What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
1. Gilgit-Baluchistan has not been integrated into Pakistan - merely given autonomy I am afraid you got it wrong, its Baltistan and not Baloch., and since the UNSC resolutions cover it, a plebiscite would be held there as well.

I fail to see what your point about G-B has to do with the Indian denial of the right to self determination for Kashmir mandated by the UN and agreed to by India and Pakistan.

Any change in a disputed region is bound to disturb the status quo. This has been acknowledged by JKLF chief himself, where he stated, that it was a shot thru the heart as far as Pakistan's decision of changing the statuses of Gilgit -Baltistan.

2. No terrorists have been sent into Kashmir - the insurgents are fighting an Indian occupation, since it is India that has reneged on its commitment to the right of self determination and unilaterally integrated J&K into India.

By that statement, you are opening a pandora's box in this discussion. Its known all over about Pakistan's involvement in the so called Freedom Fight... Pakistan is responsible for most of the attacks in Indian held Kashmir thru its proxies LeT and Hizbul Mujahideen. Denial of this only shows an ignorance in current history. Point in case. After the Kandahar episode, the terrorists walked straight in to Pakistan unopposed.

True that some insurgents have crossed the line and killed innocents, but many more innocents have been raped, tortured and killed by Indian occupation forces.

By using the term insurgents, you are kind of contradicting yourself

Replies inline
:no:
 
Could you try and not do replies 'inline' since it makes quoting you harder?

And thanks for the correction, I meant Gilgit-Baltistan, I had jarnees post in my mind as well.
Any change in a disputed region is bound to disturb the status quo. This has been acknowledged by JKLF chief himself, where he stated, that it was a shot thru the heart as far as Pakistan's decision of changing the statuses of Gilgit -Baltistan.

It does not disturb the status quo so long as Pakistan does not try to integrate it into Pakistan. The only thing the new G-B package has done is give the people of G-B more autonomy, which is hardly a bad thing.

What India did with J&K. integrating it into the constitution and making it an Indian state, was a violation of the UNSC resolutions declaring it disputed territory.

By that statement, you are opening a pandora's box in this discussion. Its known all over about Pakistan's involvement in the so called Freedom Fight... Pakistan is responsible for most of the attacks in Indian held Kashmir thru its proxies LeT and Hizbul Mujahideen. Denial of this only shows an ignorance in current history. Point in case. After the Kandahar episode, the terrorists walked straight in to Pakistan unopposed.
Pakistan is a party to the Kashmir dispute - I see nothing wrong with Pakistan assissting Kashmiri freedom fighters/insurgents when India cast the first stone and violated teh UNSC resolutions by unilaterally integrating J&K into India and refusing to grant the Kashmiris the right to self determination.

In any case, since 2002 Pakistan has backed off in that support and violence has dropped dramatically, as has infiltration. Now lets see if India is interested in ending occupation and resolving the dispute.
 
Not sure if this has been posted yet:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It does not disturb the status quo so long as Pakistan does not try to integrate it into Pakistan. The only thing the new G-B package has done is give the people of G-B more autonomy, which is hardly a bad thing.
There is this point of inconsistency and consistency that has to be considered. Indian POV is that JK is an integral part of ROI and has to be within the framework of the constitution. There has been no shirking of ROI on its part while doing the same. But Pakistan has always maintained that Kashmiri's voice only matters. Wud that be the Muslim Kashmiris alone? Why were the Kashmir Pandits chased off their homelands? and if Pakistan is interested in a independant Kashmir, why is that Kashmir under Pakistani control is administered from Islamabad, instead of having its own flag and constitution and armed forces with defence and foreign affairs ministries held with Pakistani Support

Pakistan is a party to the Kashmir dispute - I see nothing wrong with Pakistan assissting Kashmiri freedom fighters/insurgents when India cast the first stone and violated teh UNSC resolutions by unilaterally integrating J&K into India and refusing to grant the Kashmiris the right to self determination.

Are the violation of UNSC resolutions considered as the primary reason of dispute, or was there something else that brought in the UNSC into the picture in the first place? You seem to have shifted the Starting point of this issue by a good distance by stating that.


In any case, since 2002 Pakistan has backed off in that support and violence has dropped dramatically, as has infiltration. Now lets see if India is interested in ending occupation and resolving the dispute.

Contradiction again, when you say Pakistan had supported violence. But lets not get into it again. It becomes a vicious cycle and deters meaningful debate!
 
There is this point of inconsistency and consistency that has to be considered. Indian POV is that JK is an integral part of ROI and has to be within the framework of the constitution. There has been no shirking of ROI on its part while doing the same. But Pakistan has always maintained that Kashmiri's voice only matters. Wud that be the Muslim Kashmiris alone? Why were the Kashmir Pandits chased off their homelands? and if Pakistan is interested in a independant Kashmir, why is that Kashmir under Pakistani control is administered from Islamabad, instead of having its own flag and constitution and armed forces with defence and foreign affairs ministries held with Pakistani Support
There is no point of inconsistency here. While Kashmir remains disputed, it has to be administered, and to that end we have significant autonomy in Azad Kashmir and now G-B. Again, Pakistan is not integrating Kashmir or G-B into Pakistan, merely enacting administrative changes that give the people of the regions more autonomy.

As to the 'Independence' argument - no, Pakistan does not officially support independence since that is not an option in the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir.

The UNSC resolutions only offer two choices - part of Pakistan or part of India.

Are the violation of UNSC resolutions considered as the primary reason of dispute, or was there something else that brought in the UNSC into the picture in the first place? You seem to have shifted the Starting point of this issue by a good distance by stating that.
The UNSC resolutions were neutral and agreed to by the global community, India and Pakistan. They are therefore the logical starting point and focus of discourse when it comes to ending the dispute.
 
As to the 'Independence' argument - no, Pakistan does not officially support independence since that is not an option in the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir.

The UNSC resolutions only offer two choices - part of Pakistan or part of India.


The UNSC resolutions were neutral and agreed to by the global community, India and Pakistan. They are therefore the logical starting point and focus of discourse when it comes to ending the dispute.

AM.. Going out for Dinner. Will give a detailed response later, But you seem to be taking all sides of the arguments and arguing and counter arguing everywhere. In this thread, you mention that Pakistan supports the Kashmiri movement for self determination and hence supported violence and now you say there are only 2 options. while this makes a good talking point in a court of Law or a bollywood court scene where i can refute your points, its not getting us anywhere with you arguing and counter arguing over the same point. :undecided:
 
AM.. Going out for Dinner. Will give a detailed response later, But you seem to be taking all sides of the arguments and arguing and counter arguing everywhere. In this thread, you mention that Pakistan supports the Kashmiri movement for self determination and hence supported violence and now you say there are only 2 options. while this makes a good talking point in a court of Law or a bollywood court scene where i can refute your points, its not getting us anywhere with you arguing and counter arguing over the same point. :undecided:

I am not sure what the contradiction is - the UN called for a plebiscite with two options. Pakistan supports the UNSC resolutions and therefore supported the Kashmiri fight against Indian occupation since India reneged on her commitment to hold that plebiscite.

Enjoy dinner.
 
Perhaps what should be done is what China has done in Tibet where they have moved in Han Chinese in droves...India should maybe do the same,remove article 370 and move mainland Indians into Kashmir.
 
Perhaps what should be done is what China has done in Tibet where they have moved in Han Chinese in droves...India should maybe do the same,remove article 370 and move mainland Indians into Kashmir.

Even Pakistan has done same as tibet.
 
@ AgNoStIc MuSliM & humblehobbes:

Gentlemen, thank you for your insights, but I feel the discussion has deviated somewhat from the original intent & from apparently nowhere UN resolutions and a brutal army and insurgents were lobbed into the mix. I will try and move the discussion to a different dimension. I have no idea what kind of people this forum attracts, but this MAY be one way to know.

I will be back on this page with some more context.
 
Here is some more perspective..

The BBC journo in Delhi has detailed how savvy & young Kashmiris from well to do families have resorted to tools available to them to paint India black, and hope to highlight their struggle. Citizen journalism has taken on a whole new meaning for them, it is their favoured tool in an assymetric battle of unequals. Both those points are troublesome, unless ofcourse we bring in foreign-hand-behind-all-ills into play here too, they are indigenous peoples. They are educated, resourceful and since they are young of age their attitudes are likely to persist for a long time. I have not been able to reach a conclusive answer to forces driving this state of affairs.

- Imagine a Human Rights campaigner in some European Parliament pandering to a all-is-not-well-with-this-world audience. Coming as it does now from the feeble (a 15 year old), to the world it MUST sound like one of the big expose' of our times. A contemporary rendition of David vs Goliath.

Now, if someone representing a credible foreign concern can go all the way and speak with the creators of the incriminating evidence as well as the PR Officer of the CRPF ( and more than the BBC, the British have a reputation of backing the underdog, google: "asylum capital of the world" ) what stops him from 'exposing' the authorities heavy handedness in Kashmir, should he be so inclined?

Also what hitherto unknown are these boys trying to expose? In his own words the 15 yr old says that he did it to impress his friends with the rarity of being at such a place at such a time. I dont think he did it for 'self determination'. But somewhere along the way as it moved from the mobile to youtube and elsewhere, it was painted to be so by people along the way.

- These people along the way, who set the tone for a viewer, you know:

'Rare Footage: Unlucky man got shot' which may rank on the same scale of being exotic as say 'Rare Footage: Live at road accident'
is painted as
'Shaheed .. Brutal repressive state.. '
etc

Looking for the driving force behind this intent, how someone colours our perception, I am trying to find out why the youth are doing this. It may be seen as a plea for fairness from some higher power outside or is it a more fundamental problem of dignity ( putting up with a mentally stressed & quantitatively overwhelming military presence intruding Kashmiri lives, frisking them repeatedly etc. ) and stress from living in a war torn zone, whereby these young are settling scores with the state by humiliating it morally?

- From one point of view, India should be credited for the fact that it allows such 'excursions' at all (suitably 'monitered'), under it's very nose. Not many countries can claim that, given that other world capitals are usually home to dissidents from various regimes, where they operate in a freer environment with possible backing and support of their host (Rebiya Kadeer, Dalai Lama et al). In the podcast itself some Kashmiri journo claimed that though 'sophisticated' methods of reigning folks in are being used, they breath easy, for now.

- Do these smart kids not realise that this may not be the best course of action? That is why my question as to whether these videos solve any purpose in the end other than fueling feelings of hate & revenge among its viewers. I must add from first hand experience that there is no love lost between the Government machinery and citizens on this side of the Radcliffe line. The dichotomy of the Indian state is that it can be a very hard state to live in, on a measure of how it treats its citizens, yet is infamously perceived as a soft state ( capitulating to hijackers more than once). The Gujjars successfully led a unarmed resistance against an apathetic Govt for reservations (positive discrimination if you will), within the Indian framework, why don't these kids replicate that? I mean a more Nelson Mandela way to a settlement over this brick for brick, eye for eye approach.
 
If the people here would try to be constructive, even I would.

But unfortunately, the atmosphere is not constructive. I am here as long as you want me to be. You are the moderator. That means you are God of the forum.

People have been constructive, you have chosen to only focus on the trolls, post inane responses, and therefore troll yourself.

The discussion on this thread at least has focused on civil debate, yet you could not manage to contribute constructively.

Bye.
 
Do these smart kids not realise that this may not be the best course of action?

Has India offered another course of action? Has India indicated it might be open to the idea of the Kashmiris being allowed their right of self-determination?

Would you rather they take up arms and use violence?

Where is the discussion on what the Indian state can do to resolve the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan, that provides the background for both non-violent and violent protests?

Even keeping in mind that some of the footage might well have been taken without the prospect of it being used as a form of 'protest', the fact remains that enough sentiment against occupation and in favor of self-determination exists to utilize the media, both accidentally and deliberately.
 
I agree with the above recommendation from Hack.....we have been fair in restricting movements of people from other parts of India into Kashmir.....I think Pakistan has not followed the same and allowed people from all over its lands settle in Kashmir....
I think the point is we have the land of Kashmir that belongs to India....What we want is to win over the Kashmiri's.....I feel India has been going about it the wrong way.....

Economic benefit/welfare is the greatest incentive.....No matter who you are.....

Ecomomic warfare was how the British colonized India.....something us Indians failed to learn....

1)We should be providing incentives to Kashmiri's to move out of Kashmir.....move to various parts of India for jobs/employment.....provide Kashmiri entrepreneurs lucrative opportunities to start businesses.....Quotas in universities for education to Kashmiri youth.....etc etc....I can go on

2)Start repatriation of militants.....try to get them "militants" on the table and ask them about their demands....I dont understand why we deal with Pakistan....as though they represent the demands of the common Kashmiri (They only care about what they want as the fate for Kashmiri's).....see what India can do to better the life of Kashmiri's in return for giving up weapons and going public about Pakistan's role in sponsoring terrorism through this.....
(I saw the movie "Body of Lies" recently and it showed how kindness and generosity worked much better to turn possible militants onto the right side as opposed to the heavy handedness that the CIA used)

4) Allow even the militants/radicals to have the opportunity to be elected through the democratic process in an effort to channel their concerns and views to the central govt....but under the banner of India and Indian constitution


3) Provide more autonomy to the Kashmiri's to deal with their state....but keeping within the boundaries of Indian constitution, laws and regualtions.....

India's greatest strength is its economic clout.....we should utilize it to motivate people to want to be aligned with us!!!
If a Kashmiri is progressing economically in India....what reason would he/she have to join Pakistan and its mess??
For religion?? I feel members here are under the wrong impression that mere religious affiliation will motivate someone to drop their life/home/families and move to country that yet has to figure out its own problems, let alone that of a new state/ people....This is not 1947 nor are we the India of the past.....remember "money is god!!!"

Lets make the Kashmiri's dependent on India such that no amount of "jihad" sponsored by Pak can move them.......
The only thing Pakistan has going for it is their fake fight for "the right of the Kashmiri's"
I can bet anyone here to tell me what benefits Kashmiri's will have of being affiliated or joining with Pakistan over India??

If we want to be a true superpower, we have to understand the power of Money and learn to use it to our advantage!!!
Lets be economic hitmen for a change!!!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom