Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[InPhilTraitor]

Absolutely - the Kashmiris were promised they would have the choice to determine whether or not they wanted to enter into a compact of nationhood with India or not (as India did with the people of Junagadh, despite the ruler of the State acceding to Pakistan), and India violated that commitment to the Kashmiris and the international community.

Nations are not, as the author argues, built by superfluous claims constructed on the edifice of some religio-cultural myth of a motherland encompassing specific geographical points, but by the people inhabiting those lands determining of their own volition that they wish to be a part of a nation.

India, in denying the Kashmirs their promised right of self-determination, continues to deny them the right to decide on Indian nationhood, and instead force them to accept it.

I cannot envision any other alternative for India but to deny Kashmir valley its Azadi for now, even the agreement between Musharaf and Manmohan which was so close to be signed did not involve a plebisite. India for now is only interested for temporary solution that would incrementally will give way for Independent Kashmir. Giving Kashmiris outright Independence will really destabilize the entire nation, which could be a problem for the world in general and the neighborhood in particular.

The destabilization of India surrounds esp. Indian muslims, because there is a section of people in India who think the unfinished business of partition is "muslims living in India" (just like the pakistani wing thinks of Kashmir as unfinished business). So, it would be like throwing about 160million people to dogs. Very dangerous area to go.

As much are my pakistani friends here are excited about Kashmir and royal screw up we have made out of it, be careful what you wish for.

 

[ek_indian]

The idea of India??????????? Kashmir does not conform to the idea of India in the first place. Kashmir is NOT part of India hence NO question of bringing Kashmir as Indian entity to put forward idea of India.

rather the Indian writers, bloggers should focus their attention on Indian NorthEast infested with insurgencies, rather Indians should focus on how Maoists, Naxals and others come into equation of this losing Idea of India.


End of this flawed idea presented by the Indian writer according to Indian point of view.

Kashmir is Separate country occupied by India

I hereby quote what Paladin said (with due respect):

You totally missed the purpose of the article.

But such comments were expected from you, considering your views.

 

[Leviza]

Two nation theory failed(remember Bangladesh) but still discussing ideology of other's country. on your comment my reply :-

Well have you ever tried to read what Two Nation Theory is?????

If Bangladesh after 1971 become hindu Country then we can say Two Nation theory failed but as you know Bangladesh is a Mulim country so its still there....

Bangladesh people still eat cow meat, they still like Mulsims and they still are Great Muslims .....

TWO Nation theory is still alive and you can see it in india as well​

 

[Fireurimagination]

Not even a single pro-India Muslim Kashmiri youth in the panel, nothing but Barkha dutt special

 

[InPhilTraitor]

Well have you ever tried to read what Two Nation Theory is?????

If Bangladesh after 1971 become hindu Country then we can say Two Nation theory failed but as you know Bangladesh is a Mulim country so its still there....

Bangladesh people still eat cow meat, they still like Mulsims and they still are Great Muslims .....

TWO Nation theory is still alive and you can see it in india as well​

For the love of God, what an Ignorant post.. India is a secular country, Bangladesh amended their constitution declaring it a secular country.

You can go to lot of semantics whether two nation theory is success or failure, but you cannot say all Bangladeshis are muslims over 10% are Hindu. No, Bangladeshi is not Islamic state.

 

[peacekeeper]

This is a conceptually ideal situation but practically almost impossible or rather improbable. All parts of India can not have same scale and levels of development. Even in developed countried this discrepancy does exist.

Some areas have ports and access to sea and some are land-locked, some areas have better natural resources and some have developed financial infrastructre. What we can aspire for a minimal level of development across region and beyond that these factors can come into play.

Moreover - The issue risen here is not just for development and infrastructure but something much more basic than that - A sense of belonging.

And more over the greatest resource kashmir have is its beauty which it can use by promoting tourism but these sporadic violence has not allowed them to use that resource

 

[peacekeeper]

For the love of God, what an Ignorant post.. India is a secular country, Bangladesh amended their constitution declaring it a secular country.

You can go to lot of semantics whether two nation theory is success or failure, but you cannot say all Bangladeshis are muslims over 10% are Hindu. No, Bangladeshi is not Islamic state.

Donno reply to him he have strong anti india mindset you can never have a logical discussion with them.It will derail the thread
just ignore him

 

[Fireurimagination]

The territorial integrity for a country is bigger than any thing and everything 'lives', 'idea of India', 'Democracy' etc etc

I do believe Kashmir has been mishandled but still people with separatist intentions should also have been rational, they won't find more azadi than they can have (once things are normal) in any other part of the planet, so what they should work towards is normalization

 

[greatsequence]

Just see the debate.

I have seen and now you should watch and please listen to the comments of the Brazilian football coach and his wife.

 

[InPhilTraitor]

Kashmir is Separate country occupied by India

So does Azad Kashmir has an army? Embassy in any country? If Pakistan views Kashmir as a separate country, how come neither of these entities are there ?

Pakistan views Kashmir to be a part of Pakistan. pure and simple.

 

[Trac]

The idea of India??????????? Kashmir does not conform to the idea of India in the first place. Kashmir is NOT part of India hence NO question of bringing Kashmir as Indian entity to put forward idea of India.

rather the Indian writers, bloggers should focus their attention on Indian NorthEast infested with insurgencies, rather Indians should focus on how Maoists, Naxals and others come into equation of this losing Idea of India.


End of this flawed idea presented by the Indian writer according to Indian point of view.

Kashmir is Separate country occupied by India

We can discuss a lot about Kashmir can you do the same for Azad kashmri that how much its actually Azad

Can you make a separate thread about Azad Kashmir ???

Ill try 2 times but without any reason thread was deleted cause you dnt have guts to discuss reality

If you have make a thread relatade to Azad Kashmir we will show you your reality

 

[Skeptic]

we already have secular system with positive discriminations towards minorities.besides that kashmiris enjoy lot more special benefits.Still if they say...
what they do not want is army presence in living areas - well army can be kept in border areas only.rest should be given to kashmiri police men.
if they want jobs,development,etc - we can give them

if they want greater autonomy - we may give them withing the frames of our constitution.
if they want independent kashmir - no way we can give them.
if they want islamic laws in state -no way we can give them.
they will have to cooperate with security checks,show id cards, because they are not aliens they must know there is terrorists both inside and from out side.it is for their own and nations safety.if govt bans sms service they should understand that it is for national security.
FREEDOM IS NOT ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IT IS CONDITIONAL.THEY TOO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS NATION AND THEIR FELLOW CITIZEN.

My first reservation is against the argument given in the bolded part. Economic and financial assistance are not the only factors to enable a claim for positive discriminations. What use has this assistance been put to and more importantly is it the only grievance of the population?

Second a conversation can not be held in an atmosphere where as you suggest you are fixated on what exactly you want to offer and the other side is frothing in anger. More important than what you offer is HOW you offer. The wordings appear to be too strict and too dominating. The question is not only whether we can give an independent Kashmir, but whether independent Kashmir is even feasible? It is whether they even desire Islamic law or we are assuming and denying something which is not even asked for?

Security checks and being asked for ID card is one thing but driven out of your house at odd hours to kneel in open fields is definitely any community will despise. It is done because we are doubt that some might be giving sanctuary to terrorist and not to ensure their safety.

When a negotiation is taking place - any demand can not be dismissed as whim rather should be followed with a logical argument. In principal I almost agree with what is mentioned the manner is what I have reservations against.

 

[EjazR]

Ms Jiang Yu is Foreign spokesperson and she mentioned that its a India-Pakistan issue.

Infact all countries say that so this is nothing new. I don't understand why this seems to be big news.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

you attacked Kashmir first, then we went for Junagarh.so,basically you gave us idea 'to attack princely states if they are not with you'.

Not true. The Tribal invasion (not Pak Mil) started on October 22 1947.

On the 25th Sept, 1947, that Provisional Government of Junagadh was formed in Bombay, and rebels in Junagadh, supported by India and the 'Provisional Government' were on a rampage. India officially militarily entered the war on November 9th 1947, but Provisional Government forces (based out of India) were rampaging through Junagadh long before that.

A slight correction here.We didn't go for Junagarh,the PM of Junagarh Shah Nawaz Bhutto the father of Z A Bhutto gave it to us.We did not attack any princely state other than Hyderabad.

Wrong, see above. And Bhutto had no authority to do anything with Junagadh once the State had acceded to Pakistan. He was merely a local administrator. India was well aware of the Pakistani position on Junagadh, as can be seen from the various telegrams exchanged between the two governments. There was no question of Pakistan allowing Indian forces into Junagadh.

 

[Patrician]

Ms Jiang Yu is Foreign spokesperson and she mentioned that its a India-Pakistan issue.

Infact all countries say that so this is nothing new. I don't understand why this seems to be big news.

Flashback,

20-30 years back - It's a major international issue

10-years back - It's a potential nuclear flashpoint

Today - It's an India-Pak issue

After 10 years - It's a non-issue, we have many other important things to worry about.

After 20 years - Kashmir is an integral part of India. Don't be ridiculous.

After 30 years - Ha ha ha. Are you serious?

This is but the proof of how this world changes colors in front of power. This world understands nothing but power.

When we had saints like gandhi and nehru preaching non-violence and 'hindi chini bhai bhai' and NAM, we were ridiculed across the world. Our neighbour attacked us. We were called soviet stooges.

When we have world's second fastest growing economy. A great and huuuuuuuuge consumer base in the form of our middle class and a huge and decently powerful armed forces, the world is lining up at our door.

Money Talks!

Just wait till 2020 guys.