Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Except that infiltration into the sovereign state of Kashmir happened long before India's entry into Junagadh. And why did India enter Junagadh? Because the ruler of the state had abandoned the state leaving it leaderless, into the throes of chaos. Hyderabad happened in 1948.

If by 'long before' you mean to imply 'months' then it is irrelevant in terms of time frame in the scheme of things. Tribal fighters entered Kashmir on October 22 1947, Indian troops invaded Junagadh on the ninth of November 1947 - that is not even a month

And if you are to argue that 'chaos' in the state was justification for India invading a State that had acceded to Pakistan, then Pakistani action in Kashmir is justified in terms of the 'chaos' created by the Dictator Maharajah in Kashmir cracking down on the Muslim population that rose up in revolt against him and his draconian policies. You cannot have it both ways.

No resolution was ever passed declaring it a disputed territory. Instrument of Accession explicitly gave India the right to look after the security of the State.

India couldn't fulfill the condition for plebiscite because of Pakistan's perfidy

The UNSC resolutions, accepted by India and Pakistan, indicating that final status was to be determined by plebiscite, implicitly declared the territory to be disputed.

And the accession itself was never complete without the plebiscite being held, no matter what excuse you want to apply, which means that J&K is in no way 'Indian territory'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^So that means if tomorrow if India carries out surgical strikes in Pak administrated Kashmir and then captures it in response to Pak reataliation...India will be fully within rights to do since it is a disputed territory and no plebiscite has been carried out there??

India's capture of Kashmiri territory in a war would be just as legitimate as Pakistan's capture of Kashmir territory in a war.

 

[rastor]

My understanding is the recent round of Indo-Pak talks (unofficially under Musharaf) was not focusing on the plebiscite but on some sort of sharing, soft-borders etc. Rather than squabbling over the intricacies of a 5 decade old resolution, why not discuss these more recent developments?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Will leave it here, with a rejoinder, that Pakistan's withdrawal was not conditioned upon its satisfaction with the outcomes of negotiation.

'Pakistan troops are to begin to withdraw in advance of the Indian troops and their withdrawal is not conditioned on Pakistan's agreement to the plan of the Indian withdrawal.' (para 242)

'That Resolution does not suggest that Pakistan should be entitled to make her withdrawals conditional upon the consultations envisaged between the Commission and the Government of India...' (para 243)

[UNCIP's 3rd report, prepared by Mr Robert van de Karchove]​

The 'assurance', that para 243 talks of is an assurance that UN, not India, was to give to Pakistan and was to be incorporated in the mechanism of withdrawal, which had to be to the satisfaction of UN, not Pakistan. That is the reason why India agreed to removal of troops in stages, so as to 'to prevent the creation of a situation which might constitute an opportunity for one or the other party to reopen the hostilities'

That post was to counter your canard that demilitarization was tripartite affair, making Pakistan a negotiating member. Mr Robert van de Karchove's report makes it clear that it was bipartite negotiation between UN and India.

De-contextualization appears to be second nature.

I'd appreciate a link to that report, since it is missing in the two books on 'documents of Kashmir conflict' that I possess (not suggesting it does not exist, just that I would like to read through it since my books - one by a Pakistani and the other by an Indian -appear to have omitted it).

Secondly, whether negotiations were to be strictly tripartite or not does not change the central point of argument that Pakistan was not required to unilaterally withdraw, and therefore committed no violation of the UNSC resolutions in not withdrawing, while negotiations on demilitarization and the conditions of a plebiscite were conducted, as is often claimed by Indian commentators.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And yet its these political leaders that give direction to a state.

And the direction of the State changes with the leadership, and that has been especially true in Pakistan given the rather massive changes wrought by certain leaders (Zia for example) who are now vilified and whose 'changes' are being undone, step by step.

Kashmir will fall into our lap like a ripe fruit - Jinnah, August 1947 [Pakistan - Eye of The Storm by Owen Bennett Jones]

That's how Jinnah took Kashmir for granted. If you must know he was dead against plebiscite in Kashmir, since the formula for accession of Princely States was pronounced. He didn't give two hoots to the opinion of people of Kashmir and openly claimed that Maharaja's decision would be final. On 1st Nov, 1947 he blatantly refused Mountbatten's proposal to go for plebiscite in Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad.

Jinnah was a man like any other, and men are not perfect, so while he may have had his reasons, in hindsight I would argue such a compromise would have served everyone well. Nonetheless, IIRC, India's position on plebiscite in Kashmir and Junagadh required the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan to be annulled, which is something Jinnah was opposed to since the actual accession itself was legal.

Jinnah's position on Kashmir was likely influenced by the atrocities and open discrimination of the Maharajah against the local population (Muslims primarily) and his suppression of them, and the subsequent revolt against the Maharajahs rule by locals, in whose assistance the Tribal raiders went to Kashmir.

Yes of course. Ignorance is bliss and anybody pulling those blinkers away is a hatemonger. What else can you do other than shooting the messenger.

No messenger no message.

Ignorance is bliss for the hatemongers, hence the use of selective quotations and distortions of history to advance and agenda of hatred and in an attempt to justify the occupation and subjugation of millions.

 

[Ganga]

Jinnah's position on Kashmir was likely influenced by the atrocities and open discrimination of the Maharajah against the local population (Muslims primarily) and his suppression of them, and the subsequent revolt against the Maharajahs rule by locals, in whose assistance the Tribal raiders went to Kashmir.

Can u back up your claim that the Maharajah detested muslims with some credible links.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Can u back up your claim that the Maharajah detested muslims with some credible links.

I'd have to dig out the books from my library, I am not sure if they are available online, so it'll be a while before I can post the relevant text.

 

[Awesome]

Not really.

But then again, if you had read not only the resolutions, but also the debates at UNSC, background reports, communiques etc. you wouldn't be saying this.

The document which binds India and Pakistan, binds it to the words that STATE both India and Pakistan has to minimize the forces.

Dude, seriously wtf are you talking about? As they say in Lahore, Lut machi hui hai kya? We'll leave Kashmir for you to walk over? Aiyay, swahagatum!

Come out of this fantasy world and stop clutching at excuses and do the right thing. The only monstrosity here is that which is being committed by India and India alone! India's oppressions, subsequent genocides in Kashmir, the kidnappings, the arson, the rapes, the fake encounters, the mass graves - India deserves to be beaten out of Kashmir if it doesn't opt for plebiscite.

Only India is wrong.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

India's capture of Kashmiri territory in a war would be just as legitimate as Pakistan's capture of Kashmir territory in a war.

What about in peace time ??..If Pakistan sends SSG and supports insurgency in IAK , then you should not mind if India does the same Pak admin Kashmir??

 

[Awesome]

What about in peace time ??..If Pakistan sends SSG and supports insurgency in IAK , then you should not mind if India does the same Pak admin Kashmir??

We promise to hand your people back in top quality body bags.

From our perspectives, we reserve the right to attack you when we want, however we want, and with whatever force we want. You can have any policy you like or can dare to adopt.

Kashmir deserves its right to self-determination or Indian forces in Kashmir deserve to be attacked. Repeatedly. Take your pick. No excuses, no pussyfooting around it from us.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

We promise to hand them back in top quality body bags.

And we hope that we could also do the same for you, but the problem is Pakistan army does not even accept the bodies of its dead soldiers...Not even in high quality body bags.

From our perspectives, we reserve the right to attack you when we want, however we want, and with whatever force we want. You can have any policy you like or can dare to adopt.

From our perspectives, If you attack us in Kashmir , we reserve the right to attack you ,anywhere and everywhere in Pakistan.

Just like after you attacked us in 65 and failed ..we responded 6 yrs later and cut your country into half.

Kashmir deserves its right to self-determination or Indian forces in Kashmir deserve to be attacked. Repeatedly. Take your pick. No excuses, no pussyfooting around it from us.

They have the right to self determination ...they get to elect their govt
every 5 yrs and if you were so concerned about their "right to self-determination" you would not have bothered capturing their territory by force in 1947.

You do not get decide all the "rules of engagement" here... you attack
us in kashmir, and we reserve the right to retaliate,where ever we want , whenever we want and through out Pakistan.

 

[Awesome]

And we hope that we could also do the same for you, but the problem is Pakistan army does not even accept the bodies of its dead soldiers...Not even in high quality body bags.

Problem is, your fake encounters are world famous and you've been caught many times on media with the scores of fake encounters that your Indian army does. It kills the Kashmiri youth and then throws them into rivers.

From our perspectives, If you attack us in Kashmir , we reserve the right to attack you ,anywhere and everywhere in Pakistan.

Just like after you attacked us in 65 and failed ..we responded 6 yrs later and cut your country into half.

If you attack elsewhere in Pakistan, we reserve the right to nuke you. No lihaz.

They have the right to self determination ...they get to elect their govt
every 5 yrs and if you were so concerned about their "right to self-determination" you would not have bothered capturing their territory by force in 1947.

You do not get decide all the "rules of engagement" here... you attack
us in kashmir, and we reserve the right to retaliate,where ever we want , whenever we want and through out Pakistan.

How cute, Indian administered elections = UN administered plebiscite? Indian lame excuses, please. If that is India's argument, then I think we're not debating with sane individuals any more.

You don't get to decide the level of intensity then either. We have a first use nuclear policy and WE decide when we launch all the nukes. We will nuke you. Repeatedly.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

Problem is, your fake encounters are world famous and you've been caught many times on media with the scores of fake encounters that your Indian army does. It kills the Kashmiri youth and then throws them into rivers.

Well fake encounter are being dealt by CM Omar Abdullah..and the guilty will punished but the bodies of your soldier in Kargil, which your army refused to accept, were not fake encounters.

How cute, Indian administered elections = UN administered plebiscite? Indian lame excuses, please. If that is India's argument, then I think we're not debating with sane individuals any more.

Well again thing is your call for UN plebiscite is just a show, if you were seriously concerned about" Kashmiri right to self determination ", you would have not bothered to capture their territory by force.

And if you are so partial towards plebiscite , why don't you hold that in Pak Administrated
Kashmir..go give them the right to self determination.

If you attack elsewhere in Pakistan, we reserve the right to nuke you. No lihaz.

You don't get to decide the level of intensity then either. We have a first use nuclear policy and WE decide when we launch all the nukes. We will nuke you. Repeatedly.

This NFU policy is only good for political talk..when the "chips are down" , and if it comes down to "either you will survive or we will" ...We might just nuke you first and nuke you in a way ..that there is not enough of you left to nuke us back.

Coz All is fair in Love and War.

 

[Hulk]

Ahh never thought Asim/ Neither Right nor wrong will post a lose comment on Nuke. Anyways guys calm the temper, there is no war happening but if you like to fight virtual war invest in video games.

By the way my thought is insurgency should have some objective, what is your objective here? Do you think it is even close to being achieved? If not I do not understand doing insurgency for the sake of it. We did it in 1971 but had we failed I am sure we would have stopped in 72 or 75.

My point is how are you going to achieve goals is what you should discuss.

 

[toxic_pus]

If by 'long before' you mean to imply 'months' then it is irrelevant in terms of time frame in the scheme of things. Tribal fighters entered Kashmir on October 22 1947, Indian troops invaded Junagadh on the ninth of November 1947 - that is not even a month

Not really.

The tribal fighters started entering Kashmir just days after Pakistan’s independence. Kashmir’s official record shows, 31, Aug, 1947 was the first time that the then sovereign state of Kashmir detected such infiltration. A formal protest was also lodged with Pakistan on 4, Sept, 1947. All these documents came into India's possession after the accession and were filed with UN. 22, Oct, 1947 is popular because, apart from the ferocity of the infiltration and brazenness of Pakistan, that infiltration had directly led to the accession of Kashmir.

And if you are to argue that 'chaos' in the state was justification for India invading a State that had acceded to Pakistan, then Pakistani action in Kashmir is justified in terms of the 'chaos' created by the Dictator Maharajah in Kashmir cracking down on the Muslim population that rose up in revolt against him and his draconian policies. You cannot have it both ways.

My argument is not that ‘chaos’ gave ‘justification for India’ to enter Junagadh. My argument is that the ‘chaos’ in a leaderless State, where the ‘chaos’ was actually a communal riot which threatened to result in massive blood bath in absence of any authority, where no other authority, except for India, was anywhere near that State to step in and take control of the situation, gave ‘justification for India’ to enter Junagadh, once the last authority, the Dewan of Junagadh, father of Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto, had fled on 8, Nov, 1947.

In case of Kashmir though, the so called revolt was a local affair, restricted to Poonch district (IIRC) while the rest of Kashmir remained calm and was firmly under the Maharaja's control.

The two situations can't possibly be compared.

The UNSC resolutions, accepted by India and Pakistan, indicating that final status was to be determined by plebiscite, implicitly declared the territory to be disputed.

The same UNSC resolutions explicitly acknowledge the authority of India over the Sate of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no implicit ‘dispute’ about it.

And the accession itself was never complete without the plebiscite being held, no matter what excuse you want to apply, which means that J&K is in no way 'Indian territory'.

Plebiscite was never required to ‘complete’ accession of Princely States.