kashmir problem

[shuntmaster]

we all know that in 1965 war between India and pakistan , kashmir people help pakistani army not the Indian army

Actually the reality is on the contrary. The Kahsmiri people supported the Indian Army against the Pakistani raiders in 1965. Please read up on Operation Gibraltar

Operation Gibraltar was the codename given to the strategy of Pakistan to infiltrate Jammu and Kashmir, a disputed state between India and Pakistan, and start a rebellion against disputed Indian rule. Launched in August 1965, Pakistan Army's 50th Airborne paratroopers and Pakistan Army's guerrillas, disguised as locals, entered Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan with the intention of fomenting an insurgency among KashmiriMuslims. However, the strategy went awry from the outset as it was not well-coordinated and the infiltrators were soon found. The infiltrators were discovered by the local Kashmiris and were informed to the Indian Army

 

[janon]

1)my views on it are more holistic, and part of a continuum of bad leadership by ayub khan starting from his cozying up to the west and rejection of strategic cooperation with China.

2) but yes, the operation could not achieve the success we'd sought, but for purely technical, logistics and military planning related reasons.

3) Kashmiris were never willing to accept Indian occupation, the rebellions of 1947-8 should have given you enough of a hint regards to that.

1) Pak has always cozied both to the west as well as to China in all its wars with India. I am not sure what your point is, in that sentence.

2) Please tell me what those technical or logistic reasons were. It is a fact that most of the SSG commandos who entered Kashmir spent the rest of the war in Indian jails. So explain to me how that occured due to technical or logistic issues. Preferrably with supporting documentation.

3) In 1947-48 they also rebelled (in fact, more strongly) against Pakistani pashtun tribal marauders. They wanted to be an independent nation at that time, but the Pakistani invasion put an end to that hope. But since they were militarily weak, they had no choice but to acceded to India and invite the Indian army over to stop the Pakistani plunderers.

1)sovereign territory is only such if accepted by others, on a legitimate basis, whether that be the region or ideally the world community at large. in this case, neither of them recognize your sovereignty, as kashmir still remains a disputed territory pending resolution according to international law. unilateral declarations of sovereignty mean squat unfortunately.

2)Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are self governing territories protected by Pakistan from Indian aggression. my fellow compatriots give me flak for this, but my position is that the entirety of the princely state should be let under UN control for the referendum. ofcourse neither would agree to this, for the same reason we would not withdraw our troops unilaterally and let Indian soldiers occupy further territory. mutual withdrawal is a fair compromise, but your leadership has never shown even an inkling of a sign to accomodate or discuss such ideas.

3)but its okay, as the famous saying goes. you have the watch, we have the time. wrong will remain wrong, and kashmir will eventually attain freedom, that is the trajectory of history since colonialism unfortunately for the Indian establishment.

1) If a former princely state acceded to the Union of India, it becomes our sovereign territory. Almost every bit of today's India became part of the grand union on that basis. Most people in that region do recognize this, as evidenced by their enthusiastic partaking in the Indian elections, and other democratic institutions like police and armed forces and civil services.

2) Well, neither India nor Pak will allow this.

3) What makes you think we don't have the time? We have both the watch as well as the time. Kashmir will remain India's, and there is no power on earth that can take it from us. Not as long as the republic of India exists.

 

[ShahidT]

1) Pak has always cozied both to the west as well as to China in all its wars with India. I am not sure what your point is, in that sentence.

2) Please tell me what those technical or logistic reasons were. It is a fact that most of the SSG commandos who entered Kashmir spent the rest of the war in Indian jails. So explain to me how that occured due to technical or logistic issues. Preferrably with supporting documentation.

3) In 1947-48 they also rebelled (in fact, more strongly) against Pakistani pashtun tribal marauders. They wanted to be an independent nation at that time, but the Pakistani invasion put an end to that hope. But since they were militarily weak, they had no choice but to acceded to India and invite the Indian army over to stop the Pakistani plunderers.


1) If a former princely state acceded to the Union of India, it becomes our sovereign territory. Almost every bit of today's India became part of the grand union on that basis. Most people in that region do recognize this, as evidenced by their enthusiastic partaking in the Indian elections, and other democratic institutions like police and armed forces and civil services.

2) Well, neither India nor Pak will allow this.

3) What makes you think we don't have the time? We have both the watch as well as the time. Kashmir will remain India's, and there is no power on earth that can take it from us. Not as long as the republic of India exists.

i'd pursue this further if i had more time and stamina. but i can tell you what would happen if i did. we'd throw accounts from books at each other, whilst claiming ours is the more genuine and the others' is false propaganda. so lets keep Kashmir to what it is, in plain and simple terms, a question of people's right to self determination being trampled by India.

whichever way you cut it, how much ever you dance around with words as your are apt at doing, this is a fact on the ground. go to Sri nagar and ask a common baker, tea stall vendor, college going child, bus driver, what he feels about India. just do it once, and hopefully you will realize like arundhati roy and other sane indians, why holding kashmiris by their throat only harms india in the long run, and perhaps for the sake of its moral compass- india needs, as much if not more, to be independent from kashmir than the other way around.

it is already starting to poison the minds of common people, as atrocities committed over and over again become but natural in their eyes, and the victims progressively dehumanized. just look at the beast you all so proudly gloat to have elected. now please don't ask me to pull "documentation" about the treatment of kashmiris in mainland of india over the past few years. i trust that you were awake all this time and not blind/deaf to all.

anyhow this is my last reply on the thread, as i need to head off. if i am able to get hold of an internet connection within the next couple of days, i'll try and remember to dig up those references on google for you. if not, thanks for the civilized though predictable discussion.

 

[janon]

i'd pursue this further if i had more time and stamina. but i can tell you what would happen if i did. we'd throw accounts from books at each other, whilst claiming ours is the more genuine and the others' is false propaganda. so lets keep Kashmir to what it is, in plain and simple terms, a question of people's right to self determination being trampled by India.

whichever way you cut it, how much ever you dance around with words as your are apt at doing, this is a fact on the ground. go to Sri nagar and ask a common baker, tea stall vendor, college going child, bus driver, what he feels about India. just do it once, and hopefully you will realize like arundhati roy and other sane indians, why holding kashmiris by their throat only harms india in the long run, and perhaps for the sake of its moral compass- india needs, as much if not more, to be independent from kashmir than the other way around.

it is already starting to poison the minds of common people, as atrocities committed over and over again become but natural in their eyes, and the victims progressively dehumanized. just look at the beast you all so proudly gloat to have elected. now please don't ask me to pull "documentation" about the treatment of kashmiris in mainland of india over the past few years. i trust that you were awake all this time and not blind/deaf to all.

anyhow this is my last reply on the thread, as i need to head off. if i am able to get hold of an internet connection within the next couple of days, i'll try and remember to dig up those references on google for you. if not, thanks for the civilized though predictable discussion.

Since you don't want to pursue this further, I won't either.

But before you go, tell me what does your name mean? (pehgam e mohabbat.)

 

[chhota bheem]

Have you guys read muhammad musa's my version of 1965 war............who is this muhammad musa any way .....

 

[rayan lion]

Hello chhota bheem don't make fun of our prophet muhammad (s.a.w) and musa (a.s)
and who is hanuman and krishna any way i don't want to talk with you