LeT: Ready to end Jihad in Kashmir

[Vinod2070]

We have, and I have countered your reasoning, IMO successfully.

Just the fact that Pakistan stands for implementing the right of the Kashmiris to determine their future status on Kashmir themselves through a plebiscite, and India does not, despite agreeing to it multiple times earlier, gives us the 'higher moral ground'.

India stands for occupation and the violation of her commitments to the Kashmiri people, the international community and to Pakistan. Pakistan stands for implementing and honoring all of that.

You have countered me. Not so successfully.

I have gone through the various acts by Pakistan that have made life difficult for the Kashmiris and that clearly give a lie to any claims of any kind of compassion for Kashmiris.

Just a very small list should point it out.

The 1947 Kabaili attacks that were not well received by the Kashmiris to put it mildly. We all know of the plunder of Muajaffarabad, the rape of Baramula and so on.

The 1965 attack in Kashmir that the Kashmiris fought shoulder to shoulder with Indian troops.

The 2 decade long terror campaign (Operation Topac) that made life hell for the Kashmiris.

Sending in maniacs like the Afghan veterans and other sundry leftovers from the Afghan war who were sure to add to the Kashmir's misery.

Irrespective of how you want to justify them, they show a callous lack of concern for the well being of the average Kashmiri.

Heck you can't claim more compassion for Kashmiris than you have shown for Pakistanis themselves. I am sure I don't need to elaborate.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have gone through the various acts by Pakistan that have made life difficult for the Kashmiris and that clearly give a lie to any claims of any kind of compassion for Kashmiris.

Just a very small list should point it out.

The 1947 Kabaili attacks that were not well received by the Kashmiris to put it mildly. We all know of the plunder of Muajaffarabad, the rape of Baramula and so on.

The 1947 invasion was based on the atrocities being committed upon the Kashmiris by the Maharajah and the subsequent thousands of refugees fleeing from areas of Kashmir, and Pakistan had nothing to do with the initial invasion that was out of our control for various reasons.

I posted about this here:http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...genda-kashmir-elephant-room-3.html#post281484

The 1965 attack in Kashmir that the Kashmiris fought shoulder to shoulder with Indian troops.

Bit of an exaggeration by you - since Pakistan ever attacked Kashmir in 1965. We infiltrated people into Kashmir,and they were found out before anything could take place, and India then started the war.

The 2 decade long terror campaign (Operation Topac) that made life hell for the Kashmiris.

Ahh yes - I asked you about that the last time you posted it, what the original source was, not the website. This is what I have found out since:

"When militancy erupted in Kashmir in 1989, some in New Delhi attributed it to Zia-ul-Haq's "Operation Topac". It was in fact a document published in Indian Defence Review in July 1989 sketching a scenario in the form of a speech by Zia. For quite some time our columnists had a field day brandishing it as "evidence". Only one writer had the courage and integrity to admit the error - K. Subrahmanyam."
Nehru vs Nehru

By the way, that site also mentions Nehru's subtle attempts to get the issue of Pakhtunistan going on Pakistan's Western border, a plan that the GoA then did put into practice, but which failed miserably.

Also:

" The broad sketch of Operation Topac was published in the July 1989 issue of the Indian Defence Review (IDR), the leading defense studies journal in India. According to the IDR, "the main contents from the President's address , which were leaked out, probably through a mole from a third world country, became available to India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) agents some time in September-October 1988. This document received much attention within the national security and intelligence communities in India. Edward Desmond and Victoria Schofield eventually reported that K Subrahmanyam, one of the architects of India's national security structure, acknowledged that Operation Topac was the result of a war-game scenario devised by the Indian intelligence service, RAW, and not and actual plan developed by Pakistani president Zia-ul-Haq."

Excerpt From, South Asia's Nuclear Security Dilemma
By Lowell Dittmer

Case closed on the mythical Operation Topac I believe.

Sending in maniacs like the Afghan veterans and other sundry leftovers from the Afghan war who were sure to add to the Kashmir's misery.

They formed a minority of those fighting Indian occupation, and if the Kashmiris were indeed so negatively affected by Pakistan's actions, India would have no qualms about conducting a plebiscite.

Irrespective of how you want to justify them, they show a callous lack of concern for the well being of the average Kashmiri.

Not at all - they illustrate a need to fight the Indian occupation, and once again, if the Kashmiris were that negatively impacted by the insurgency, then India would be sure that they would not choose Pakistan in a plebiscite - of course that is not the case, and hence India's violation of commitments and agreements on holding a plebiscite in Kashmir.

Heck you can't claim more compassion for Kashmiris than you have shown for Pakistanis themselves. I am sure I don't need to elaborate.

Pakistan shows the same amount of compassion for Pakistanis that India does for Indians - we both have corrupt and inefficient institutions and political systems and poor human rights records. So there is no argument to be made here against Pakistan that does not apply to India as well. And once again, if the Kashmiris believe that, they will show so in the voting booth in a plebiscite.

In any case, you refused to address the most basic points in my last post on why Pakistan has the moral high ground on Kashmir, so I will repeat them:

Just the fact that Pakistan stands for implementing the right of the Kashmiris to determine their future status on Kashmir themselves through a plebiscite, and India does not, despite agreeing to it multiple times earlier, gives us the 'higher moral ground'.

India stands for occupation and the violation of her commitments to the Kashmiri people, the international community and to Pakistan. Pakistan stands for implementing and honoring all of that.

 

[Vinod2070]

The 1947 invasion was based on the atrocities being committed upon the Kashmiris by the Maharajah and the subsequent thousands of refugees fleeing from areas of Kashmir, and Pakistan had nothing to do with the initial invasion that was out of our control for various reasons.

I posted about this here:http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...genda-kashmir-elephant-room-3.html#post281484

Well I have read a version that is a bit different. It goes something like this:

Mr. Jinnah wants the PA to invade Kashmir, the British officers are not too co-operative as they also take orders from Mountbatten, Mr. Jinnah organizes the tribes for the attack and there is a fair bit of sprinkling of Pakistani army officers. After that we know what happens.

I will try and dig up a link but you know the tribals would need to be organized and motivated for the attack. They were not Kashmiri locals at all. It was not a spontaneous uprising.

Bit of an exaggeration by you - since Pakistan ever attacked Kashmir in 1965. We infiltrated people into Kashmir,and they were found out before anything could take place, and India then started the war.

Well, I won't argue over the semantics. So let's go with what you say.

Ahh yes - I asked you about that the last time you posted it, what the original source was, not the website. This is what I have found out since:

"When militancy erupted in Kashmir in 1989, some in New Delhi attributed it to Zia-ul-Haq's "Operation Topac". It was in fact a document published in Indian Defence Review in July 1989 sketching a scenario in the form of a speech by Zia. For quite some time our columnists had a field day brandishing it as "evidence". Only one writer had the courage and integrity to admit the error - K. Subrahmanyam."
Nehru vs Nehru

By the way, that site also mentions Nehru's subtle attempts to get the issue of Pakhtunistan going on Pakistan's Western border, a plan that the GoA then did put into practice, but which failed miserably.

Also:

" The broad sketch of Operation Topac was published in the July 1989 issue of the Indian Defence Review (IDR), the leading defense studies journal in India. According to the IDR, "the main contents from the President's address , which were leaked out, probably through a mole from a third world country, became available to India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) agents some time in September-October 1988. This document received much attention within the national security and intelligence communities in India. Edward Desmond and Victoria Schofield eventually reported that K Subrahmanyam, one of the architects of India's national security structure, acknowledged that Operation Topac was the result of a war-game scenario devised by the Indian intelligence service, RAW, and not and actual plan developed by Pakistani president Zia-ul-Haq."

Excerpt From, South Asia's Nuclear Security Dilemma
By Lowell Dittmer

Case closed on the mythical Operation Topac I believe.

Lets go with what you are saying for now. It is possible. I will try and see if I can come up with anything better.

They formed a minority of those fighting Indian occupation, and if the Kashmiris were indeed so negatively affected by Pakistan's actions, India would have no qualms about conducting a plebiscite.

I think your premise here is that the day India believes that it can win a plebiscite, India would hold it. That is not close to the reality.

India doesn't see any need for plebiscite. Irrespective of what the result may be. The famous "Atoot Ang"!

Not at all - they illustrate a need to fight the Indian occupation, and once again, if the Kashmiris were that negatively impacted by the insurgency, then India would be sure that they would not choose Pakistan in a plebiscite - of course that is not the case, and hence India's violation of commitments and agreements on holding a plebiscite in Kashmir.

Same as above.

Pakistan shows the same amount of compassion for Pakistanis that India does for Indians - we both have corrupt and inefficient institutions and political systems and poor human rights records. So there is no argument to be made here against Pakistan that does not apply to India as well. And once again, if the Kashmiris believe that, they will show so in the voting booth in a plebiscite.

I was not talking of corruption and inefficiency here!

In any case, you refused to address the most basic points in my last post on why Pakistan has the moral high ground on Kashmir, so I will repeat them:

Just the fact that Pakistan stands for implementing the right of the Kashmiris to determine their future status on Kashmir themselves through a plebiscite, and India does not, despite agreeing to it multiple times earlier, gives us the 'higher moral ground'.

India stands for occupation and the violation of her commitments to the Kashmiri people, the international community and to Pakistan. Pakistan stands for implementing and honoring all of that.

That is not how we see it. The UN resolutions have been overtaken by time and by many events that have changed the ground situation. The 1971 Simla agreement effectively superseded the UN resolutions.

It is also widely believed that ZAB agreed to freeze the LOC into a border in all but name and requested not to formalize it due to internal opposition.

We are for all the rights to the Kashmiris, most of all the right to live with dignity and in a democratic setup without the shadow of violence looming over their lives.

Let's have that first, let the Kashmiris (and all South Asians) be free from terror emanating from sanctuaries located you know where.

Your position seems to be no peace for anyone till I get what I want. Hardly something that can be called "moral high ground"!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well I have read a version that is a bit different. It goes something like this:

Mr. Jinnah wants the PA to invade Kashmir, the British officers are not too co-operative as they also take orders from Mountbatten, Mr. Jinnah organizes the tribes for the attack and there is a fair bit of sprinkling of Pakistani army officers. After that we know what happens.

I will try and dig up a link but you know the tribals would need to be organized and motivated for the attack. They were not Kashmiri locals at all. It was not a spontaneous uprising.

The tribals went in after the local uprising was crushed by the Maharajah and atrocities committed by him resulting in thousands of refugees going in.

Shuja Nawaz's account is extremely detailed on this issue, including references at the end of every chapter, Pakistani, Indiana and Western, and his access to the GHQ archives and interviews with people involved is second to none.

Owen Bennet Jones, though not as detailed in his book, validates much of the larger points made by Shuja Nawaz.

Your position seems to be no peace for anyone till I get what I want. Hardly something that can be called "moral high ground"!

No my position is that we shoudl have peace by India fulfilling her commitments under the UNSC resolutions, under the instrument of accession, made to Pakistan, the international community and the Kashmiris.

Simla does not supersede the UNSC resolutions since the first clause of Simla states:

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

Atoot Ank is like a squatter thug with weapons refusing to return property legally owned by someone else, even when a court rules against the squatter, becasue it is his 'atoot ang' and the thug has the guns to control the illegally usurped territory.

 

[Vinod2070]

The tribals went in after the local uprising was crushed by the Maharajah and atrocities committed by him resulting in thousands of refugees going in.

Shuja Nawaz's account is extremely detailed on this issue, including references at the end of every chapter, Pakistani, Indiana and Western, and his access to the GHQ archives and interviews with people involved is second to none.

Owen Bennet Jones, though not as detailed in his book, validates much of the larger points made by Shuja Nawaz.

I will try and get the book. Even if the events were started due to the actions of the Maharaja, the tribals only seem to have added to the misery! Their actions don't seem to suggest love and compassion of hearts.

No my position is that we shoudl have peace by India fulfilling her commitments under the UNSC resolutions, under the instrument of accession, made to Pakistan, the international community and the Kashmiris.

Simla does not supersede the UNSC resolutions since the first clause of Simla states:

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

Atoot Ank is like a squatter thug with weapons refusing to return property legally owned by someone else, even when a court rules against the squatter, becasue it is his 'atoot ang' and the thug has the guns to control the illegally usurped territory.

The highlighted part is just a declaration of intent as to how the relations should be governed.

The agreement talks of bilateral dispute resolution, maps the LOC very precisely, doesn't talk of the UN resolutions and this coupled with ZAB's assurances which were not put on paper on his request effectively nullifies the UN resolutions.

It does seem that ZAB failed to honor his promises.

The rest of your post flows from a logic that to me is self serving and flows from a faulty premise that India owes Pakistan something on Kashmir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I will try and get the book. Even if the events were started due to the actions of the Maharaja, the tribals only seem to have added to the misery! Their actions don't seem to suggest love and compassion of hearts.

On the contrary, going in to fight off the Maharajah's murderous hordes is a very compassionate thing to do.

The highlighted part is just a declaration of intent as to how the relations should be governed.

The agreement talks of bilateral dispute resolution, maps the LOC very precisely, doesn't talk of the UN resolutions and this coupled with ZAB's assurances which were not put on paper on his request effectively nullifies the UN resolutions.

It does seem that ZAB failed to honor his promises.

The rest of your post flows from a logic that to me is self serving and flows from a faulty premise that India owes Pakistan something on Kashmir.

One cannot respect the UN charter without respecting the commitments and agreements made under the Charter. The Simla agreement makes clear from the first clause that the UN charter shall be respected, hence the UN resolutions stand.

If the intent was to have the UN resolutions not apply anymore, it would have been stated specifically.

Assurances not on paper are no assurances at all. On the other hand the agreements on the plebiscite and referendum are on paper and with tremendous evidence validating them- as are Nehru's documented quotes and policies illustrating how the GoI violated those commitments.

My comments explain quiet clearly the attitude taken by Indians and the GoI - it is that of a squatter thug who is refusing to give up property that he knows is to his, under the guise of 'Atoot Ang' or some other nonsense (1 billion Indians, and the usual irrational nationalism you guys spout).

Merely calling my argument self serving does not make it so - it is a clear illustration of India's attitude on Kashmir. You refuse to honor your commitments and agreements becasue there is no enforcement mechanism, and you possibly stand to lose were you to honor your commitments and agreements.

 

[Vinod2070]

On the contrary, going in to fight off the Maharajah's murderous hordes is a very compassionate thing to do.

First of all, the Maharajah had a very small army, hardly worthy of being called hordes! The only hordes were the tribal ones.

Second, the tribals proved with their actions (the only proof there can be) how compassionate they were! I can give the links if required but I guess you know their actions too well.

One cannot respect the UN charter without respecting the commitments and agreements made under the Charter. The Simla agreement makes clear from the first clause that the UN charter shall be respected, hence the UN resolutions stand.

If the intent was to have the UN resolutions not apply anymore, it would have been stated specifically.

Assurances not on paper are no assurances at all. On the other hand the agreements on the plebiscite and referendum are on paper and with tremendous evidence validating them- as are Nehru's documented quotes and policies illustrating how the GoI violated those commitments.

My comments explain quiet clearly the attitude taken by Indians and the GoI - it is that of a squatter thug who is refusing to give up property that he knows is to his, under the guise of 'Atoot Ang' or some other nonsense (1 billion Indians, and the usual irrational nationalism you guys spout).

Merely calling my argument self serving does not make it so - it is a clear illustration of India's attitude on Kashmir. You refuse to honor your commitments and agreements becasue there is no enforcement mechanism, and you possibly stand to lose were you to honor your commitments and agreements.

I think here we are stuck in a jam. We see the same facts differently and obviously have different interpretations.

I think India has made mistakes in Kashmir. But I am hopeful we will overcome all challenges and all of us South Asians will live in peace soon.

With Kashmir being a bridge between us and not a wall of mistrust!

It can still happen. We only need to start looking for new avenues.