you seem to be too blinded to see the truth it simply is not in that manner
Kashmir | News & Discussions.
- Thread starter foxhound
- Start date
you seem to be too blinded to see the truth it simply is not in that manner
pagans
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok tell me the truth. I assert that a substantial and unacceptable level of Kashmiris hate India for no real reason. Can you say that I am wrong.?
TaimiKhan
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,956
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Hisory of Jammu and Kashmir
Kashmir was a Muslim majority Princely State before the independence of Pakistan and India. On 25 July 1947, Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, advised the rulers of the Princely States to accede either to India or Pakistan "keeping in mind the geographical situation of their respective States, the composition of their population and the wishes of their people".
Why is Jammu Kashmir disputed?
Kashmir was a Muslim majority Princely State before the independence of Pakistan and India. On 25 July 1947, Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, advised the rulers of the Princely States to accede either to India or Pakistan "keeping in mind the geographical situation of their respective States, the composition of their population and the wishes of their people". It was, in fact, in line with the partition formula whereby all Muslim majority areas of British India were to join Pakistan after 14 August 1947 and the rest were to accede to the erstwhile British Indian Dominion. Although ruled by a Hindu prince, Muslims constituted 78 percent of Jammu and Kashmir and 93 percent of the population of the valley.
There was a common understanding that Jammu and Kashmir would join Pakistan as in addition to the composition of the population, it was linked to the outside world through Pakistani territory. Pakistan was the source of import of all essential items like petroleum, sugar, salt etc. The Jhelum River was the only source to transport timber for export. However, ignoring the wishes of the people and Kashmir's historical, ethnic, religious, cultural and social relations with Pakistan, the Hindu Raja (Prince) requested for accession to India in return for military aid and a promised referendum. India never fulfilled its promise of plebiscite and the Prince's action was never accepted either by the Kashmiri people or Pakistan.
How did Hindu Raja become the ruler of Muslim majority Kashmir?
Historically speaking, Kashmir had been ruled by the Muslims from the 14th century onwards. The Muslim rule continued till early 19th century when the ruler of Punjab conquered Kashmir and gave Jammu to a Dogra Gulab Singh who purchased Kashmir from the British in 1846 for a sum of 7.5 million rupees.
The Raja of Kashmir had initially shown his intention neither to join Pakistan nor India. Subsequently, why did he decide to join India?
The Raja of Kashmir had signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan in August 1947, which allowed continuation of the services Kashmir was availing under the British rule pending fresh agreement. In the meantime, he strengthened his links with the Indian Government by appointing the Indian Congress nominee Mehr Chand Mahajan as the Prime Minister of the State with the promise that military aid could be made available to him at his discretion.
In the meantime, the Raja had ordered his Muslim subjects to deposit all the arms they possessed. Next, he ordered the Muslim personnel of his army to be disarmed. This was followed by a State-supported campaign of RSS- a Hindu fanatic organization- to exterminate the Muslim population of Jammu or to force them to migrate to Pakistan. Commenting on the Raja's reign of terror, the Times of London observed.
"237,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated, unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border by the force of the Dogra State headed by the Maharaja in person". The Raja's attempt to disarm the Muslim population was resisted in Poonch area and a guerrilla movement developed which grew in strength to nearly 70,000 Poonchis who had served in the British army during the Second World War. The Kashmiri guerrillas responded by attacking Raja's army and their relatives in Pakistan also joined them in the resistance movement.
Sheikh Abdullah, a pro-India Kashmiri leader and father of Farooq Abdullah, the puppet Chief Minister of the Indian Occupied Kashmir, confirmed the atrocities of the Raja in his statement on 21 October 1947 (New Delhi) when he said;
"The present troubles in Poonch, were caused by the unwise policy adopted by the 'State. The people of Poonch started a people's movement to redress their grievances."
On 24 October 1947, Maharaja appealed to India for military help. On 26 October, Maharaja addressed a formal letter to the Governor General of India seeking military assistance. He also signed the so-called Instrument of Accession sent by the Indian Government as a quid pro quo. But later researchers like Alistair Lamb doubted the veracity of this instrument.
Was it an unqualified accession to India?
On 27 October, while accepting the instrument of accession, Mountbatten the British Governor General of India after independence wrote back:
"... It is my Government's wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people."
On 30 October 1947, Nehru addressed a telegram to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan saying:
"Our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision about the future of the State to the people of the State is not merely a pledge to your Government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world."
On 2 November 1947, in a Radio Broadcast Prime Minister Nehru repeated pledge to hold plebiscite in J&K "under international auspices like the United Nations. So the accession was conditioned with a promise of plebiscite, which was repeated, by the high-level Indian leaders as well as Indian representatives in the United Nations.
However, these promises were never fulfilled.
Legal Argument
India based its argument on Article II of the Simla Agreement, which says that the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.
What are the Legal Arguments presented by India?
India based its argument on Article II of the Simla Agreement, which says that the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.
However, Para 1 of the Simla Agreement specifically provides that "the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries". Article 2 of the Charter spells "all members ..... shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present charter". More specifically Article 103 of the Charter says "in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the UN under the present Charter and their obligations under any other internal agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail". Many countries have invoked Article 103 whenever their obligations under the Charter conflicted with those under other treaties. The Indian interpretation of the Simla Agreement, therefore, does not diminish the necessity for both Pakistan and India to fulfill their Charter obligations.
Furthermore, the Simla Agreement says, "The principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries". One of the fundamental provisions of the Charter is "respect for the principle of self-determination of peoples" (Article 1). That can also be interpreted as one of the Charter obligations of states and under Article 103- any contrary provision, therefore, of all other treaties including the Simla Agreement cannot take precedence.
Political Argument
After the nuclearization of South Asia the Kashmir dispute is no more just a bilateral dispute between Pakistan and India. Any dispute between Pakistan and India, no matter how less serious, can provoke a nuclear exchange. This poses a serious threat to international peace and security, and global economic and social stability. The international community has therefore an interest in the settlement of bilateral disputes between Pakistan and Indian in a peaceful manner and in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter. The interest of the international community has been established by resolution 1172, which urges Pakistan and India to address the root cause of their tensions.
Kashmir was a Muslim majority Princely State before the independence of Pakistan and India. On 25 July 1947, Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, advised the rulers of the Princely States to accede either to India or Pakistan "keeping in mind the geographical situation of their respective States, the composition of their population and the wishes of their people".
Why is Jammu Kashmir disputed?
Kashmir was a Muslim majority Princely State before the independence of Pakistan and India. On 25 July 1947, Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, advised the rulers of the Princely States to accede either to India or Pakistan "keeping in mind the geographical situation of their respective States, the composition of their population and the wishes of their people". It was, in fact, in line with the partition formula whereby all Muslim majority areas of British India were to join Pakistan after 14 August 1947 and the rest were to accede to the erstwhile British Indian Dominion. Although ruled by a Hindu prince, Muslims constituted 78 percent of Jammu and Kashmir and 93 percent of the population of the valley.
There was a common understanding that Jammu and Kashmir would join Pakistan as in addition to the composition of the population, it was linked to the outside world through Pakistani territory. Pakistan was the source of import of all essential items like petroleum, sugar, salt etc. The Jhelum River was the only source to transport timber for export. However, ignoring the wishes of the people and Kashmir's historical, ethnic, religious, cultural and social relations with Pakistan, the Hindu Raja (Prince) requested for accession to India in return for military aid and a promised referendum. India never fulfilled its promise of plebiscite and the Prince's action was never accepted either by the Kashmiri people or Pakistan.
How did Hindu Raja become the ruler of Muslim majority Kashmir?
Historically speaking, Kashmir had been ruled by the Muslims from the 14th century onwards. The Muslim rule continued till early 19th century when the ruler of Punjab conquered Kashmir and gave Jammu to a Dogra Gulab Singh who purchased Kashmir from the British in 1846 for a sum of 7.5 million rupees.
The Raja of Kashmir had initially shown his intention neither to join Pakistan nor India. Subsequently, why did he decide to join India?
The Raja of Kashmir had signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan in August 1947, which allowed continuation of the services Kashmir was availing under the British rule pending fresh agreement. In the meantime, he strengthened his links with the Indian Government by appointing the Indian Congress nominee Mehr Chand Mahajan as the Prime Minister of the State with the promise that military aid could be made available to him at his discretion.
In the meantime, the Raja had ordered his Muslim subjects to deposit all the arms they possessed. Next, he ordered the Muslim personnel of his army to be disarmed. This was followed by a State-supported campaign of RSS- a Hindu fanatic organization- to exterminate the Muslim population of Jammu or to force them to migrate to Pakistan. Commenting on the Raja's reign of terror, the Times of London observed.
"237,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated, unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border by the force of the Dogra State headed by the Maharaja in person". The Raja's attempt to disarm the Muslim population was resisted in Poonch area and a guerrilla movement developed which grew in strength to nearly 70,000 Poonchis who had served in the British army during the Second World War. The Kashmiri guerrillas responded by attacking Raja's army and their relatives in Pakistan also joined them in the resistance movement.
Sheikh Abdullah, a pro-India Kashmiri leader and father of Farooq Abdullah, the puppet Chief Minister of the Indian Occupied Kashmir, confirmed the atrocities of the Raja in his statement on 21 October 1947 (New Delhi) when he said;
"The present troubles in Poonch, were caused by the unwise policy adopted by the 'State. The people of Poonch started a people's movement to redress their grievances."
On 24 October 1947, Maharaja appealed to India for military help. On 26 October, Maharaja addressed a formal letter to the Governor General of India seeking military assistance. He also signed the so-called Instrument of Accession sent by the Indian Government as a quid pro quo. But later researchers like Alistair Lamb doubted the veracity of this instrument.
Was it an unqualified accession to India?
On 27 October, while accepting the instrument of accession, Mountbatten the British Governor General of India after independence wrote back:
"... It is my Government's wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people."
On 30 October 1947, Nehru addressed a telegram to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan saying:
"Our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision about the future of the State to the people of the State is not merely a pledge to your Government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world."
On 2 November 1947, in a Radio Broadcast Prime Minister Nehru repeated pledge to hold plebiscite in J&K "under international auspices like the United Nations. So the accession was conditioned with a promise of plebiscite, which was repeated, by the high-level Indian leaders as well as Indian representatives in the United Nations.
However, these promises were never fulfilled.
Legal Argument
India based its argument on Article II of the Simla Agreement, which says that the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.
What are the Legal Arguments presented by India?
India based its argument on Article II of the Simla Agreement, which says that the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.
However, Para 1 of the Simla Agreement specifically provides that "the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries". Article 2 of the Charter spells "all members ..... shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present charter". More specifically Article 103 of the Charter says "in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the UN under the present Charter and their obligations under any other internal agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail". Many countries have invoked Article 103 whenever their obligations under the Charter conflicted with those under other treaties. The Indian interpretation of the Simla Agreement, therefore, does not diminish the necessity for both Pakistan and India to fulfill their Charter obligations.
Furthermore, the Simla Agreement says, "The principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries". One of the fundamental provisions of the Charter is "respect for the principle of self-determination of peoples" (Article 1). That can also be interpreted as one of the Charter obligations of states and under Article 103- any contrary provision, therefore, of all other treaties including the Simla Agreement cannot take precedence.
Political Argument
After the nuclearization of South Asia the Kashmir dispute is no more just a bilateral dispute between Pakistan and India. Any dispute between Pakistan and India, no matter how less serious, can provoke a nuclear exchange. This poses a serious threat to international peace and security, and global economic and social stability. The international community has therefore an interest in the settlement of bilateral disputes between Pakistan and Indian in a peaceful manner and in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter. The interest of the international community has been established by resolution 1172, which urges Pakistan and India to address the root cause of their tensions.
TaimiKhan
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,956
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/41298-hisory-jammu-kashmir.html#post580340
A refresher in history for you guys to read carefully.
A refresher in history for you guys to read carefully.
simply they don't.The percentage of the Kasmir election turn out shows that.Everything simply isn't communal
pagans
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 0
Have you been ? Anyway the question is moot .You need not go to America to learn about America. I have not been to Kashmir.
Where do you live ? Most Kashmiris living in rest of India usually supports India .It's commonsense. You don't generally expect Kashmiri to say they hate India to an Indian while they live in India. And of course there are Kashmiri sunni Muslims who support India, I am not denying that.
50% of Kashmiris supporting India is just a natural thing,because as Indians they are supposed to do it, but the attention should go to the 50% who hate India for no reason.
Do you know that the percentage of Muslims in the state is much more than that?. And do you know that the Kashmiri police have done miserable job compared with that of their Punjabi counterparts ?
I don't have a narrow view. Those who want India strong and united are nationalists. Their religion don't matter.
The rigging was done by shaikh Abdullah,a Kashmiri. Why should Kashmiris start an armed struggle against India for it ? Does India represents Seikh Abdullah's party ?
GOI did not create any situation .You should stop blaming your government for the evils done by Kashmiris. India had not does anything wrong in relation to Kashmir,if anything it is Article 370, the rest is separatist propaganda which gaves them more reasons to attack India. I plead you not to believe it.
You should stop accusing your government. India had never stopped justice and fairness to Kashmiris. It's the other way around. The problem is started ,developed and maintained wholly by Kashmiris and India was never ever a part of the problem.
Last edited:
Because under the Congress governments under Indira and Rajiv Ghandhi India did not give J&K its rights. Elections were rigged, emergency rules were imposed. That is why even the Hindus and sikhs were tired of the then Congress's highhandedness and joined in the struggle.
Ok now it looks like I am starting to waste my time here. Do you know that 65+% of J&K police is muslim. So now even protesting is unpatriotic, so now any place in India where protesters clash with police are people supporting Jihad? The Shiv sena and MNS are right their with you I think.
Was there an armed conflict before '89? Do you know more muslims have died in by militant attacks that non-muslims? I'm sorry to say your lack of knowledge is quite high.
Do you have any concern for Kashmiri sunni muslims dying in these militant attacks?
http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmir-war/38388-militants-kill-bsf-jawan-his-wife-rajouri-jammu.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/kashmi...lled-kashmir-militants-kashmiri-official.html
You claimed Kashmiris love Pakistan more than India. At least be courteous enough to say that you were wrong and more Kashmirs prefer India than Pakistan.
The current GoI has a better handle of the mistakes they made and are making ammends. There is a reason why there is such high voter turnout and why there is such low levels of violence there these days. Its ex-militants and muslims in J&K police that are in the front line of Village Defence committees protecting Kashmiri land from militants. Atleast give credit were credit is due. Again proves my point that its not religion that is the problem. Otherwise ALL muslims would have voted against India. So you were wrong there again.
That is your opinion. Let a party declare that this is their agenda and get the mandate of the people. Let them explain what are the disadvantage vs advantage and convince people. So far no one has been able to do so. And IF they win and have the mandate, they can remove it for all states(like Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and other NE states) that have 370 not just J&K.
Until then your opinion, although important in the sense that it is part of public opinion will remain just that. But again 370 is not the basis of patriotism and making it so is foolish, particularly since its part of the constitution that GoI official and army swears to uphold. Any Indian that goes against the consitution is a traitor and liable for treason charges.
You said that Kashmiri muslims prefer Pakistan more than India and proved you wrong and showed that it was the opposite. Do you agree that you were wrong now? And this is not a static opinion, its fluid. This was done in 2008. If the GoI and J&K govt. continues performing like its doing now, the anti-Indian sentiment will go down continually.
Moreover you gave it a communal color by claiming its because of "religion". What about separatists and leaders of ULFA and NE secessionist movements who are hindu and christians? What about the maoists trying to setup a parallel govt. ? In all these cases there was a lack of good and just governance by the GoI and local government. Hostile countries obviously took advantage of this undercurrent as any would to make them more lethal.
Like I said before, the most important aspect of a country is eventually empowering its people. That is patriotism for me. I spend more of time and effort in the social services area, and not in measuring who is upto the mark and wether a person is "patriotic" enough according to them.
And oh yes I don't need a "certificate" of patriotism from you and neither does any other Indian.
pagans
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 0
They are. The election percentage is not a proof of their love for India. Things are more communal than you think. The whole India -Pakistan division was on communal line. Can you deny that ?
Barrett
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 793
- Reaction score
- 0
A plebiscite under the already pending U.N resolution will be able to answer all questions.
pagans
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 0
Just look at that, you can't even quote data properly can you? for Pakistan you use "for" whatever that means. Instead of 71% vs 49% that you should be quoting. Its like heads I win and tails you lose. You keep losing credibility even more with such unsavory attempts.
These are percentage of people who said it was an UNACCEPTABLE solution to the J&K issue according to the survey.
Did you notice that only about 25% of Pakistani Kashmiris voted against joining India? So that means 75% would be ok to join India as well. Infact if we guaranteed Pakistani Kashmiris article 370 that fell down to 21%. What about that? Another hole in your theory. According to you 75% (or say 79% ) of Pakistani Kashmiris are traitors to the Pakistan. Higher than 49% who are against India.
pagans
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 0
The plebiscite will never happen because the result will go against India. India knows it, Pakistan knows it and Kashmiris knows it. That is why Anti-India people call for it and pro -India people remain mute on it.A plebiscite under the already pending U.N resolution will be able to answer all questions.
Aslan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,551
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
What is your definition of the historical india, or the land that it had occupied. Who do you think are the people who can be called the indigenous population, like the indians or the Americas and the original locals of the Australia's.
EjazR - it is irrefutable that the rigged elections had caused discontent in Indian Kashmir. Discontent that was exploited by Pakistan to support the seperatists.
We Indians helped the Mukti Bahani - Pakistan being our enemy supported JKLF, Hizbul etc. But the fact was that the Indian Army had not indulged in mass genocide like the Pak army in Bangladesh in 1971. The situation in 1989 was charged. Hindus were being killed in the valley -the chances of mass ethnic cleansing was there. Fortunately this did not happen. I consider the custodial deaths in Kashmir and shooting of protestors as relatively minor and localised acts.
@pagans - Islamic fundamentalists have spoiled the issue in Kashmir today - they are calling for Islamic state etc. The issue of Islam has come up only recently in Kashmir. India sould prevent the radicalisation of Kashmir. The only way for this is to focus on Kashmiryat, secularism and common values with Kashmir.
We Indians helped the Mukti Bahani - Pakistan being our enemy supported JKLF, Hizbul etc. But the fact was that the Indian Army had not indulged in mass genocide like the Pak army in Bangladesh in 1971. The situation in 1989 was charged. Hindus were being killed in the valley -the chances of mass ethnic cleansing was there. Fortunately this did not happen. I consider the custodial deaths in Kashmir and shooting of protestors as relatively minor and localised acts.
@pagans - Islamic fundamentalists have spoiled the issue in Kashmir today - they are calling for Islamic state etc. The issue of Islam has come up only recently in Kashmir. India sould prevent the radicalisation of Kashmir. The only way for this is to focus on Kashmiryat, secularism and common values with Kashmir.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
-
-
-
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
-
-
-
