Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Abi]

How is it "occupation"? If it's occupation that all of Pakistan is occupation. Pakistan is not multi-ethnic country.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Well then by that scale, Indian's claim on the territory of Junagadh and Hyderabad is also illegal.

No! Because junagarh and hyderabad do not share a border with pakistan, hence they can not join pakistan. Pls read Toxic's response again. he does use heavy words and then people fail to understand

Also understand pakistani troops entered kashmir first, indian later, hence you are occupiers and we are liberators in our books

Also AZAD kashmir my foot, you have already annexed gilgit baltistan, you can fool your gullible population, not us.

 

[dabong1]

Which part of 'geographical contiguity' do you not understand?

East pakistan.....andaman islands which are closer to burma then india and for the sake of 'geographical contiguity' should belong to burma.

But I guess then you also agree that whole of Kashmir belongs to India and Pakistan is illegally occupying whatever it is occupying

Let the people decide like they did in junagarh.

The Princely States were never a part of the British India

May this will help....Princely state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[notsuperstitious]

East pakistan.....andaman islands which are closer to burma then india and for the sake of 'geographical contiguity' should belong to burma.



Let the people decide like they did in junagarh.




May this will help....Princely state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1) Andamans part of british India
2) Jnagarh did not have a boundary with pakistan, kashmir did with india
3) Read about the mountbatten plan, respect what you agreed to BEFORE expecting others to do so.

Less emotional stuff and more technical pls.

 

[Icarus]

No! Because junagarh and hyderabad do not share a border with pakistan, hence they can not join pakistan. Pls read Toxic's response again. he does use heavy words and then people fail to understand

Also understand pakistani troops entered kashmir first, indian later, hence you are occupiers and we are liberators in our books

Also AZAD kashmir my foot, you have already annexed gilgit baltistan, you can fool your gullible population, not us.

1)Neither did East Pakistan.
2)Toxic didn't even write that post, consult an optician.
3)Pakistani troops didn't enter first, Kashmiri people revolted against the Maharaja, Pathan tribes invaded to support them,Maharaja acceded to India and then Pakistani troops invaded and captured what today is Azad Kashmir,consult a history book.
4)We don't give a damn what's written about us in "Your Books".
5)Was convincing enough for the Kashmiris to struggle against your occupation.

 

[ROSH]

@ Kakgeta............time for you to read " Neutral Opinions / Books". It will greatly help to remove the Propoganda you have gone throgh since your birth. Comeon...google...its the easiest way out. You should not shy away from Truth.
1) East Pakistan was an aberration. Part of British India. History corrected the anamoly. This correction is known as Bangladesh to the whole world.
3) Pathan Tribe and Angels and Aliens....as Pakistanis were too busy with partition and life issues....yes ...yes.....cook somemore....you have good script.
4) Our books are secular and correct..written mostly by esteem Muslim Historians / Socialist writers....try it out witj independent sources...enlighten yourself..it's not too late.
5) Alice in wonderland.....

 

[ramu]

Get your facts right first, the Indian part is the occupied Kashmir, the rest is refered to as AZAD KASHMIR.
Ever wondered why there are always demos, strikes, abduction and killing and rapes etc etc taking place on daily basis in the Indian held Kashmir, where as Azad Kashmir is the most peaceful part on this side of the border. ? But i guess it takes high moral values to address this question.

No offence but Pakistan is in the middle of a war with its cities targeted on a daily basis. Your prime minister admitted that incidents such as Mumbai 26/11 was happening on a regular basis in several cities. Most of Pakistan is affected by incidents of violence and a large number of protests don't get reported in the limited amount of air time available.

The region of Kashmir is not peaceful when compared to other states and I admit this fair and square. However press freedom is unquestionable in India and with over 200 channels you can get an overcook a story beyond the scope of reality. I am not saying that is the case but it is quite possible.

Contrast that with the deteriorating situation of freedom to journalists in Gilgit-Baltistan. Links ? here you go and again I am giving neutral site : UNPO - Gilgit Baltistan: Deteriorating Freedom of Press
Hope I have made my point and you will agree if you think rationally. It is important to demilitarise kashmir and occupied kashmir which ever way you look at it. An army is good on the border but not in the mainland and in the cities. India will and should move towards making Kashmir a heaven on earth. We would like Pakistan to extent its full support.

 

[xebex]

ok

We Agree for Referendum ...

Let the People Decide ..

I see u value the decision of people in regards to Kashmir eh? I didnt see the same passion when half of the Pakistan's history went under Millitary dictatorship. I didnt see nobody letting the people decide. I still can show u people who support Musharaff over elected politican. Why these double standard, it only shows the blindness towards reality. Also, how sure are u that this Kashmir wont go under a future millitary coup? So just chill off!

 

[toxic_pus]

East pakistan.....andaman islands which are closer to burma then india and for the sake of 'geographical contiguity' should belong to burma.

Burma ceased to be part of British India sometime in late '30s. It is not a coincidence that The Indian Independence Act, 1947 bears the name of India and not Burma.

Let the people decide like they did in junagarh.

Shifting the post already. Just a few posts ago you were hinting that Junagadh should have belonged to Pakistan simply on the basis of Instrument of Accession. Why then this sudden change of heart?

To answer your question, our self-imposed obligation was not unconditional. It was based on several conditions, two of which were that Pakistan shouldn't stoke trouble in Kashmir and maintain an atmosphere that is conducive to hold plebiscite and that Pakistan should withdraw from P0K. Those conditions remain unfulfilled and hence no plebiscite. These are all recorded in details.

You know this is not exactly rocket science.

May this will help....Princely state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No that won't help. The India Act, 1935 would. The Indian Independence Act, 1947 would help too. But before that get yourself acquainted with words like 'suzerainty', 'paramountcy' or what is 'direct rule' and what is 'indirect rule'.

Once you have gone through these Acts, wake me up.

 

[toxic_pus]

1)Neither did East Pakistan.

East Pakistan was Pakistan.

2)Toxic didn't even write that post, consult an optician.

HUH ?

3)Pakistani troops didn't enter first, Kashmiri people revolted against the Maharaja, Pathan tribes invaded to support them,Maharaja acceded to India and then Pakistani troops invaded and captured what today is Azad Kashmir,consult a history book.

Kashmiri people didn't revolt against Maharaja. The revolt - if it can be called that - was a local rebellion restricted to the Poonch district. I suggest you grab hold of 'The Raiders In Kashmir' by Akbar Khan to understand how the whole so-called tribal invasion happened initially with the connivance and tacit support of GoP and PA and later with direct support.

4)We don't give a damn what's written about us in "Your Books".

The feeling is mutual

5)Was convincing enough for the Kashmiris to struggle against your occupation.

Read EU Report. You might just learn something different.

 

[equiliz3r]

Well then by that scale, Indian's claim on the territory of Junagadh and Hyderabad is also illegal.

you went offtopic.........I hope mods will look to it.

We got hydrabad by force...............and we have accord by Nawab who after deafeat agreed to be part of India and was apponted governor.

Its completly legal

About Junagah............Act said that area should be muslim majority and in physical contact with pakistan.
Junagah was hindu dominated and was not connected to pakistan by land...................But again we found someone to sign accord as Ruler had flewed.

Legal.

I have read many posts that says Pakistan doesnot recognises Hari singh as ruler of Kashmir as he was forced by Bristish.

Then why Pakistan didnt go for Family of Maharaja Duleep Singh.........The last ruler of Punjab empire????

To my knowledge , Daughter of Maharaja named Princess bamba Sutherland was able to reach Punjab and died in lahore in 1957.

Sadly none of its family member is alive today.

Can families of his generals work????

 

[Kashmiri Nationalist]

I dunno, they probably will stage more terror sieges in India and bombings. Doe that answers you questions?

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Who is to say when and why an international agreement is "outdated"?

An agreement which calls for the immediate removal of Pakistani troops followed by Indian troops in 1952. Thereafter a referendum is to be held. Pakistan refuses to comply with troop removal. Some 50 years passes on and the demographics of the territory changes drastically with an influx of "foreigners" into Kashmir. Would you say that the agreement is still enforceable ?

 

[Solomon2]

In contract law, the contract may still be in effect even if it is currently unenforceable due to external circumstances. That's what I see here.

 

[Adwitiya]

I dunno, they probably will stage more terror sieges in India and bombings. Doe that answers you questions?

But things can backfire in such a case....for pakistan on the international platform as evident from the recent events...