What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
Kashmir is a part of Pakistan. We currently rule over a large portion of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir), yet Indians have occupied another large part of Kashmir, a part which has suffered so much by the barbaric Indian forces. They have killed over 1 Million of our Kashmiri-Muslim brothers and sisters since their brutal occupation of our land, and Insha Allah, we will get it back!

Soon Indian Occupied Kashmir will become under the rule of Pakistan, and our brothers and sisters will be reunited with us. Indian tyranny will fail, Insha Allah!

It's also worth pointing out that Pakistan holds a significance of Kashmir within it's name (The "K" in Pakistan is Kashmir).

But the national anthem of India has no mention of Kashmir (even though it mentions Sindh, which is 100% a part of Pakistan)!
 
Seriously what is the stand here on Kashmir. Its pretty dubious as on the face of it the Pak govt wants the Kashmiris to decide their fate and in the hearts as everyone knows they covet the land. So much fore support of the Kashmiris.

Since this thread is open, i would like to state that something about atrocities in Pakistan was opened in another forum where a member from Pakistan called it propaganda and wanted me to have a look at how "civilized and mature" PDF was. Thats why i signed up today. Looks like that member has serious issues in understanding what is civilized and mature.

I dont know whats the limit here for an Indian to post before inviting a ban. So i will stop at that.
 
Kashmir is a part of Pakistan.

Lol dude. Not if we have anything to say about it, and we say nay!:P

We currently rule over a large portion of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir), yet Indians have occupied another large part of Kashmir, a part which has suffered so much by the barbaric Indian forces. They have killed over 1 Million of our Kashmiri-Muslim brothers and sisters since their brutal occupation of our land, and Insha Allah, we will get it back!

lol, lets see you back that up.

Soon Indian Occupied Kashmir will become under the rule of Pakistan,

How soon? I thought Pakistan was fighting for Kashmiri 'freedom', didn't think you'd want to occupy it.

and our brothers and sisters will be reunited with us. Indian tyranny will fail, Insha Allah!

Insha Allah Pakistan will fail as it always has.;)

It's also worth pointing out that Pakistan holds a significance of Kashmir within it's name (The "K" in Pakistan is Kashmir).

So? if India changes its name to America can we lay claim to the US?

But the national anthem of India has no mention of Kashmir (even though it mentions Sindh, which is 100% a part of Pakistan)!

How about we exchange Sindh for Kashmir? ;)
 
Kashmir is a part of Pakistan. We currently rule over a large portion of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir), yet Indians have occupied another large part of Kashmir, a part which has suffered so much by the barbaric Indian forces. They have killed over 1 Million of our Kashmiri-Muslim brothers and sisters since their brutal occupation of our land, and Insha Allah, we will get it back!

Soon Indian Occupied Kashmir will become under the rule of Pakistan, and our brothers and sisters will be reunited with us. Indian tyranny will fail, Insha Allah!

It's also worth pointing out that Pakistan holds a significance of Kashmir within it's name (The "K" in Pakistan is Kashmir).

But the national anthem of India has no mention of Kashmir (even though it mentions Sindh, which is 100% a part of Pakistan)!

National Anthem of India was written before partition. India has never laid claim on sindh after partition. As for not mentioning Kashmir, many Indian states are not mentioned. The layout of the states itself were different at that time. Listing all states would have made it a map recitation instead of national anthem! Please don't go assuming that just because those states wren't mentioned, they don't belong to India!
 
Last edited:
Lol dude. Not if we have anything to say about it, and we say nay!:P
As if we care what you say:lol:



lol, lets see you back that up.
Whats so funny aughh??, lots of Kashmirs martyred every day and ur finding it funny, typical Indian :what:



How soon? I thought Pakistan was fighting for Kashmiri 'freedom', didn't think you'd want to occupy it.
As soon as India stop going to UN for help :chilli:



Insha Allah Pakistan will fail as it always has.;)
There is hell of a difference between India and Pakistan:toast_sign:




So? if India changes its name to America can we lay claim to the US?
No we are talking about Kashmir right know and if you r not that illiterate then i guess u noe that Kashmir was part of Pakistan after partition in 1947:agree:



How about we exchange Sindh for Kashmir? ;)
roflcopter
 
Lol dude. Not if we have anything to say about it, and we say nay!:P
As if we care what you say:lol:



lol, lets see you back that up.
Whats so funny aughh??, lots of Kashmirs martyred every day and ur finding it funny, typical Indian :what:



How soon? I thought Pakistan was fighting for Kashmiri 'freedom', didn't think you'd want to occupy it.
As soon as India stop going to UN for help :chilli:



Insha Allah Pakistan will fail as it always has.;)
There is hell of a difference between India and Pakistan:toast_sign:




So? if India changes its name to America can we lay claim to the US?
No we are talking about Kashmir right know and if you r not that illiterate then i guess u noe that Kashmir was part of Pakistan after partition in 1947


How about we exchange Sindh for Kashmir? ;)
roflcopter
 
The Hindu : Front Page : Who fired on Qureshi, Hurriyat asked Pak Foreign Secretary

Siddharth Varadarajan

New Delhi: The near-fatal shooting of Fazal Haq Qureshi figured prominently in the meeting here between the Hurriyat and the visiting Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir last week with the conglomerate blaming Pakistan-based terrorists for the attack on the moderate Kashmiri separatist leader.

Though no group claimed responsibility for the December 2009 shooting outside a mosque in Srinagar, the incident was seen in the valley as a warning to the Hurriyat not to engage in dialogue with the Centre or mainstream Kashmiri parties like the National Conference and People’s Democratic Party.

Mr. Bashir denied the involvement of the Pakistan government or its agencies in the assassination attempt but promised to convey Kashmiri perceptions about the incident back home, The Hindu has learned. The Hurriyat leaders also expressed their unhappiness with what they said were efforts by Islamabad to undermine them by promoting factionalism within the separatist movement.

This factionalism was very much on display at the Pakistan High Commission on February 24 when Mr. Bashir was forced to have three separate back-to-back meetings with the separatists — first with Syed Ali Shah Geelani; then the Hurriyat delegation led by Mirwaiz Omer Farooq, including Bilal Lone and Professor Abdul Ghani Bhat; and finally with Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front leader Yasin Malik.

The meetings provided a glimpse of the U-turn Islamabad has made in its Kashmir policy, with Mr. Bashir assuring Mr. Geelani that the ‘out-of-the-box’ ideas on a future settlement pursued by General Pervez Musharraf through back-channel talks with India had all been jettisoned in favour of Pakistan’s traditional stand.

Mr. Bashir invited the separatist leaders to travel to Islamabad for consultations with the Foreign Office in Islamabad in the next few weeks. Pakistan is understood to be keen to hold this interaction in the context of the ‘strategic review’ of foreign policy being conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in March.

Pakistan’s insistence on inviting ‘civil society’ separatists like the Jammu Kashmir Bar Association and Asiya Andrabi of Dukhtaran-e-Millat and marginal separatist politicians like Shabbir Shah to its Foreign Office consultation has also become a source of friction with the Hurriyat.

Though the Mirwaiz is believed to have agreed to visit Islamabad, he is under pressure from others within the group not to attend.
 
How Communal Division of J&K State was Averted - Mainstream Weekly
by Balraj Puri
Encouraged by the announcement of the formation of a separate Telangana State and provoked by the report of the Justice Sagheer Ahma headed Fifth Working Group on Centre-State Relations in J&K, appointed by the Prime Minister, the movement for separation of Ladakh from Kashmir region has gained fresh momentum and the issue of a separate Jammu State is again being debated.

A former member of the Jammu State Morcha recalls how the movement for a separate Jammu State was sabotaged by the BJP and then by the RSS. He recalls that the RSS and other leaders of its Parivar, who met at Kurukhsetra, passed a resolution in support of a separate Jammu State in 2000. The BJP was hesitant to come out openly in its support. The RSS floated the Jammu State Morcha. It entered into a seat-sharing arrangement with the BJP to fight the Assembly elections in 2002 from all the 37 seats in the Jammu region. But in practice the JSM flouted the agreement in some constituencies allotted to the BJP splitting each other’s votes. Both won just one seat each. Later the RSS wound up the JSM, though it was revived by another group led by Prof Virinder Gupta.

The story of the fate of the movement for a separate Jammu State is corroborated by Sartaj Aziz, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan in the government of General Pervez Musharraf, in his recently released book. He claimed that an agreement between his country and India had been reached on the J&K State on the basis of its division, so that the Hindu majority part of Jammu and the Buddhist majority part of Ladakh remained with India and the Pak administered part of the State with Pakistan as the views of these people were known. The area of dispute was confined to the Kashmir Valley, thus cutting the problem of Kashmir to size. He quotes Farooq Kathwari formula on the subject.

Kathwari is the richest Kashmiri in the world and wields considerable influence in the Valley. He had visited the State in 1999 and spent a day or so in Jammu. When I met him I asked who else he was meeting in Jammu. He replied that none excepting me and the then Chief Minister, Farooq Abdullah, and he wanted me not to disclose to anybody that he was in town. While I rejected the division of the State on religious lines, the reaction of Farooq Abdullah was not immediately known. Earlier he had met Indian and Pakistan leaders in power and apparently got their consent to his proposal. Before that he had invited two representatives of the governments of India and Pakistan to New York where he lives to attend a meeting of the Kashmir Study Group headed by him and this group approved his formula.


Alarmed by these developments I organised a meeting of ex-Prime Ministers of India including Inder Gujral, V.P. Singh and Chandar Shekhar and independent public men and leading academicians in Delhi. They unanimously resolved that a religious division of the State was dangerous.

I also had a series of meetings with L.K. Advani, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister of India. I warned him about the implications of communalisation of the entire State which would also undermine the secular basis of the entire country. I asked him some searching questions. Did the two reprentatives of India attend the Kathwari meeting with the consent of Government of India? Did the government object to the agreement they had with the Kathwari group? Did Farooq Abdullah, whose government had proposed administrative division of Jammu on religious lines, do it without approved of the GoI? Wasn’t the Home Ministry financing the Trilateral Front to divide the State in three parts on religious lines? And so on. Advani asked me what was the alternative to redress the grievances of Jammu and Ladakh against what he called Kashmiri domination ever since independence. I suggested my formula, much maligned and conclemned by his party, for regional autonomy which could ensure harmony between the three regions of the State. He seemed to agree.

I also met Syed Ali Shah Geelani and asked him whether he had thought over the consequences of what I called the Advani-Geelani formula on the religious division of the State and if these would be different from such a division in 1947 and when Mahatma Gandhi and Qaid-e-Azam could not prevent it then, he and I were much smaller persons. He, too, seemed to be convinced by my argument.

On the eve of the 2002 Assembly elections in the State, the then BJP President, J. Krishnamurty, was asked by mediapersons when he visited Jammu as to the official stand of his party for the separate Jammu State. He replied that the party had not taken any final decision on the subject but the local unit had a right to give expression to local sentiments.

I again visited Delhi and sought an appointment with Advani. I was told that he was too busy in arrangements about General Musharraf’s visit the next day and that I should wait till his departure when he would have more time. I insisted that I should meet him before Musharraf’s visit as it was relevant to the Indo-Pak talks. He agreed to meet me. I told him that Krishnamurty’s statement was welcomed in Pakistan and the extremist faction of the separatist leaders in Kashmir. Why had his party become so generous to Pakistan while I was always accused to be pro-Pakistan by it? He said that while he was convinced that the remedy of the communal division of the State was worse than the disease, the RSS was not. It confirms the recent disclosure of the differences between the RSS and the BJP by a former member of the Jammu State Morcha. Meanwhile I contacted other members of the Kashmir Study Group of Kathwari. Many of them agreed with me. Kathwari, too, modified his formula and in a recent telephonic talk with me agreed that my formula of regional autonomy was the first step towards resolution of the complex Kashmir problem.

The author is the Director, Institute of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs, Jammu.
 
^^^This shows what the BJP-led NDA were working towards for a settlement in Kashmir. That is the division of J&K and separation of the muslim majority valley from it.
However, thankfully because of the UPA coming to power in 2004, a new formula has to be brought about and the communal division was put away.
Unfortunately, Musharraf had too many problems before the new solution could be implemented.
 


Kashmiri protesters carry the Pakistani Crescent and Star flags. India Occupied Kashmir
 
d9463d8bae6fb44ca414d1027b9cffb6.jpg
 
According to Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence(ISI) operates in Pakistan administered Kashmir and is involved in extensive surveillance, arbitrary arrests, torture and murder. Generally this is done with impunity and perpetrators go unpunished.
 
According to Indus water treaty between India & Pakistan India has an exclusive right to use of all of the waters of the Eastern Rivers and their tributaries {{the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi}}
& pakistan has the right on the Western Rivers .....

If Kashmir become independent ,,India will control the 3 rivers as signed by the treaty(which flows through Indian Punjab)....
& Independent Kashmir ,,(which is not signatory to the treaty) will use the water of western rivers{which are assigned to Pakistan by treaty} which flows from Kashmir....

so do not you think that this will be more harming for Pakistan & Pakistani economy where about 77% of people depends upon Indus & tributary water...
 
Water Pakistan's diversionary tactic?



TNN, Feb 23, 2010, 11.15pm IST

NEW DELHI: Pakistan's zeal to insert the "water issue" in the bilateral talks is being seen here as an attempt to divert popular attention back home from the mismanagement of its water resources and the growing discontent in Sindh and Balochistan over the denial of their share of Indus waters.

Analysts here have been struck by the way Pakistan's political class and the jehadi establishment have teamed up to unleash a propaganda offensive against India's "machinations" to rob the neighbouring country of its legitimate share of Indus waters.

With leading jehadis Hafiz Saeed and his deputy Abdur Rahman Makki of Lashkar warning of serious repercussions, holding out the grim warning of "Muslims dying of thirst would drink blood of India", the official establishment has scarcely been subtle in upping the ante on the emotionally fraught issue where agriculture remains the mainstay of economy. A full spectrum of devices -- from statements from the PM downwards to official briefings and remarks of official spokespersons endorsing fears of theft of Pakistan's water by India -- have been used to elevate water to the level of "core issue" -- a description so far reserved for the dispute ove J&K.

The government-jehadi concert has raised suspicions here whether Pakistan is raising a bogey to thwart the construction of storage dams on western rivers at Bursar (J&K) and Gyspa (HP) by India in keeping with its entitlement under Indus Water Treaty. It is also suspected that the larger gameplan could be to seek arbitration outside the Permanent Indus Water Commission the two countries have.

The grievance narrative, however, suffers from serious infirmities. Analysts point out that Indus Water Treaty of 1960 -- an agreement which has so far endured despite conflicts -- allocated the three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Beas and Ravi) of Indus system to India, whereas the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) were assigned to Pakistan. Importantly, western rivers are far more bountiful than eastern rivers -- mean flow of 136 million acre feet (MAF) against a mere 33 MAF in that order.

India, however, did not let the huge gap come in the way as it decided to pay Pakistan a compensation of 62 million pound sterling for construction of `replacement' canals as compensation for waters of eastern rivers. While this was a rare instance of upper riparian state (India) giving disproportionately, India also accepted severe restrictions on the use of waters of western rivers.

As it escalates its campaign against India over water issue, Islamabad, those familiar with the matter said, was concealing from its people such crucial facts that India is yet to avail of its entitlement to build storage for up to 3.6 MAF on western rivers. Or, for that matter, that of the crop area of 13,43,477 acres that India is allowed to irrigate using waters of western rivers, India has so far been irrigating only 7,92,426 acres.

At the root of the `misinformation campaign' lies a complex web of issues, including the "water greed" of northern part of Pakistan's Punjab which has seen not just Sindh and Balochistan but also, increasingly, southern Punjab in that country going without their legitimate share of Indus waters.

The mismanagement by Pakistan coupled with the fact that Indus waters carry more silt -- giving rise to real and ever-worsening problem of siltation -- has resulted in Indus waters not reaching the whole length of the canals in Pakistan. To compound matters, deforestation and rising temperatures mean a huge depletion in flow of water to Pakistan.

Islamabad recognises the problem is going to deepen with analysts projecting a water deficit of 30% by 2025. Like in the case of many of its other problems, it has decided to deflect the attention towards India.

Water Pakistan's diversionary tactic? - India - The Times of India
 
And thats why Pakistan has also supported Independent Kashmir too.


And by your logic then why dont India harm Pakistan by leaving Kashmir to be an independent country ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom