Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Valiant_Soul]

That is the $64million question. I'd be sitting in tomorrow's CCS meeting if I knew

But I think approaching the talks with the drop of preconditions attached might be a start. Go to Srinagar and don't do things at arms length. Request a meeting with all political leaders, but mainly the separatists.

It'd be a great way to say for MMS or anyone from the Cabinet 'I came all the way to Srinagar to hold talks, informal and with no set agenda, I came to listen, to express my sorrow and regret at the loss of life'.

These shouldn't be empty words of course, but India isn't stupid to realise that the people within the Valley are slipping away at a much greater rate than ever before.

I'm staggered that no-one from the Centre has taken the initiative and headed up to Kashmir to be there in person, do their best to have talks. Just letting this run and run, snowball out of control has got us to

You should know what happened to Omar Abdullah when he went to express his grief in a hospital. Ministers cannot just storm into their place, unless they express their desire to come to the table.

Gestures, of the kind you suggest, are no longer adequate, in fact they never were. For the talks to be held, an agenda is previously decided, and the GOI can never include the subject of Kashmir independence from India and hence no such talks can take place.

It is all a matter of who will blink first. And we know that the government has all the means and justifications to hold to its stand.

 

[somebozo]

So is up for the argument of Islamic flag versus Pak flag?
One of them even has a six pointed star so we can have a parallel arguments of some new kind of flag!

Pakistani media is not giving much coverage because most of the private channel owners have been comfortably compensated by Indian lobby with deposits in their Dubai bank accounts.

Most of the opposers of Indian rule are educated to semi-educated Kashmiris with releatives abroad. Many have comes into contact with citizen of AJK and appraise the way Pakistan has preserved Kashmiri identity. Having a handful of AJK friends, I can tell they dont look or feel like mainstream Pakistani at all. They have their own distinctive way of conversing, dressing and interacting. I feel sorry for their plight. They are quick to correct their political nationality by mentioned themselves as "Azad Kashmiris"

 

[foxbat]

"There is a sense of 'how do we as a democracy deal with this?'

That is pretty easy to answer. As a democratic State whose Governor General made final accession conditional to a plebiscite, as a State whose leadership promised the Kashmiris time and time again that they would be able to determine their future through a plebiscite, as a State that committed to a plebiscite in the UNSC to the international community and to the other party to the dispute, Pakistan, as a State that endorsed the idea of plebiscite as paramount in disputed accessions through its own occupation and annexation of Junagadh through plebiscite, India must implement the committed plebiscite in one form or another, resolving both the grievances of the Kashmiris and the dispute with Pakistan in one stroke.

True nations are not built upon forced occupation and annexation of peoples and their lands, true nations are built from various peoples coming together to willingly form a pact of nationhood. India's argument of holding on to Kashmir despite the wishes of its people and its violated commitments is the Colonialist and Nazi vision of a State.

so UN certified disputed status or not, the issue here is nations being built on people coming together and not occupation. So wouldnt it be nice if the same lense is applied to other separatist movements demanding independence as well. Isnt it?

So why would Pakistan help Sri Lanka getting rid of LTTE, and there are a bunch in Pakistan as well. And then there is Tibet and the Muslim dominated province of China.

And I saw you making comments about double standards of India in another thread.. hmmm...

 

[mikkix]

PAKISTANIS ARE GIVING TOO MUCH FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO INDIANS HERE ON THIS FORUM. ACT IN YOUR INTERESTS, BAN ALL INDIANS EXCEPT THOSE WHO ARE SENSITIVE TO THE CONCERNS OF KASHMIRIS.
BOYCOTT BOLLYWOOD COMPLETELY, IT IS AGAINST YOUR RELIGION, YOUR COUNTRY, YOUR MORAL VALUES, AND YOUR INTERESTS... YOU ARE PLAYING WITH OUR AND YOUR MARTYRS BLOOD
RESTRICT FOREIGN FUNDING TO YOUR MEDIA CHANNELS... THEY HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED TO THE CORE IN THE NAME OF "PRESS FREEDOM"
TAKE ACTIVE STEP WITH RESPECT TO KASHMIR... ORGANIZE PUBLIC SYMPATHY FOR KASHMIRIS IN YOUR MOSQUES, CHURCHES, TEMPLES, ETC
MAKE PAKISTAN STRONGER, ELECT YOUR GOVERNMENT WISELY,

DO YOU ALL PAKISTANI BROTHERS AGREE ON THIS OR NOT.??
To my Indian comrades on this thread WE HAVE NOTHING AGAINST INDIA, BUT AGAINST INDIAN OCCUPATION OF KASHMIR, please understand the human angle of the problem, we may be pro pakistanis, or pro russians, or pro chinese, or whatever, what do you care... leave us, and let us rot, we will take care of ourselves

Brother we don't need to ban the Indians what we need is to open their minds and filled their hearts with justice and equality...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am posting here again, what I posted back a few pages back, concerning your case of Junagadh, and why India cannot be termed occupier.

Your post does not raise any questions that have not been answered already. Under the legal framework governing accessions agreed upon between the ML, Congress and the British, there was no consideration given to a nation's ideology. If there had been, then the only States that had a choice of acceding to Pakistan would have been Muslim majority States.

So this is a patently flawed argument on your part, and stands debunked.

As for the demilitarization issue, that question has also been addressed in the UNSC resolutions sticky towards the end (last ten pages or so, in particular my exchange with Bandit and Toxic) please read through it. The demilitarization of the territory was contingent upon negotiations conducted by the UN appointed commissions and rapporteurs and would be based on whatever proposals they came up with that were accepted by both sides, in particular India. India, AFAIK, rejected all of them, leading to the impasse in demilitarization and implementation of the UNSC resolutions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

so UN certified disputed status or not, the issue here is nations being built on people coming together and not occupation. So wouldnt it be nice if the same lense is applied to other separatist movements demanding independence as well. Isnt it?

Yes, and in the case of the territories comprising Pakistan and most of the territories comprising India, that compact was entered into at the time of partition. For example, I support the Indian action against Khalistani separatism since the Sikhs threw in their lot with the Indian Union at the time of partition and made no demand for an independent State as did the Muslims led by the ML. The same applies in the case of Balochistan.

Kashmir however was suffering from a violent rebellion against its autocratic ruler before partition, which made any decisions he made, especially given his actions to suppress and persecute the majority Muslims in the State, suspect in terms of any compact he would make with the Indian State.

So why would Pakistan help Sri Lanka getting rid of LTTE, and there are a bunch in Pakistan as well. And then there is Tibet and the Muslim dominated province of China.

And I saw you making comments about double standards of India in another thread.. hmmm...

I can only speak to Pakistan, India and Kashmir - given their relevance to me as a Pakistani and the unresolved disputes - you can take up the Tamil and Xinxiang issue with the Sri Lankans and Chinese respectively.

As for double standards, the qualifying argument I made in the first part of this post is one I have made repeatedly - perhaps you failed to notice or have deliberately ignored it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That is the $64million question. I'd be sitting in tomorrow's CCS meeting if I knew

But I think approaching the talks with the drop of preconditions attached might be a start. Go to Srinagar and don't do things at arms length. Request a meeting with all political leaders, but mainly the separatists.

It'd be a great way to say for MMS or anyone from the Cabinet 'I came all the way to Srinagar to hold talks, informal and with no set agenda, I came to listen, to express my sorrow and regret at the loss of life'.

These shouldn't be empty words of course, but India isn't stupid to realise that the people within the Valley are slipping away at a much greater rate than ever before.

I'm staggered that no-one from the Centre has taken the initiative and headed up to Kashmir to be there in person, do their best to have talks. Just letting this run and run, snowball out of control has got us to where we are - in limbo.

And if they ask for Plebiscite, or adjustment of borders in some way?

Again, you can call for 'talks/Kutcheries/open fora/dialog' etc. all you want, but if you are not prepared to actually listen and deal with the demands, then what?

 

[foxbat]

Kashmir however was suffering from a violent rebellion against its autocratic ruler before partition, which made any decisions he made, especially given his actions to suppress and persecute the majority Muslims in the State, suspect in terms of any compact he would make with the Indian State.

So lets abstract this up a little bit.

Replace the Maharaja of Kashmir with British.
Replace Kashmir with the British India.
India was in the middle of a violent rebellion against its ruler at the time that ruler decided on the fate of the subcontinent by partitioning the country. So would you hold the decision of British suspect as well?

I dont think so. Both our countries are independent because of those decisions only.

So its basically an arguement of convinience that is discounting the decisions of the ruler of the princely state who was authorised by the same British who granted freedom to the sub continent and created Pakistan. Just because those decisions go against Pakistani POV, they dont become irrelavant.

That way almost every thing can be second guessed.

 

[foxbat]

And if they ask for Plebiscite, or adjustment of borders in some way?

Again, you can call for 'talks/Kutcheries/open fora/dialog' etc. all you want, but if you are not prepared to actually listen and deal with the demands, then what?

The point here is flexibility.. Not capitulation to undemocratic demands.. Democracy as in the country and not state. As I read somewhere on this forum, democracy is the majority decision of all the residents of a country on an issue and not of a subset only.

As a matter of fact, the concept of plebiscite in Kashmir is undemocratic, till the constitution of India recognizes that state as a part of India.

 

[DGMO]

And if they ask for Plebiscite, or adjustment of borders in some way?

Again, you can call for 'talks/Kutcheries/open fora/dialog' etc. all you want, but if you are not prepared to actually listen and deal with the demands, then what?

We don't know what they will ask for as the term 'azaadi' hasn't been explicitly explained from what I've read. It seems the separatists don't know what this means.

Then what you ask? Well, it's what we have now - a stalemate. Valiant_Soul has touched on it, and so have I in previous posts - it's all a matter of who will blink first.

The preconditions are in place for both sides. Both seem to be non-negotiable. In that case, we get the status quo: killings and protests.

I think this has gone beyond even taking steps like rescinding AFSPA. I doubt gestures such as those (which once looked meaningful) can pave the way for peace or normalcy.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

hmm....

interesting you mention state department as well as the best funded intel agency in the world....wish they were on the ''same page'' today as much as they were on the same page on spring of 2003

by the way, i'll need your further analysis on Azad Kashmir since you speak with such authority, and conviction!








p.s. I know that not all Americans think that way; please for God's sakes read my post properly. I have a lot of respect for the U.S. though I do have some resevations about its foreign policy in middle east and other regions as well. It seems that many (more educated) Americans are dis-illusioned as well. Look at the approval ratings on Afghan war (compare 2001/02 to today )

 

[Patriot]

hmm....

interesting you mention state department as well as the best funded intel agency in the world....wish they were on the ''same page'' today as much as they were on the same page on spring of 2003

by the way, i'll need your further analysis on Azad Kashmir since you speak with such authority, and conviction!





p.s. I know that not all Americans think that way; please for God's sakes read my post properly. I have a lot of respect for the U.S. though I do have some resevations about its foreign policy in middle east and other regions as well. It seems that many (more educated) Americans are dis-illusioned as well. Look at the approval ratings on Afghan war (compare 2001/02 to today )

He might be one of those American who could not locate Iraq on Map or who linked 9/11 with Iraq.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So lets abstract this up a little bit.

Replace the Maharaja of Kashmir with British.
Replace Kashmir with the British India.
India was in the middle of a violent rebellion against its ruler at the time that ruler decided on the fate of the subcontinent by partitioning the country. So would you hold the decision of British suspect as well?

I dont think so. Both our countries are independent because of those decisions only.

A very poor analogy since it is easily debunked. The Muslims of British India protested and pushed their case through the platform of the ML, Jinnah and other political parties and leaders. As such, the decision of the majority of the residents of the lands that came to comprise Pakistan was heard - in essence it was a plebiscite given that the voters supported the ML, Jinnah and/or allied parties.

In J&K we never had any such dynamic of the Maharajah being 'elected' into office, or even being given a vote of confidence in some way, by his residents to make a decision of accession on their behalf. On the other hand he led a reign of repression and open discrimination against the State's Muslims.

So its basically an arguement of convinience that is discounting the decisions of the ruler of the princely state who was authorised by the same British who granted freedom to the sub continent and created Pakistan. Just because those decisions go against Pakistani POV, they dont become irrelavant.

That way almost every thing can be second guessed.

It is not an argument of convenience at all - India herself set the precedent for plebiscite being the deciding factor in disputed accessions by virtue of holding a plebiscite in Jungadh after invading and occupying it, and herself committing to plebiscite in accepting the instrument of accession, and accepting the UNSC resolutions in the UN.

 

[RollingStones]

He might be one of those American who could not locate Iraq on Map or who linked 9/11 with Iraq.

Though I am not one of those, I agree that plenty of my fellow citizens would not know how to spell Iraq or know where it is on the map. Again, if you want our help you'll need to learn how to appeal to us. Joking about us wont get you anywhere. If we wnat your help we need to leqrn who you are and how you do things. The same goes for us. No point criticizing why we are this way and wy you arent that way.

 

[bandit]

Govt /NC using its influnce to alter/sabotage the nature of movement by indulging in selective arson . The protests overwhelmingly were against India and India used qurann burning incident to its advantage .

The govt used their influence by ordering arson and then their forces shot them to stop it.

Don't you see how stupid that argument sounds?