Kashmir The Freedom of Struggle

[dabong1]

There were indeed international observers in the J&K elections last time. The world applauded that the elections were conducted in a free manner. Dont give statements like 'they'd vote if they had gun to their head' or 'rigged elections'. I dont care to correct you honestly, but Kashmiris live quite normally in India. And they voted for whomever they liked.

Something a bit more neutral.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2313347.stm

The Delhi-based Institute of Social Sciences concluded that it was a fair election, but, because of the all-pervading sense of fear, it could not be called free.

The elections in Indian-administered Kashmir, which concluded Tuesday, were conducted fairly, but not freely according to an independent team of observers.

Did the APHC take part in the elections?

"Kashmiris live quite normally in India" are you trying to be funny?

 

[dabong1]

The United States welcomes the successful conclusion of elections in Jammu and Kashmir..... We applaud the efforts of the Indian Election Commissionand commend the courage of candidates and voters who chose to participate despite violence and intimidationThe Kashmiri people have shown they want to pursue the path of peace.


http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/14278.htm

Now the how the hell can you say world didnt take it seriously?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/14278.htm

we call on both India and Pakistan to make strenuous effort towards an early resumption of diplomatic dialogue on all outstanding issues,including Kashmir. A lasting settlement, which also reflects the needs of the Kashmiri people, can only be achieved through dialogue. We welcome the Indian government's commitment to begin a dialogue with the people of Jammu and Kashmir and we hope this dialogue will address improvements in governance and human rights

Yes i agree with most of what the US dep of state has to say.

 

[niaz]

A very interesting insight into why the UN Resolution of April 21, 1948 calling for 'Plebscite' was not implemented.

It seems that Sh. Abdulla was the key. Pakistan was afraid that Sheikh Sahib was so popular that if his remains loyal to Congress, Kashmiri muslims would vote to remain with India and Pakistan would also lose Gilgit and Northern Areas.

India was afraid that if; bowing to the popular sentiments of the Kashmiri muslim majority; Sheikh Sahib does a "U" turn, India will lose all areas under their control. Naturally, if both the parties procastinate, UN Resolution cannot be implemented.


I emphasize that Mr Naji is not a prophet and his conclusions are to be taken with a pinch of salt. Never the less, even if the article is only partially true; it goes to shows how ill informed the general public of both the Pakistan and India is. At the initial stages, both Liaqat Ali Khan and Pundit Nehru were equally guilty and responsible for the present impasse.



http://www.jang-group.com/jang/jan2007-daily/25-01-2007/col2.htm

 

[Bull]

The elections in Indian-administered Kashmir, which concluded Tuesday, were conducted fairly, but not freely according to an independent team of observers.

Well its a militant infested area.It was definilty "not free" as the militants had threatned to kill anybody who had voted.

There was no rigging as was mentioned by the word "fairly".

Did the APHC take part in the elections? .

No they didnt, they fear elections or anything democratic.

"Kashmiris live quite normally in India" are you trying to be funny?

They cant live normally bcoz of the militants.

Well there are many kashmiris who are settled in other parts of India and mnay more who are married off to families in rest of India.

 

[Contrarian]

^^^^
what he said. Elections were fair, thats what matters. People voted, thats what matters, free or not.

 

[dabong1]

Well its a militant infested area.It was definilty "not free" as the militants had threatned to kill anybody who had voted.

There was no rigging as was mentioned by the word "fairly". .

The wording is such that it is diplomatically acceptable to all parties.
The most important point that the americans say is:
"A lasting settlement, which also reflects the needs of the Kashmiri people,"

No they didnt, they fear elections or anything democratic..

Election can not be taken seriously in kashmir if they are held under the indian constitution.
If the APHC takes part in elections under the indian constitution it legitamises india's occupation of kashmir.
The APHC is the true representative of the kashmiri people without them in the election its nothing but a farce.

They cant live normally bcoz of the militants...

Theres more then half million indian military personnel in kashmir fighting no more then three or four thousand fighters and you are trying to tell me its not the indian army that has made life hell for kashmiris but the freedom fighters?

Well there are many kashmiris who are settled in other parts of India and mnay more who are married off to families in rest of India.

"Kashmiris live quite normally in India" are you trying to be funny?

My mistake sorry.
I thought by stating that kashmiris live normally in India you where trying to imply that kashmir is part of india.

I want a just and fair solution to the kashmir issue that is acceptable to all parties.
I have given propsals before on this forum only for them to be turned down by the indian members of this forum as not acceptable.
You want the LOC as the border.
Pakistan wants UN resolution.
If we can not meet halfway the fight will carry on in kashmir.

 

[dabong1]

dabong, sorry dude, but last time i checked, Kashmir was in India.

Thats strange....... last i checked kashmir was a disputed territory.

 

[Contrarian]

The wording is such that it is diplomatically acceptable to all parties.
The most important point that the americans say is:
"A lasting settlement, which also reflects the needs of the Kashmiri people,"

Yeah, and Americans are not allowed to intervene by India. They are diplomatically correct.

Election can not be taken seriously in kashmir if they are held under the indian constitution.
If the APHC takes part in elections under the indian constitution it legitamises india's occupation of kashmir.
The APHC is the true representative of the kashmiri people without them in the election its nothing but a farce.

Now i ask you a fundamental question. Who decides that the APHC are the true representatives of Kashmiri people? There are kashmiris who say that they are represented by GoI also. So who gets to chose. If APHC did not participate, its their loss, the rest of the people who wanted to vote went and voted, and got themselves the govt of their choice.

Theres more then half million indian military personnel in kashmir fighting no more then three or four thousand fighters and you are trying to tell me its not the indian army that has made life hell for kashmiris but the freedom fighters?

Yes, obviously, along with Pakistan ofcourse. Because its because of the terrorists that the Indian forces have to present, along with the ever present danger of Pakistan trying to militarily invade India, as it has done in the past 4 times already. So there has to be military present to stave off any invasion. And they have to be present to kill the terrorists. Both Pakistan and terrorists are the cause of trouble in Kashmir.

"Kashmiris live quite normally in India" are you trying to be funny?

My mistake sorry.
I thought by stating that kashmiris live normally in India you where trying to imply that kashmir is part of india.

Well...unfortunately for you, it is.

I want a just and fair solution to the kashmir issue that is acceptable to all parties.

Thats a lie, you want Kashmir to join Pakistan, its PR bullsh*t thats given that Pakistan supports Kashmir so that Kashmir can join Pakistan. Last time i checked 'Azad Kashmir' was not so azad. It was run by Pakistan, by Pakistani military appointed person. There's no godamn democracy, Kashmiris are opressed in Azad Kashmir. There's no infrastructure, there's no economy, there's no literacy. Wanna compare??

I have given propsals before on this forum only for them to be turned down by the indian members of this forum as not acceptable.
You want the LOC as the border.
Pakistan wants UN resolution.

There is no solution. Unless Pakistan can take Kashmir from India militarily, Kashmir stays with us. And unfortunately Pakistan will never be able to do that.

If we can not meet halfway the fight will carry on in kashmir.

Sure we have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with that

 

[dabong1]

The India's aim was never to destroy Pakistan. .

Yes it was, its just that you can not do it.

1947: Maharaja calls on India to intercede. Indian forces are paradropped in Srinagar. Push intruders back. Before complete Kashmir can be recovered, ceasefire is declared.

Result: Indeterminate. India captures major(and economically more vibrant) portion of Kashmir..

Pak was promised UN election in kashmir if it has ceasfire,made the mistake of accepting ceasefire.

1965: Pakistan launches Operation Gibraltor to attempt to win Kashmir. Operation fails with Pakistan losing territory in . Gen. Ayub Khan responds by launching Operation Grandslam. India thrusts across the IB to relieve pressure on Akhnoor. Indian forces reach Lahore. UNSC pass a resolution and ceasefire is declared the following day. All forces withdraw to previous positions.
Result: At the time of ceasefire India had captured 650Mil^2 of enemy territory while Pakistan had captured 250 Mil^2 of enemy territory. Pakistani attempt to capture Kashmir is foiled...

Pakistan winning in kashmir so india opens up front in punjab.Reaches lahore before being blasted by PAF.

1971: Details irrelevant.

Result: Outright victory for India....

LOL The fight in b/desh had been going on for 9 months.In the last 2 weeks only after pakistan could not reinforce forces and had run short on supplys did the indians come in and steal victory from the Mukti Bahini...very cheap and nasty way to get your victory.

1999: Kargil skirmish.

PA captures Kargil and surrounding areas like Drass, Mushkoh etc.

Result: All intruders repelled.....

Except the most strategic peaks that pakistan still holds.

Now please explain how you came to the conclusion that Pakistan had defeated India thrice. India's claims of victory can be justified as - 1947 & 1965 denying Pakistan Kashmir; 1971 - forcing a military surrender; 1999 - recapturing occupied territory.

No need i think i have made my point

 

[Contrarian]

Yes it was, its just that you can not do it.

Yeah fine, since you refuse to believe it. We have told you again and again, no1 gives a damn about it. Your still stuck up thinking Indians cant accept Pakistan. Less than1/5th of Indians even think of Pakistan till it comes up in the news once in a while.

Pak was promised UN election in kashmir if it has ceasfire,made the mistake of accepting ceasefire.

Yeah right.

Pakistan winning in kashmir so india opens up front in punjab.Reaches lahore before being blasted by PAF.

Oh really? Indian Army was 'blasted' by the PAF? Your airforce was incapable, India had reached Lahore, if the cease fire had not been declared, Pakistan would have been further split. Check the numbers, from the army to the airforce to the navy.

LOL The fight in b/desh had been going on for 9 months.In the last 2 weeks only after pakistan could not reinforce forces and had run short on supplys did the indians come in and steal victory from the Mukti Bahini...very cheap and nasty way to get your victory.

Stop giving your own versions, why you lost, and this n that, reinfocement. Even Pakistan admits that they maltreated the Bangladeshi's, and that the logic ' Defence of East Pakistan lies in the west' was stupid. Plus there was no comparison between Indian and Pakistani military. You do the maths, the number of planes, number of soldiers, number of tanks, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Except the most strategic peaks that pakistan still holds.

Dont give BS, and all the BS articles by the likes of Adnan Gill. Pakistan does not hold 1 sq cm of Indian land. If they did, Indian Army would have blasted them off. Nawaz ran to the US to save his skin, the NLI was pounded, the remaining ran off and that was portrayed in Pakistan as a 'cease-fire'.

No need i think i have made my point

Actually, you have not made ANY point.

 

[Bull]

The most important point that the americans say is:
"A lasting settlement, which also reflects the needs of the Kashmiri people,"

They said that to the iraqis also.

Election can not be taken seriously in kashmir if they are held under the indian constitution.If the APHC takes part in elections under the indian constitution it legitamises india's occupation of kashmir.The APHC is the true representative of the kashmiri people without them in the election its nothing but a farce.

why do you say APHC is the true representative off kashmiri people.

Theres more then half million indian military personnel in kashmir fighting no more then three or four thousand fighters and you are trying to tell me its not the indian army that has made life hell for kashmiris but the freedom fighters?

half a million includes the one in the border and the J&K police.

 

[vnomad]

Yes it was, its just that you can not do it.

Whether Pakistan wants to destroy India is a decision that is under your control. How are you to decide what India's aims are? And nothing stopped India from overrunning Pakistan in '71. I'll give you the result of the war on the western front if you want.

Pak was promised UN election in kashmir if it has ceasfire,made the mistake of accepting ceasefire.

In India the common opinion is that Nehru made a mistake by accepting the ceasefire. The tribals were on the run when the ceasefire was declared. The tribals didn't fight the IA for one inch of the land they captured. Unlike the IA who fought and took the area FROM the infiltrators.

Pakistan winning in kashmir so india opens up front in punjab.Reaches lahore before being blasted by PAF.

The PAF was taking a vacation while the IA made its way to Lahore? The aim was the relieve pressure of Akhnoor. It worked and that's all that matters.

Result: Pakistan did not achieve its aim. India did. Period.

The fight in b/desh had been going on for 9 months.In the last 2 weeks only after pakistan could not reinforce forces and had run short on supplys did the indians come in and steal victory from the Mukti Bahini...very cheap and nasty way to get your victory.

Are you trying to claim a ragtag militia was claiming MILITARY victories over the Pakistani forces? Military victories! Pakistan couldn't reinforce them, so it lauched a diversionary attack on the western front. It didn't work. East Pakistan fell.

Except the most strategic peaks that pakistan still holds.

LOL. Most strategic peaks. The most strategic peaks were the ones overlooking the Highway 1A which are under Indian control today.

No need i think i have made my point

Bangladesh is independant today. And India still holds the same part of Kashmir since 1947. Kargil, Drass, Mushkoh, Tiger hill, etc etc. are still under Indian control.

 

[dabong1]

vnomad,malaymishra123,Bull
I have given proposals on how i think the kashmir issue can be solved.
1.Pakistan keeps Northern Areas
2 India keeps jammu/Ladakh
3 Azad kashmir and the valley of kashmir join together.
(all parties gain and lose something from this idea)
4 Kashmir not allowed to have an army or foreign policy.
(This would stop either pak/india getting concerned with ulterior motives)
5 Let the president of india be the president of kashmir also and let the chief justice be the from pakistan.
(Or any other mechanism that gives power to both india/pak to stop them from forwarding there own aims)

I could go on with other points and then the finer points but the only problem is not one of you will budge from your stated postions.:wall:
All the propsals made are rejected and when the label of being inflexible is pointed at you ,you reject it.:wall:
You indians do not want peace in kashmir,you want to keep everything that you have occupied ,have cross border cultural exchanges and open the door for indian buisness to enter the market in pakistan and call that peace.
I do agree with sentiment that you all have after reading your opinions and that is the only thing that is going to solve this issue of kashmir is the gun.
I have come to the conclusion that peace in kashmir can not be achieved from talks ,after listening to your opinions. Hafeez Saheed was correct that the only way to get kashmir was to back the mujahadeen of kashmir.
LeT HUM Al Badr and all the brothers from United Jihad Council
Muttahida Jihad Council [MJC].:army:

 

[sword9]

The APHC is the true representative of the kashmiri people without them in the election its nothing but a farce.

The APHC are fundamentalist crapsters, they are made up of the chaps that kicked out the Kashmiri pundits, so they hold no moral ground on this issue. They are scared of standing for elections since they have no standing even amongst the local Kashmiri muslims barring a few of their cronies.

I want a just and fair solution to the kashmir issue that is acceptable to all parties.

The Kashmiri pundit will not want to be part of a Pakistani Kashmir. What do you suggest be done about them?

I have given propsals before on this forum only for them to be turned down by the indian members of this forum as not acceptable.

Please try and address the Kashmiri pundit issue, as impartialy as you can.

You want the LOC as the border.
Pakistan wants UN resolution.
If we can not meet halfway the fight will carry on in kashmir.

By all means carry on., you know what little good it has done to your nation.

 

[Contrarian]

vnomad,malaymishra123,Bull
I have given proposals on how i think the kashmir issue can be solved.
1.Pakistan keeps Northern Areas
2 India keeps jammu/Ladakh
3 Azad kashmir and the valley of kashmir join together.
(all parties gain and lose something from this idea)
4 Kashmir not allowed to have an army or foreign policy.
(This would stop either pak/india getting concerned with ulterior motives)
5 Let the president of india be the president of kashmir also and let the chief justice be the from pakistan.
(Or any other mechanism that gives power to both india/pak to stop them from forwarding there own aims)

No territory will be given. If we share parts of Kashmir today, Pakistan will start creating trouble in the the downward states, Punjab, etc, as it will have more access to them, then after 3 decades, they will say that they are supporting the freedom struggle there, and the area is muslim or whatever. So no inch will be given.

I could go on with other points and then the finer points but the only problem is not one of you will budge from your stated postions.:wall:
All the propsals made are rejected and when the label of being inflexible is pointed at you ,you reject it.:wall:

The proposals are not practical as in the long run, it will harm India enormously, due to the reasons mentioned above.

You indians do not want peace in kashmir,you want to keep everything that you have occupied ,have cross border cultural exchanges and open the door for indian buisness to enter the market in pakistan and call that peace.

Ofcourse we want to keep Kashmir, it is ours.

I do agree with sentiment that you all have after reading your opinions and that is the only thing that is going to solve this issue of kashmir is the gun.

Yeah yeah, you have only found this our now? The Pakistani leadership found it out in 1947 and they have tried 3 or 4 times. I dont see any change in the border though!

I have come to the conclusion that peace in kashmir can not be achieved from talks ,after listening to your opinions. Hafeez Saheed was correct that the only way to get kashmir was to back the mujahadeen of kashmir.
LeT HUM Al Badr and all the brothers from United Jihad Council
Muttahida Jihad Council [MJC].:army:

By all means, do try to do that further, you have seen what it has done to your country, if you want to continue that, Indians as being the 'enemy' will support you! The terrorists always get gunned down.

BTW, i hope you know that they keep trying the terrorists i mean, but still Kashmir is in India, and its been over a decade!

Kashmir cannot/willnot be resolved if it involves transfer or land. Any country is welcome to try.