What's new

Kashmir polls

Well as far as India is concerned its not illegal. You can either agree with that or disagree with that, but its not going to change ground realities.
Again - don't expect a thief to admit the property is stolen - of course India claims the territory as hers. It is fact that her international commitments indicate otherwise, and the international community and the UNSC resolutions indicate otherwise.

Right, the way Pakistan has kept its international commitments?

This is the real world Agno, all nations take care of their interest first, and once that is secured, they consider the larger interest of the world.

There is no world court, and therfore there are no "thieves" or "police". Your logic I'm afraid is absurd.

Analogy is perfectly appropriate, since the dispute went to the UNSC and the UNSC issued resolutions indicating a solution -disputed territory and a referendum, and this was agreed to by India. It doesn't get any clearer than this. What we have now is the thief sensing he'll lose his case and arguing that it is not in the thief's interest to implement the decision he agreed to in the first place. Well, what can one expect from a thief eh.

You are going around in circles - Kashmir is part of India for all practical purposes and it really doesn't matter what Pakistan's or the world's opinion on the matter is!
Again, a thief claiming that stolen property is his, and demanding that everyone just accept that position because it is the 'status quo', is absurd. India agreed to both the rules of partition and the UNSC resolutions, they are binding unless replaced by others or rendered obsolete by a resolution of the dispute.
 
.
Again - don't expect a thief to admit the property is stolen - of course India claims the territory as hers. It is fact that her international commitments indicate otherwise, and the international community and the UNSC resolutions indicate otherwise.

Oh stop being holier-than-thou already. This is getting irritating, and frankly, this coming from a nation which has sponsored jehadis, bought and sold nuclear weapons and technology to countries like North Korea, Libya, has massacred tens of thousands of Bangladeshis, is the world's biggest breeding ground of terrorists, has imposed military dictatorships on its people for the larger part of its history, officially discriminates against its people on the basis of religion, etc. etc. I can go on and on.

And India is the thief I suppose?

Every nation protects its boundaries, as decided by its leaders and people. India is no exception.

Analogy is perfectly appropriate, since the dispute went to the UNSC and the UNSC issued resolutions indicating a solution -disputed territory and a referendum, and this was agreed to by India. It doesn't get any clearer than this. What we have now is the thief sensing he'll lose his case and arguing that it is not in the thief's interest to implement the decision he agreed to in the first place. Well, what can one expect from a thief eh.

Bulshit. You've been arguing quite unopposed that its India's fault that the plebiscite was not implemented, whereas I can build quite a convincing case that infact it was Pakistan who refused to back down and allow the plebiscite to take place.
Infact, its Pakistan who initiated the trouble by sending mujahideen into the valley in 1947 before the ruler made up his mind about accession.

The plebiscite was to be conducted under certain conditions, and those conditions have changed a long time ago. The demographics have changed, especially on the Pakistani side. Pakistan has sponsored Islamic terror and fundamentalist ideas in order to artificially change public opinion to suit its agenda, Pakistan has bartered away a part of kashmir, and China has occupied it.
If you are so eager to follow the rules of the court, then follow them fully and not selectively.
The UNSC resolution is outdated and therfore invalid.

India is under no commitment to conduct a plebiscite.

Again, a thief claiming that stolen property is his, and demanding that everyone just accept that position because it is the 'status quo', is absurd. India agreed to both the rules of partition and the UNSC resolutions, they are binding unless replaced by others or rendered obsolete by a resolution of the dispute.

Remember the Shimla Agreement? What was agreed then?

And I suppose you are the expert on UN resolutions here?

The UNSC Resolution is obsolete. Prove it otherwise.
 
.
Oh stop being holier-than-thou already. This is getting irritating, and frankly, this coming from a nation which has sponsored jehadis, bought and sold nuclear weapons and technology to countries like North Korea, Libya, has massacred tens of thousands of Bangladeshis, is the world's biggest breeding ground of terrorists, has imposed military dictatorships on its people for the larger part of its history, officially discriminates against its people on the basis of religion, etc. etc. I can go on and on.

And India is the thief I suppose?

Every nation protects its boundaries, as decided by its leaders and people. India is no exception.

On the issue of Kashmir, and international obligations yes India is the thief - the analogy fits. When you can honor your international commitments let me know, and I'll reconsider.

The rest of your tangential diatribe is off topic. Militants in Kashmir? Only after the precedent was set by India in East Pakistan, and in disputed territory that India unilaterally reneged on its international commitments on.
Nuclear proliferation? There is still no evidence that Pakistan officially sanctioned AQ Khan's activities. And what treaty or agreement has Pakistan signed that prevents selling that technology anyway?


Bulshit. You've been arguing quite unopposed that its India's fault that the plebiscite was not implemented, whereas I can build quite a convincing case that infact it was Pakistan who refused to back down and allow the plebiscite to take place.
Infact, its Pakistan who initiated the trouble by sending mujahideen into the valley in 1947 before the ruler made up his mind about accession.

The plebiscite was to be conducted under certain conditions, and those conditions have changed a long time ago. The demographics have changed, especially on the Pakistani side. Pakistan has sponsored Islamic terror and fundamentalist ideas in order to artificially change public opinion to suit its agenda, Pakistan has bartered away a part of kashmir, and China has occupied it.
If you are so eager to follow the rules of the court, then follow them fully and not selectively.
The UNSC resolution is outdated and therfore invalid.

India is under no commitment to conduct a plebiscite.
Please do make your case, the thread exists, and many of the arguments I would raise are already made there. Do actually counter them instead of spewing bravado about doing so. And don't forget those comments of Nehru in the fifties, where he brazenly talked about unilaterally moving away from the India's commitment to hold a referendum, but instructing his officials to not openly declare it to maintain a 'facade'.

India is committed to the UNSC resolutions since they are binding, though not enforceable, and India agreed to them. She is also committed through the conditions of the instrument of accession. Those are international and bilateral commitments, unlike the nonsense you spewed in the beginning of your post.

Remember the Shimla Agreement? What was agreed then?

And I suppose you are the expert on UN resolutions here?

The UNSC Resolution is obsolete. Prove it otherwise.
What was agreed in Shimla?

Here is the first line of the agreement in Shimla:

(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

I don't have to prove them un-obsolete, it's your contention, so you try. As far as I can tell, there is no limit on how long a UNSC resolution remains valid. It has to be superseded by another.
 
.
On the issue of Kashmir, and international obligations yes India is the thief - the analogy fits. When you can honor your international commitments let me know, and I'll reconsider.

The rest of your tangential diatribe is off topic. Militants in Kashmir? Only after the precedent was set by India in East Pakistan, and in disputed territory that India unilaterally reneged on its international commitments on.
Nuclear proliferation? There is still no evidence that Pakistan officially sanctioned AQ Khan's activities. And what treaty or agreement has Pakistan signed that prevents selling that technology anyway?

Fine, Mr. Saint - call India a thief or whatever. We know what Pakistan's standing and respect in the world is. Thief my foot.

The rest of the diatribe is to show that Pakistan has done far worse in fulfilling international commitments.
Isn't nuclear non-proliferation a policy of the UN, isn't supporting terrorism illegal according to the UN, isn't religious discrimination illegal? Isn't dictatorship against the values of the United Nations?

Please do make your case, the thread exists, and many of the arguments I would raise are already made there. Do actually counter them instead of spewing bravado about doing so. And don't forget those comments of Nehru in the fifties, where he brazenly talked about unilaterally moving away from the India's commitment to hold a referendum, but instructing his officials to not openly declare it to maintain a 'facade'.

Oh really? Do refer me to the source of that claim.


What was agreed in Shimla?

Here is the first line of the agreement in Shimla:

(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

I don't have to prove them un-obsolete, it's your contention, so you try. As far as I can tell, there is no limit on how long a UNSC resolution remains valid. It has to be superseded by another.

That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.


Hmm....lets see, which of these commitments did Pakistan fail to uphold?

All of them.

That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.

Aha...when did Pakistan violate that agreement I wonder...

In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.

The line of control shall be respected by both sides eh?


Also, the agreement makes no mention of the plebiscite but sets up the framework for peaceful and bilateral negotiations.

Kosher?
 
.
Is pakistani kashmir needs turkish soldiers?I can fight there for pakistan.
 
. . .
Violence has erupted during the second stage of state elections in parts of Indian-administered Kashmir, where thousands of troops have been deployed.

Police used batons to drive back hundreds of anti-election protesters in the village of Kurhama, 30km (19 miles) north of the main city, Srinagar

Two protesters were shot dead on Saturday in the town of Baramulla.

Separatists are boycotting the polls, which are being held district by district to facilitate policing.

The separatists argue that the polls strengthen India's hold over the region.

The Indian-administered area of Kashmir was put under federal rule in July following the collapse of the state government over a land transfer deal for a Hindu shrine.
Teenager killed

Voting was temporarily halted in Kurhama, a police official told the Associated Press news agency.
Protesters had reportedly tried to prevent voters entering a polling station.

In Baramulla, , 55km north of Srinagar, a teenager died when security guards protecting a candidate's motorcade opened fire on protesters throwing stones, AP reports.

A man was later shot dead when protesters clashed with police.

Voting in the state is being held in seven phrases, lasting until 24 December. The counting of ballots will begin on 28 December.

An unusually strong turnout in the first phase of the elections on Monday took everyone by surprise, the BBC's Altaf Hussain reports from Srinagar.

The turnout in Muslim-majority constituencies was slightly more than 50%, with many Muslims voting despite not accepting Indian rule in their troubled state.

Six districts were voting on Sunday, accounting for about 500,000 of the state's 6.5 million eligible voters.

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Violence marks Kashmir election
 
.
J&K reaps dividends from peace
Aasha Khosa / New Delhi November 25, 2008, 1:02 IST

Six years ago, Puran Chand did not vote in the legislative Assembly election in Jammu and Kashmir. Fed up of living under the fear of shelling (from the Pakistan side), Chand, a farmer, had then shifted his family of five from his village near the Indo-Pakistan line-of-control to Rajouri town.

“Constant shelling by the Pakistani army had left us with no choice but to leave our land and homes. Life was a drudgery and I saw no point in casting my vote,” he says.

On Sunday, however, Chand cast his vote at Darhal constituency in the second phase of the state Assembly elections. “Peace seems to have returned to our lives,” he says, referring to the ceasefire declared by India and Pakistan on the LoC in November 2003. Chand, like hundreds of other farmers, now visits his village and even tends his land. “I cast my vote this time since we need roads, bijli (electricity), paani (water) and all forms of development,” he says.

Similar optimism is shared by people in Jammu’s border belt, who turned up in large numbers on Sunday to cast their votes. Four constituencies along the LoC — Rajouri, Darhal, Kalakote and Nowshera — recorded 67 to 73 per cent voting. “A peaceful border and end of militancy have changed our lives. We want the candidates to develop this backward belt,” says Ghulam Hassan, a bakerwal tribesman, who sells milk in Kalakote town.

As six constituencies recorded 66 per cent voting in the second phase of the elections, sceptics once again have been proved wrong. This unprecedented level of polling has come amid freezing temperatures and a boycott call by the separatists, who, till only a few months back, were riding the crest of a popularity wave during the agitation on the Amarnath land row.

“Amarnath agitation was an aberration and not a trend,” explains MY Tarigami, leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), whose party has fielded 10 candidates in the election. He claims “Sunday’s higher turnout was consistent with the general mood seeking peace and normalcy that was conspicuously prevailing all over the Valley before the agitation”.

In Delhi, Election Commission (EC) officials have admitted that 66 per cent polling was “much beyond their expectations and was indeed a pleasant surprise”.

“Although the percentage of polling does not matter technically, higher voter turnout gives more legitimacy to the exercise,” a senior EC official said. “It’s an expression of people’s desire for peace and prosperity and a choice against turmoil created by the militancy.”

The voter turnout has surpassed all the previous records. The Ganderbal constituency, from where National Conference leader Omar Abdullah is contesting to avenge his defeat last time, recorded 51.75 per cent turnout as against 35.01 per cent in the 2002 election. Ironically, Omar had to face angry demonstrators on the day he filed his nomination papers.

Rasheed Bhatt, a government employee who cast his vote in Ganderbal, said: “I cast my vote for my favourite candidate so that tomorrow I can go to him with my problems.”

Kangan in north Kashmir, a constituency dominated by Gujjar tribesmen, which had previously recorded much higher polling than the rest of the state, saw 59.30 per cent polling as against 52 per cent last time.

For Mufti Sayeed, former chief minister and a senior leader of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), who was against holding the election in November on the plea that people may not turn up to vote, it has been a learning experience.

“The impressive polling figure shows that peoples’ faith in the electoral process had become stronger. Already after the free and fair polls of 2002 people have started believing that this Assembly and its representatives can facilitate a resolution of the Kashmir issue and this election has reaffirmed this,” he said. However, separatist outfit Hurriyat Conference is unmoved by “rebuff” to its boycott call by the voters on Sunday. “An election has no relevance to the resolution of the Kashmir issue,” a spokesman of the Hurriyat Conference told Business Standard over the phone from Srinagar.

He claimed that the government had arrested all the leaders of the conglomerate to prevent them from campaigning against the election.
 
.
Separatists should see the writing on the wall: JK govt



Srinagar, Nov 24 (PTI) Asking the separatists to see "the writing on the wall" in the wake of the high turnout in Assembly election, the Jammu and Kashmir government today said they should shun their politics of "boycott, strikes and violence" which has been rejected by the people of the state.
"It is the right time that the separatist elements see the writing on the wall and stop creating problems for the people by resorting to ill-advised politics of boycott and hartals coupled with violence which has already damaged immensely the interests of the people in the valley," an official spokesman said.

Reacting to the claims of separatist co-ordination committee that the polling percentage in the first two phases was fudged, the spokesman said the people by coming out in lakhs to participate in the electoral process, "have responded with a big 'No' to the boycott call given by separatist elements".

He said "the separatists would do themselves good and to the state by accepting the ground reality that amply demonstrates the pro-democracy mood of the people.

"The massive turnout of the electorate was a clear mandate for the electoral and democratic process and vehement rejection of the election boycott call given by separatist organisations," the spokesman said.

He said the unprecedented voter turnout, notwithstanding coercion, intimidation and threat, has unnerved the pro-boycott groups. "Sensing outright rejection of their politics by people, these elements now come up with fantastic stories to cover up," the spokesman added.

While 69 per cent turnout was registered in the first phase of Assembly elections on Nov 17, nearly 65 per cent of the electorate voted yesterday in the second stage. PTI
 
.
Fine, Mr. Saint - call India a thief or whatever. We know what Pakistan's standing and respect in the world is. Thief my foot.

The rest of the diatribe is to show that Pakistan has done far worse in fulfilling international commitments.
Isn't nuclear non-proliferation a policy of the UN, isn't supporting terrorism illegal according to the UN, isn't religious discrimination illegal? Isn't dictatorship against the values of the United Nations?
You are losing it Flint - please explain the rationale behind how a 'military coup' is a violation by a nation of its international commitment? It is a violation of the nation's own constitution, not of an international agreement, and it harms the nation itself more than anything. Just another absurd example on your part.

Is Pakistan a signatory to the NPT? And again, there is no evidence that Pakistan as a nation, rather than the individual AQ Khan, was responsible for proliferation.

Oh really? Do refer me to the source of that claim.
Will be posted in the thread.

That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.


Hmm....lets see, which of these commitments did Pakistan fail to uphold?

All of them.

That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.

Aha...when did Pakistan violate that agreement I wonder...

In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.

The line of control shall be respected by both sides eh?

Also, the agreement makes no mention of the plebiscite but sets up the framework for peaceful and bilateral negotiations.

Kosher?
The agreement first and foremost talks about respecting the principles and charter of the UN - that means respecting the UNSC resolutions, which were issued by the UN, in case it wasn't clear from the acronym, and are binding on UN members.

By refusing to implement the first condition itself, India had already violated the Simla accord. Secondly, the Siachen adventure was India's initial military provocation that violated the Simla Accord. So now we have two major violations of the Simla accord by India. Pakistan did not start supporting the insurgency in Kashmir until the late eighties, after the violations by India had already taken place.

This, sir, is 'Kosher'.
 
.
The agreement first and foremost talks about respecting the principles and charter of the UN - that means respecting the UNSC resolutions, which were issued by the UN, in case it wasn't clear from the acronym, and are binding on UN members.

I have replied to this point in this post in the thread on Kashmir resolutions.

Secondly, the Siachen adventure was India's initial military provocation that violated the Simla Accord.

Since the LOC was not defined beyond a particular point, what India did in Siachen cannot be construed to be a violation of the Simla agreement
 
Last edited:
.
The Hurriyat leaders were welcome to participate. They are under house arrest to prevent them from disrupting the polls.

Whereas on the Pakistani side, parties who wanted to participate were banned. So there is a clear difference

Despite best efforts, separatist elements have been successful in stoning candidates, beating up voters with the indelible ink marks on their fingers, and so on. It is easy to imagine the atmosphere of intimidation that would have been created had the Hurriyat guys been allowed a free hand.

prevent them from disrupting the polls?
its not polls or elections if u have a gun pointed to ur head
 
.
Since the LOC was not defined beyond a particular point, what India did in Siachen cannot be construed to be a violation of the Simla agreement

In the agreement between Pakistan and India, the boundary beyond NJ 9842 was referred to simply as "thence northwards to the glaciers".

If you look at a map, and draw a line north from NJ 9842, it is very clear that Siachen is on the Indian side.

The sensible thing to do would be to demarcate the boundary along ridge lines northwards of NJ 9842. This may involve some small gains and losses, but would still leave Siachen on the Indian side.
 
.
60 per cent polling in third phase in J&K

Press Trust of India
Sunday, November 30, 2008 3:51 PM (Kupwara)
Defying the separatists' call for boycott of elections, people in Kashmir Valley turned out in large numbers to vote in five Assembly constituencies of Kupwara district, where 60 per cent polling was registered.

Kupwara witnessed the highest turnout of 55 per cent among the five segments which went to polls in the third phase of the seven-stage polls.

Despite low to moderate turnout in the early hours due to the cold weather, serpentine queues soon appeared outside many polling stations as morning fog gave way to bright sunshine.

"About 44.35 per cent of over 3.41 lakh eligible voters had cast their votes in the five seats of Karnah, Kupwara, Lolab, Handwara and Langate till 1400 hours," an official spokesman said.

Karnah constituency located along the border recorded the second highest turnout of 52.79 per cent followed by Lolab at 43 per cent. Handwara and Langate seats registered a voter-turnout of 37 per cent and 36 per cent, respectively, he said.

The high voter-turnout is a clear rejection of the boycott call given by separatist groups, officials said.

Over 10,000 additional security personnel besides state police have been deployed at 448 polling booths declared a 'hyper sensitive'. The electorate included 1,63,389 women, they said.

Almost all the 448 polling booths have been put under 'hypersensitive' and 'sensitive' categories.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom