people but acted against it and as per the rules of partition the will of people had the final say and not the ruler. The same principle was accepted at UN by both India and Pakistan. Nehru during his speaches had said that India did not want forced marriages and those who do not wish to remain part of India should choose their own path. Well why don’t you let people decide. One more thing it was India who took the matter to UN and not Pakistan. So the issue became disputed the day you took it to a third forum and requested for a resolution. If you were not requesting for resolution then what were you doing at the UN?
Please stop distorting the facts and face the reality. Whatever Kashmiris want today one thing is for sure they do not want to live with India not after 90,000 sacrifices.

It is a misconception that Indians running out of argument use the other areas where there is a bone of contention.

Balochistan joined Pakistan and within no time the separatist movement took birth.The first one was in 1948, led by Princ Karim Khan. There have been such rebellions on and oft and I don’t think I should narrate that history to you. Therefore, it is somewhat similar to what you wish to claim for Kashmir.

Pashtun nationalism is nothing new. The poetry of the warrior Kushal Khan Khattak and the Durrani Empire, the Red Shirt (Khudai Khidmatgar), the removal of the Chief Minister Dr Khan Sahib should be an aide mémoire to indicate the undercurrent and the turbulent equation.

They are not disputed in a sense and yet they are emotionally not in synchromesh!

The foreign hand? Indeed! It is also seen in Kashmir. I presume if there is the foreign hand, then the adage fishing in troubled waters is given credence.

Anti Islam seems to have become a catch all for any event that is uncomfortable. If the WoT was indeed anti Islam, then the last Pakistani govt and even the current one would not have played ball. It is just that it is being used as an emotional sop to wish away the ground realities that is beyond religion. I am told that it is anti Islam for a Mosle.m to fight and kill another Mos.lem. Therefore, should I also accept that those who do so are anti Islam? If that was the bottomline, then would you like me to believe that the GoP is as anti Islam as Mehsud? And that Mehsud is not a terrorist? Am I to believe that the GoP is to allow such terrorists like Mehsud a free hand to subvert Pakistan just because he is a Mos.lem and Mos,lems (PA) should not kill Mos.lems (terrorists like Mehsud)?

What I am pointing out is that the tendency to use the word ‘anti Islam’ loosely and as a catch all only obfuscate the reality and real ground situation - the bareboned reason behind issues.

Now coming to Kashmir. The sole political force was Sheik Abdullah, who was fighting the King and feudalism. He was the main force that made the King sign the Instrument of Accession, when the King was dithering and hoping that he would remain separate and rule his Kingdom! Therefore, the contention that the political force was on joining Pakistan is a bit fuzzy and not real.

Now, as I have repeatedly requested, read the UN Resolution. It categorically states that Pakistan is to remove its troops before a Plebiscite takes place and India should remove the bulk of its troops.

So, why not remove the Pakistani Army from the area held in Kashmir by Pakistan.

Then you will be on a more moral and solid ground.

Then India will have no excuse to not allow the Plebiscite and since you feel that Kashmiris want to join Pakistan and is being prevented by the presence of the Indian Army, don’t you think it will be ideal to remove the troops and hold the Plebiscite so that your contention that Kashmiris want to join Pakistan would be proved?

I would only remind you that it was the Kashmiri who alerted the Indian Army in 1965 and again during Kargil!!