Kashmir - Think the Unthinkable

[indiapakistanfriendship]

Agnostic Muslim

Congress could have refused, as could Jinnah and the Muslim League, who were extremely unhappy with the proposals for partition (moth eaten Pakistan) - but they all agreed, and it was a binding agreement, and in the absence of anything else, that is the only roadmap we have, plus the UNSC resolutions of course, that base a resolution of the dispute on a moral and just principle of letting the people of a territory decide their destiny.

Agno we can cyle around the issue but the fact of the matter is, entire partition was done on a basis of compramise rather then our ideal wants.
There is nothing called binding agreement in international politics. If it was so then theoritically Bangladesh should have not been recognised as a nation state and should have been considered in the like of South Ossetia or Turkish Cyprus.
As far as bringing in UN is considered, first you have to understand that UN was never designed to effectively prevent small conflicts. Also read my above posts as to why UN will not work to your convinience. If you had wanted a UN resolution to work then you should have taken the UN route completely rather then the other means you have tried to integrate Kashmir into India.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

IndiaPakistanFriendship,

One question for you.

India invaded Hyderabad and annexed it on the theory that majority of population was hindu and did not wish to be independent rather would like to join India.

Why don't India use the same principle in Kashmir and let them decide what they want to do.

Dear Ejaz

I was trying to rebuff AM's argument that Kashmir should be under the framework of partition agreement. My point here was simple. The partition agreement alowed rulers to decide with whom to join, fair enough Hyderabad Nizam decided to join Pakistan so theoritically and legally Hyderabad should be a part of Pakistan, but then the India went a one step more than the partition agreement and annexed Hyderabad. The point here is parition is not the only frame work by which borders are decided, there are several variables that decide border dynamics more then an archaic agreement.

I hope I have made myself clear

IPF

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agno we can cyle around the issue but the fact of the matter is, entire partition was done on a basis of compramise rather then our ideal wants.
There is nothing called binding agreement in international politics. If it was so then theoritically Bangladesh should have not been recognised as a nation state and should have been considered in the like of South Ossetia or Turkish Cyprus.
As far as bringing in UN is considered, first you have to understand that UN was never designed to effectively prevent small conflicts. Also read my above posts as to why UN will not work to your convinience. If you had wanted a UN resolution to work then you should have taken the UN route completely rather then the other means you have tried to integrate Kashmir into India.

It was done on a compromise, but that compromise was accepted, and we have to live by it. If agreements do not matter, then all we will have is war. And while you may want to justify that and accept it since you control both Hyderabd and part of kashmir, it does not make that stance (of agreements between nations or parties not mattering) any less wrong.

On the UN issue, as I have already pointed out, it is not so much which side was responsible for not implementing the UN resolutions, but rather the fact that again both sides, and the international community, recognized that no nation or 'ruler' could exercise control over a people or their land - that it is the people of Kashmir who must decide their destiny.

It is that principle laid out in the Instrument of Accession, and in the UNSC resolutions, that is the most important issue, and the only moral solution.

When I say that 'kashmir hamara hay' is jingoism (by both sides) I am pointing out that there exists no rational reason to make that claim if the people of Kashmir do not accept being part of either side.

kashmir is only 'someones' if the kashmiris accept them - unfortunately the tendency is to indulge in machismo and bravad and go so far as to advocate ethnic cleasning and demographic change, instead of recognizing that the only thing that makes a nation whole are when the nation commands the hearts and minds of its people.

 

[dabong1]

The elections were rigged... but you bought the guns inside de facto Indian territory..

What did you expect pakistan to do..?
You rigged the elections and then start using state terror tactics on the population.....off course there going to come running to the arms of pakistan.
Subhas Chandra Bose.... what part did he play in indians fight for freedom.
Did he use the gun to fight for freedom?

Let's not get into how fair elections are in AJK; but, do we poke you, no...

Please do......i have been in AJK and taken part in elections helping family members who are involved in small time politics.......i think you could call me the driver.
As far i am aware and i am talking from first hand knowledge there was no rigging.
For the last two elections the PPP has been in power where i live....even if there is a military govt in islambad and no elections are being held in pakistan,the elections in AJK will take place.
The only thing i would say is that the JKLF should be allowed to contest the election even if they do not swear alligance to the pakistani state.....other then that everything is fine in AJK.

The populace in NWFP is very much anti-establishment.

I would love to take you there and show you how pro pakistan the populace of NWFP is.
A large amount of people have moved from the tribal areas into pakistan proper....if they where that anti pakistani/anti-establishment they would crossed the border into afghanistan.

To a certain degree we must all be anti-establishment otherwise we turn into sheep and take as gods word what our govt say.

Your 60 years of struggle hasn't yielded an inch. Accept the status quo and live with it.

Well i would disagree........50/60 years ago if the indian govt had held a vote in kashmir i am pretty sure it would have joined india or at least had strong links.
In 60 years the pakistanis govt and your own silly mistakes have turned the kashmir population against you.
We are at a stage now that there is not chance that kashmir would join india.
It will take time...but we have plenty off that.

 

[Flintlock]

Thanks, that's a perfect example. World war two was not a war over religion. Again it was a territorial dispute. The invasion of Poland. Kashmir also is not a war over religion. It is a territorial dispute. The land grab of Kashmir. Therefore Hindus do form some of the insurgents, as the Jews also formed part of the Wermacht. They all had the same objective..and that was domination of Europe, the Kashmiris also have an objective, freedom from India. These are not religious wars as you like to insist.

Wow....you just turned history on its head. Congrats.

Go tell you history teacher that the Nazi regime was fighting over a "territorial dispute".

What you are stating is simply the exception that proves the rule.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As far as peace and progress and cooperation in South Asia arising due to the solution of Kashmiri problem(sessation of Kashmir from India to Pakistan) is considered, I don't think it is worth the wounded psyche of a billion plus.

You cannot speak for a billion recent ToI poll showing 40 percent of Indians in favor of letting Kashmiris determine their destiny), and the 'wounded psyche' of hundreds of millions was not worth continuing slavery either. This argument is a justification for the tyranny of the majority for whatever frivolous reason (like wounded psyche) that can be concoted.

This is almost childish , 'my feelings will get hurt, therefore I am going to forcibly occupy you and refuse to let you determine your future'. The 'feelings of Indians' are not of significance when compared to the sentiments of a people who consider themselves occupied - no Indian would buy teh arguemtn that the British have continued their occupation of teh subcontinent becasue the 'psyche of the British would have been wounded' to see the size of their empire reduced.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

You cannot speak for a billion recent ToI poll showing 40 percent of Indians in favor of letting Kashmiris determine their destiny), and the 'wounded psyche' of hundreds of millions was not worth continuing slavery either. This argument is a justification for the tyranny of the majority for whatever frivolous reason (like wounded psyche) that can be concoted.

My argument was based on "cost to benifit" and "incentives to an action" spectrum. You had in your earlier post pointed out the incenives for letting go of Kashmir, so I had to point out as to how it is only crates negative incentives for Inidans. As far as my statement is considered, let future be the judge of it.

This is almost childish , 'my feelings will get hurt, therefore I am going to forcibly occupy you and refuse to let you determine your future'. The 'feelings of Indians' are not of significance when compared to the sentiments of a people who consider themselves occupied - no Indian would buy teh arguemtn that the British have continued their occupation of teh subcontinent becasue the 'psych of the British woudl have been wounded' to see the size of their empire reduced.

Yup it was about economics and the so called British pride. As long as they could, the British would have held on if only they did not have problems themselves or unless it was prohibitively expensive for them to hold on creating an atmospehere whereby vacating the colonies was the only positive incentives that was left for them.

IPF

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My argument was based on "cost to benifit" and "incentives to an action" spectrum. You had in your earlier post pointed out the incenives for letting go of Kashmir, so I had to point out as to how it is only crates negative incentives for Inidans. As far as my statement is considered, let future be the judge of it.

So essentially the only 'cost' you can come up with is 'wounded psyche', and on the basis if that ignore all the potential benefits that I have outlined in various posts.

Yup it was about economics and the so called British pride. As long as they could, the British would have held on if only they did not have problems themselves or unless it was prohibitively expensive for them to hold on creating an atmospehere whereby vacating the colonies was the only positive incentives that was left for them.

IPF

Surprising - you are perhaps the first Indian to openly admit that India subscribes to no high morals or ethics, nor cares for any laws or agreements, and that its occupation of kashmir is solely becasue it has the military power to do so.

That is why I called the sentiments expressed by so many Indians here 'Jingoism', since there is very little rationale and logic behind not resolving the dispute other than this over the top nationalism.

But if that is your defense, then you and I have nothing further to discuss on this issue.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

So essentially the only 'cost' you can come up with is 'wounded psyche', and on the basis if that ignore all the potential benefits that I have outlined in various posts.

Believe me, you don't want a billion plus population with a wounded psche near your borders.

Surprising - you are perhaps the first Indian to openly admit that India subscribes to no high morals or ethics, nor cares for any laws or agreements, and that its occupation of kashmir is solely becasue it has the military power to do so.

That is why I called the sentiments expressed by so many Indians here 'Jingoism', since there is very little rationale and logic behind not resolving the dispute other than this over the top nationalism.

But if that is your defense, then you and I have nothing further to discuss on this issue.

So does that mean you have never read any of my posts. In all the 400 odd posts that I have argued with Dabong, Icecold and others I have been a realist . World works based on realism, economic incentives and power. The incentives are more for us if we compramise on Kashmir(accepting the status quo), then planning the next occassion to beat the pulp out of each other.

As far as your statement on accepting the truth is considered, you have to understand that no nation is perfect, it can however strive to be one. It all boils down to what degree India is willing to abide by the law and in most cases it has done so. If legality was sacroscant then there would have been no wars in the first place.

As far as my defense is considered, I beileve in Indian system and this Indian system gaurentees me equal rights over any territory of hers including Kashmir and it is the aspersion of a billion plus Indians to exercise this primal right. So you be the judge(for your own personal opinion) as to what matters.

IPF

 

[Flintlock]

Surprising - you are perhaps the first Indian to openly admit that India subscribes to no high morals or ethics, nor cares for any laws or agreements, and that its occupation of kashmir is solely becasue it has the military power to do so.

India's highest principle is her territorial integrity. Everything else comes second.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Believe me, you don't want a billion plus population with a wounded psche near your borders.

Believe me I don't care - this billion plus nonsense is overrated - as I pointed out, 40 percent are in favor of giving Kashmir the right to decide its destiny.

As far as my defense is considered, I beileve in Indian system and this Indian system gaurentees me equal rights over any territory of hers including Kashmir

You believe in your system that pampers your jingoism, obviously the Kashmiris do not believe in your system, and this isn't about you, it is about them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India's highest principle is her territorial integrity. Everything else comes second.

The territory isn't yours legally anyways so you can't 'defend the integrity' of something you have no right over.

Territory belongs to the people of that territory - the Kashmiris in this case, not to an occupying power - hypocrisy at its highest after all the 'we were invaded' tantrums.

 

[Flintlock]

The territory isn't yours legally anyways so you can't 'defend the integrity' of something you have no right over.

Territory belongs to the people of that territory - the Kashmiris in this case, not to an occupying power - hypocrisy at its highest after all the 'we were invaded' tantrums.

The territory is ours according to our constitution. And that is what matters. Not what the rest of the world thinks of it.

I made a mistake btw....its not our territory which comes first. Its our constitution.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The territory is ours according to our constitution. And that is what matters. Not what the rest of the world thinks of it.

I made a mistake btw....its not our territory which comes first. Its our constitution.

Since I am not a proponent of war or insurgency for resolving Kashmir, it does matter how Indians think about resolving the dispute, and to that end I think that the current means of expressing discontent with Indian occupation in Kashmir, millions protesting and waving Pakistani flags, is the best way to take things forward, especially with today's media coverage. 40 percent of Indians supporting Kashmirs right to decide its own destiny is heartening, and a welcome step.

Yes there will aways be irrational nationalists, but we shall have to see how events play out in the future, and whether that 40 percent who can think beyond jingoism and hate increases or decreases in the future.

 

[roadrunner]

The territory is ours according to our constitution. And that is what matters. Not what the rest of the world thinks of it.

I made a mistake btw....its not our territory which comes first. Its our constitution.

Your original Constitution did not have Kashmir legally as part of the dominion of India.

You might as well add france, italy, germany, japan, china to your constitution too, if that's the case. You have as much right to them, as you do to Kashmir.