Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

That is nothing but a straw man argument.

The cases of unrest in Balochistan, FATA and the East of India are unrelated. Pakistan is not asking for plebiscites in Eastern Indian States.

I have explained in detail the ideological and fundamental differences between the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan, and the internal unrest in Pakistan (and India), and you haven't rebutted any of the distinctions I made.

Mentioning Balochistan and FATA is merely a canard brought up by Indians wishing to distract from the argument.

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.)

That too is a flawed argument since it does not answer why India was averse to holding a plebiscite when the insurgency was not at its height, assuming that the Kashmiris were at that time "pro-India", which I highly doubt.

The UN resolutions, more than anything, provide for how a moral and just solution to the issue can be worked out - a plebiscite - let the people decide their destiny.

I would argue that rather than the list of excuses you have come up with (which probably play a role as well) the alienation of the Kashmiris is precisely because Pakistan is seen as championing this cause of "self-determination", principally and practically (Azad Kashmir), while India is seen as opposing it.

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.

"the status quo should be maintained" is essentially the position India has always had - and then we are to believe Indian arguments that they have not "dilly dallied" and are interested in actually resolving the issue. You essentially contradicted your first argument again where you accused Pakistan of equally "dilly dallying" - Its all India.

Now, as expected, another yardstick and another condition is being snuck in - not only must the separatist violence stop (and it has gone down dramatically during Mushrraf's tenure), but the separatist parties must contest elections and then India will consider there "agenda".

More dilly dallying and obfuscation is all it is.

Again, that writer could not have summed it up better:

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.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

On the UN resolutions.

There is an entire thread devoted to them.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...es/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html

I often quote RR's starting posts to point out that when it came to the UN resolutions, Pakistan was not at fault for "not withdrawing its troops" as Indians often claim.

"Pakistan had to withdraw all its troops from Kashmir as per resolution 47". Nonsense. Here's resolution 47 in the flesh.

Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948.
(Document No.1100, Para. 75, dated the 9th November, 1948).

(1) 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 itstroops from that State. CHECK - Pakistan agreed

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from theState of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident thereinwho have entered the State for the purpose of fighting. CHECK - Pakistan tried

(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission. - CHECK - Pakistan awaited the following

When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.- CHECK - "are being withdrawn", when Pakistani troops ARE BEING withdrawn, then India must agree to reduce its troops.

But did it? Answer is next.

Onto 1952, and Pakistani troops were being withdrawn, now UNCIP asks India to reduce its troops as per resolution 47 above.

UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952

But oh no, did it agree to reduce its troops? Here are those words again
UNCIP representative: "in the end I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."
UNCIP chief representative

I am not arguing that the resolutions can be implemented in their entirety at this point in history, but that it is flawed to suggest that Pakistan was the one the caused the lack of implementation due to a refusal to withdraw its forces.

The problem isn't even the UN resolutions, but the fact that for all the noise of "bilateral this and that", when time comes for bilateral negotiations, India merely attempts to play out the clock.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

india claims to have lost or been robbed of the instrument of accession in the summer of 1995.

india took the kashmir issue to the UN in 1948 under article 35 of chapter VI which outlines the means for a peaceful settlement of dispute, not under chapter VII which relates to acts of aggression committed by pakistan as claimed by india.

therefore, india recognized kashmir as a dispute which nullifies the instrument of accession.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

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

then why do you keep on bringing up the same issue with balochistan and NWFP, they are not disputed areas. is it because you are running out of arguments or that you can't defend your stand on kashmir?

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.

the key figure is Prince Karim Khan, the Khan of Kalat claimed independence in 1948. he was not in control of the entire landmass, only Kalat. The Bughti and Mengal tribes contributed to the cause of the federation because they rejected his rule.

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.

like i said, "look at how far the pashtunistan issue got? no where." More literally, it didn't even start at all. these pashtunistan fanatics ALWAYS come from afghanistan.

You need only go to Peshawar or any other tribal area for independence day to see for yourself. Is Bacha Khan remembered or eulogized at all, no! Pashtuns have always been at the forefront of this country and always will be. They form the increasing bulk of our military and practically run our intelligence agencies.

The Sikhs whom you claim to be so loyal caused more problems for you and actually went against the state for independence. Even if we consider Baitullah Mehsud, who by the way is disowned by the tribals, taliban, and even the other pakistani taliban factions, was fighting against the writ of the state, we must note that he did not at all fight for independence. None of the taliban(imposters in pakistan) want independence, rather they want control over our govt. As long as they do not break away from us, they are still OUR miscreants.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

If Pakistan agreed to withdraw its troops, so be it.

Why the reluctance?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

then why do you keep on bringing up the same issue with balochistan and NWFP, they are not disputed areas. is it because you are running out of arguments or that you can't defend your stand on kashmir?


the key figure is Prince Karim Khan, the Khan of Kalat claimed independence in 1948. he was not in control of the entire landmass, only Kalat. The Bughti and Mengal tribes contributed to the cause of the federation because they rejected his rule.


like i said, "look at how far the pashtunistan issue got? no where." More literally, it didn't even start at all. these pashtunistan fanatics ALWAYS come from afghanistan.

You need only go to Peshawar or any other tribal area for independence day to see for yourself. Is Bacha Khan remembered or eulogized at all, no! Pashtuns have always been at the forefront of this country and always will be. They form the increasing bulk of our military and practically run our intelligence agencies.

The Sikhs whom you claim to be so loyal caused more problems for you and actually went against the state for independence. Even if we consider Baitullah Mehsud, who by the way is disowned by the tribals, taliban, and even the other pakistani taliban factions, was fighting against the writ of the state, we must note that he did not at all fight for independence. None of the taliban(imposters in pakistan) want independence, rather they want control over our govt. As long as they do not break away from us, they are still OUR miscreants.

Come come.

Answer my post in detail and not in obfuscation.

Sikhs have not caused problems to India. Bindranwala is not the only Sikhs. Notice and rebellion amongst them?

Can't say the same for certain parts of Pakistan.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

ndia claims to have lost or been robbed of the instrument of accession in the summer of 1995.

You are from the Indian govt to be so categorical?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

then why do you keep on bringing up the same issue with balochistan and NWFP, they are not disputed areas. is it because you are running out of arguments or that you can't defend your stand on kashmir?


the key figure is Prince Karim Khan, the Khan of Kalat claimed independence in 1948. he was not in control of the entire landmass, only Kalat. The Bughti and Mengal tribes contributed to the cause of the federation because they rejected his rule.


like i said, "look at how far the pashtunistan issue got? no where." More literally, it didn't even start at all. these pashtunistan fanatics ALWAYS come from afghanistan.

You need only go to Peshawar or any other tribal area for independence day to see for yourself. Is Bacha Khan remembered or eulogized at all, no! Pashtuns have always been at the forefront of this country and always will be. They form the increasing bulk of our military and practically run our intelligence agencies.

The Sikhs whom you claim to be so loyal caused more problems for you and actually went against the state for independence. Even if we consider Baitullah Mehsud, who by the way is disowned by the tribals, taliban, and even the other pakistani taliban factions, was fighting against the writ of the state, we must note that he did not at all fight for independence. None of the taliban(imposters in pakistan) want independence, rather they want control over our govt. As long as they do not break away from us, they are still OUR miscreants.

Come come.

Answer my post in detail and not in obfuscation.

Sikhs have not caused problems to India. Bindranwala is not the only Sikhs. Notice and rebellion amongst them?

Can't say the same for certain parts of Pakistan.

If Mehsud is disowned by all, then why is he causing so much brouhaha?

Indeed the Pashtuns are the backbone. Maybe they want to run the country in addition to other important things they are doing!

 

[Flintlock]

I am not arguing that the resolutions can be implemented in their entirety at this point in history, but that it is flawed to suggest that Pakistan was the one the caused the lack of implementation due to a refusal to withdraw its forces.

The problem isn't even the UN resolutions, but the fact that for all the noise of "bilateral this and that", when time comes for bilateral negotiations, India merely attempts to play out the clock.

Well, can you convince me that Pakistan has tried its best to get a result out of the negotiations?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

If indeed India is playing out the clock, what stops Pakistan to do otherwise?

 

[UnitedPak]

Great going Salim and Stealth.

You lose an argument and you flood the thread with one line replies asking for detailed explanations and lengthy convincing.
And its almost cute how you divert the attention away from Indias role in this, and focus on everything else.

I will wait for your amazing comeback insulting my English like you did before, and we can return to running in endless circles.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I warms the coc'lkles of my heart that someone is amazed.

You leave me speechless as you are speechless!

 

[UnitedPak]

I warms the coc'lkles of my heart that someone is amazed.

You leave me speechless as you are speechless!

Yet another thought provoking argument from Salim.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If Pakistan agreed to withdraw its troops, so be it.

Why the reluctance?

The answer is in the post with the UN resolutions Salim.

And also note my comments at the end.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Come come.

Answer my post in detail and not in obfuscation.

it's nice how you're trying to advance your diction in your posts, I bet your teacher encourages you to do that. however, it's important you learn a bit more about syntax and most importantly, when to use these words.

I explained things to you in a more simple way so that your over-inflated ego would not be humbled in this discussion, likely by agnostic muslim.
I've come to realize that you have nothing left to throw at me, so you insist on running around in circles with insults.

Sikhs have not caused problems to India. Bindranwala is not the only Sikhs. Notice and rebellion amongst them?

Can't say the same for certain parts of Pakistan.

If you insist on drawing comparisons between kashmir and balochistan based on tensions, I'm for the opinion that the 1984 Golden Temple incident says different.

If Mehsud is disowned by all, then why is he causing so much brouhaha?

I don't think you properly grasped my point, "is disowned by the tribals, taliban, and even the other pakistani taliban factions" You're not implying that the tribals fully support Mehsud, let alone the Mullah Omar? Mehsud bombed tribal jirgas, I don't think he could have done anything more stupid.

he's running on the short supply of men from his own tribe, who fear execution for treason. Mehsud has beheaded his own men who were accused of treason. the tribals residing in Swat do not want the Fazlullah version of Shari'ah law anymore. they're put up with their women being slaughtered for ridiculous reasons.

Indeed the Pashtuns are the backbone. Maybe they want to run the country in addition to other important things they are doing!

This is really pathetic, I'm really dissappointed with you Salim. Quit wasting everyone's time. if you can't handle a mature discussion, you might as well as leave this forum. I've had enough with minors under 18 and people who resort to cowardly insults when their arguments are torn apart.