Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Hawkish]

You are right on point no:2 especially for India. I don't agree on the rest

Omar is for both Jammu and Kashmir. Right?

Narrow sample of people (just in the valley). 40% are non-muslims and they are happy staying in India. Out of the 60% there will be some more who are happy the way things are.


Almost every state in India is culturally different from each other, thats the idea behind India. This is not a valid reason.


They have chosen their own leader. Did Omar Adbullah come out of thin air and become the CM. Remember 70% voter turnout.


Plebiscite is for the whole region of JnK and has a lot of preconditions. Don't want to reiterate here. Go search and figure out why there couldn't have been a plebiscite.


Agree to some extent, but that is the case in other parts of India as well. Police often cross their limits to control the situation to prevent damage to pubic property and their own safety.

 

[StingRoy]

You are right on point no:2 especially for India. I don't agree on the rest

Omar is for both Jammu and Kashmir. Right?

Yes Omar is for both Jammu and Kashmir.

 

[Omar1984]

YouTube - Kashmir children attacked by Indian soliders




YouTube - Kashmir Needs the World's Attention

 

[Omar1984]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.





YouTube - Indian army terrorism in Occupied Kashmir

 

[Omar1984]

YouTube - Indian Army and Police Implicated in Kashmir Killings.01



YouTube - Indian Army and Police Implicated in Kashmir Killings.0 2



YouTube - Indian Army and Police Implicated in Kashmir Killings.0 3

 

[Subramanian]

I more or less agree with your post my friend
the problem is not Pakistani stand like the title suggests. (I renamed it by the way) India also is very emotional when it comes to Kashmir

the way the boundaries were drawn by the Radcliff and the way the British hurried out of the British India, led to tens of thousands of deaths of the people and a permanent animosity among the two big religions.

I agree that British has played their part. its their built -in nature, they left conflicts in every single place they have ever set their foot upon. but we as mature nations must resolve it on the basis of the will of the people and mutual benefit. we must find a middle ground and not let the extremists on both sides dictate our future.
The Kashmir cause has suffered a lot at the hands of the Afghan Jihad inspired insurgents. They used the same tactics in Kashmir which vindicated the presence of over a million Indian troops and thus gave them a free pass to punish the Kashmiri population.

What really makes me sad is on many occasions India & Pakistan almost agreed in principle in resolving Kashmir dispute but the fate had other Ideas. The change in governments on both sides stalled the efforts. There is a genuine desire to resolve it amicably that addresses the Kashmiri demands and also safeguards the concerns & sensitivities of both India and Pakistan.

There has to be a middle ground that both nations will have to take. Only a strong, sincere and committed leadership in both countries will enable this resolution. A leadership that wont be pressured by the right wing parties, intelligence agencies and other hawks that have their own interpretation about the conflict and prefer the status-quo the result is that the blood is being spilled on both sides feeding the right wing extremist sentiments.

Good post and very accurate.

how do we go forward from here?there is a serious trust deficit brother.how do we tackle that?

 

[Subramanian]

Tibetians are no Talibans. Dailai Lama is no Mulla Omar. The sole reason the world has concern for the Tibetains is because they are peaceful people. I think Xinjiang is a more volatile Chinese area then Tibet.

Indians are good at instigating separatist movements in other countries. Mukthi Bahini in BD and LTTE(during its inception) to some extent were supported by Indians. But in this case, there isn't much support for Tibet among common Indians unlike the Bengalis and Tamils in India who supported MB and LTTE respectively.

Additionally, if India starts supporting insurgency in Tibet, China might support militancy in Indian North East.

i think china is already supporting militancy through burma.They are talking about invasion in arunachal,proxy wars is all in the past.

physically,it is impossible to access tibet and india wont take on china.that territory is of no importance to us.we should be more worried about nepal.

 

[KS]

As I said previously, a solution between India/Pakistan without acknowledging the desires of the Kashmiri community would lead to a renewed Armed Struggles and Freedom Movement, one that would perhaps be much larger than the current one and would discredit Pakistan/India on the world stage. Something neither want.

See...i dont want to sound utopian to soothe some ones ego.

The fact of the matter is once India and Pakistan agree to certain solutions,the Kashmiri Muslim aspirations mean squat to both of them.

The UN resolutions that you people consistently harp on does not provide you the option of independence - either your wagon is hitched to India or to Pakistan.Simple.

What proof do you have of Kashmir becoming another Afghanistan? The cultural and religious set is different in Kashmir than the one in Afghanistan. Furthermore, as is the case with every developing nation, surrounding countries and superpowers vy for influence. I don't think Pakistan would be financially capable to afford an offensive war with any nation for the next 10 years or so, and the relationship Kashmiris and Pakistanis have would further complicate a possible war. Neither do China or India need the critizism of invading a much smaller nation.

I ll answer point by point.

1) Geelani had already on many time reiterated that Sharia will be imposed in Kashmir ,if at all it becomes independent and Islam will be the way of life of the people.So what that basically means is persecution of minorities.Going by past records that is very very possible.

2) Yes pakistan do not have the financial muscle to go on direct offensive wars,thats why they have practised covert,infiltration attempts till this time.And they will continue to do so.
Face it - Pakistan wants the whole of Kashmir to itself.Rest all the slogans of "We support Kashmiri aspirations" is all hogwash.

3)And there again is the covert attempts to influence the regime which all countries can/will play.

So there is more chance of Kashmir becoming "Chota" Afghanistan than it becoming a modern day Shangri-La.

 

[KS]

The U.S the world's oldest democracy decided this point about secessionist tendencies in a democracy long ago in their civil war ,

Exactly..and these people ask for the help of US in promoting a secession. Irony..I must say.

Also,

The Whole is always greater than the sum of it's parts - Aristotle

 

[Fighter488]

By E Jayakrishnan, India Syndicate, 27/10/2010

Shattering some myths on Kashmir​

Arundhati Roy says Kashmir was never a part of India. We look at why she is wrong & why India’s position is not as vulnerable as it is portrayed to be

Myth I

Kashmir has never been an integral part of India: Arundhati Roy
The Story

At the time of Indian independence, none of the princely states — Hyderabad, Gwalior, Mysore, Baroda and Kashmir, to name a few — were part of India. They were called princely states — quasi-sovereign states ruled by the Indian princes under the "suzerainty" of the British. There were as many as 568 states in India when the British decided to leave India.

In 1947, under the Mountbatten Plan, they were given two options — either affiliate with India or with Pakistan. Though most of the princely states thirsted for freedom, that option was closed at the insistence of the Congress party. Though the choice of which entity to join was left to the rulers of the princely states, it was largely understood that the religious denomination of the majority of the citizens and geographical contiguities of the states would be the preponderant determining criteria.

Kashmir fulfilled both these paramount criteria to join Pakistan — geographical contiguity with the newly-formed state and religious domination of the majority of its citizens.

However, there was a problem: The Hindu ruler of Kashmir Maharaja Hari Singh wanted something which was not on the table — azaadi, or freedom from both India and Pakistan. He wanted Kashmir to remain independent. In spite of entreaties from various quarters including from the Governor General of India, Loius Mountbatten, the Maharaja continued to dither and remained non-committal. And the situation reached a stalemate.

Jinnah and Pakistan perceived this intransigence of the Maharaja to be a clever ploy by India and Mountbatten to pluck Kashmir surreptiously from Pakistan's grasp. So, in an operation that today can be seen as a precursor of the Kargil Operation, Pakistan launched a military invasion of Kashmir on October 22, 1947.

Pashtun tribals and irregulars, morally and logistically supported by the Pakistan army, were sent in to force the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. The invaders reached the outskirts of Srinagar, the capital. And threatened to besiege the city.

A frightened and panick-stricken Maharaja radioed Delhi for military help. The Indian leadership argued that it would not be legally possible to send in the Indian Army unless Kashmir acceded to India formally. After another bout of resistance, the Maharaja finally yielded and Mountbatten's aide V P Menon was sent to Srinagar to secure his signature on the Instrument of Accession. Once signed (on 26 October 1947), the Indian Army was airlifted to Srinagar and the Pakistani invaders were beaten back, but not before they controlled about one-third of Kashmir.

The Reality:

As soon as the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, Kashmir's accession to India was complete in the legal and formal sense — the same Instrument of Accession that was signed by more than 500 other princely states. That is a fact of history, which cannot be disputed without stretching the truth. It's there is black and white. In fact, it can be argued that it was Pakistan's folly of invading Kashmir, overplaying its hand, which sowed the seeds of the Kashmir imbroglio.




File photo of Jawaharlal Nehru with Sheikh Abdullah. When the irregulars from Pakistan invaded India on October 22, 1947, Prime Minister Nehru went to the UN in good faith to call on the world body to intervene and ensure that Pakistan pull back its troops. Based on the Indian complaint and the counter-arguments of Pakistan, the UN Security Council called for not only an immediate ceasefire, but also a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiris.

Myth II

India refuses to uphold the UN-mandated plebiscite that gives the right of self-determination to the Kashmiri people: Pakistan

The Story

When the irregulars from Pakistan invaded India on October 22, 1947, Prime Minister Nehru went to the UN in good faith to call on the world body to intervene and ensure that Pakistan pull back its troops. Based on the Indian complaint and the counter-arguments of Pakistan, the UN Security Council called for not only an immediate ceasefire, but also a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiris.

Ignoring the advice of his Home Minister Sardar Patel and Indian Army commanders that India should not agree to a ceasefire before the area captured by the invaders was reclaimed, Nehru went ahead and not only ordered an immediate ceasefire but also agreed in principle to the plebiscite — a promise that has not been kept.

The Reality

This is the instance used to castigate India for not only breaking the spirit of the UN resolution but also ignoring the legitimate aspirations of the Kashmiri people.

But just look at what UN Resolution 38 of 17 January 1948 actually says about the run-up to the plebiscite —

"The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours: To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State".

Please read that again.

The much-bandied resolution, used to whip India with by the critics, clearly states that Pakistan will "withdraw" all "Pakistani nationals" and "tribesmen" who infiltrated on October 22, 1947 from the soil of the whole of Jammu and Kashmir as it existed then, without exception. This was the UN resolution's 'first condition' for the beginning of the process towards the plebiscite.

Has that condition been fulfilled by Pakistan? Has the land 'occupied' by the Pakistanis and the tribesmen in 1947 been vacated? Isn't the reality that Pakistan occupied and continues to occupy more than one-third of the territory of Kashmir?

As a way to fulfill the mandate and hold the plebiscite, will Pakistan be willing to vacate *** now, 63 years after the resolution? The answer is written on the wall.

For all intents and purposes the UN resolution on Kashmir is as good as dead.

No wonder then that the wily but pragmatic General Musharraf gave up the usual Pakistani harping on self-determination in Kashmir for a more practical and doable out-of-the-box solution, which unfortunately is being disowned by the present Pakistani government.




File photo of Pandit Nehru during his Kashmir visit in 1947. Ignoring the advise of his Home Minister, Sardar Patel, and Indian Army commanders that India should not agree to a ceasefire before the area captured by the invaders was reclaimed, Nehru went ahead and not only ordered an immediate ceasefire but also agreed in principle to the plebiscite, a promise that has not been kept.


Myth III

Pakistan has always stood by Kashmir, as against the brutality of the Indian security forces in the Indian side of Kashmir: Pakistan

Pakistan in Kashmir

a) Pakistan has carved out the Northern Areas (now called Gilgit-Baltistan, almost 72,971 Sq km) from Kashmir into a separate administrative and political unit. This area, which was part of the undivided Kashmir at the time of independence, has been 'annexed' by Pakistan, as it were, and separated from Kashmir.

b) In 1963, Pakistan illegally ceded 5,800 sq km in the Trans-Karakoram Tract to China. The Tract was part of the original state of Jammu and Kashmir.

c) Pakistan actively encourages "other people" to settle in *** and have even allowed the Chinese a huge presence in Gilgit-Baltistan, ostensibly for developing the infrastructure of the region.

In contrast:

a) Territorially, the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir is the same entity that existed in 1947, except for the portions gobbled-up by Pakistan/China.

b) The Freedom House Report, 2010, on the level of 'freedom' in *** characterised it as "not free', while the Indian side of Kashmir was defined as "partly free".

c) No non-Kashmiri can buy as much as an inch of land in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. There has been no attempt by India to change the demographics or the state's ethnic character. The only demographic change that has happened in the state has been the "ethnic cleansing" of the Kashmiri pundits from the Valley. A mass exodus which has largely been ignored by the media and the powers-that-be.

Therefore, there is nothing much really that India has to feel defensive about. Whatever Arundhati Roy or others may put out on the air.

Source: India Syndicate
Shattering some myths on Kashmir -  National News ? News ? MSN India

 

[Fighter488]

I think Maharaja Hari Singh was a Sikh not a Hindu, as stated in the article.

Am I right?

Fighter

 

[KS]

Nah...<cynic mode on> this thread will be closed <cynic mode off>

I think Maharaja Hari Singh was a Sikh not a Hindu, as stated in the article.
Am I right?

Fighter

I guess he was a Dogra Hindu.

 

[roach]

Brilliant article, very well-written. Don't expect it to be up too long, though.

 

[HAK]

 

[KALKI]

Thanks fighter for the brilliant and succinctly precise article.