New Delhi will only discuss Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, says Indian envoy

[Burhan Wani]

In 1947, the Maharaja wants to remain independent not with India not with Pakistan. He was in two mind, first he don't want to join Pakistan, but all te roads, rail were connected to kashmir via Pakistan. There is huge cain of mountains between Jammu and Srinagar. And NH1 is still the lifeline of the J&K, because it is the only road connected with the rest of the India, the other road is the Manali-leh-Srinagar 400 km dangerous road which is only opened for 6 month in a year.

Pakistan might gets J&K, but he did the mistake by sending Kabaili infitrators and its own militia disguised as locals. Some of the locals muslims do join the armed struggle, but most of the Kashmiri were against the agression, not because they don't want to join Pakistan, but due the looting, and killings of the local residents. They reached Barahmulla just 20KM near the Srinagar, but till then Maharaja had sighned the treaty with the new delhi for joining the India, and it took 4 days of meetings. The first batch of Indian armed force reached with the airlifted just 120 Sikh regiment soldiers who landed in the only sole Srinagar airfield, and they were the one that fights to make sure it was opened for the other Indian backups. Had the Kabaili not indulge in lootings and killing, they could have reached Srinagar easily before Indian and, there was no proper road link up to the valley from the India connecting it with the India, which is 200 Km from the Jammu. Actually the total war was in 4 region Jammu, URI, Srinagar Valley, and Leh Ladakh reion, and its a very big region with remote areas, mountains, where tanks are not accessible.



Wrong perception and history. It was the Kabaili that was killing the local resident, and this can be confirmed with the fact that P.Nehru gave the statement that he is ready for the Poll of the Kashmiri people, to decide whether they want to join India or Pakistan. If the Poll was done at that time, 100% Kashmiri would have voted for India. Ask Old Kashmiri they would tell the stories of the attrocities of the local tribes man.

Had Indian Army not indulge in humitarial aid, they would have occupied Muzzafrabaad.



The Best chance to acquire Kashmir with arm have been lost in 1947, Indian army after capturing Uri have make sure that the valley is secure. And the roads are better, now, with several projects running to connect the valley away from border. And Pakistani army don't have the Power to take the Kashmir, best they could do was the covert operation like Kargil. Indian stance on UN is very strong also.

And for you I make you clear, I have spend my half of life in Kashmir --Srinagar, Barahmullah, Udhampur, jammu, Leh. I know very well the ground realities. If any doubt ask me.

Mr i don't know why are you talking so much about Kabailis and Nehru. We are fighting for our lands since 1830 when Maharaja attacked princely states and enforced them to be a part of it's territory. Kabailis are warriors but not military strategist. Highly decorated officers of British army who were residents of Poonch and veteran of WW1 and WW2, awarded by military cross, OBI and IOBM, was against Maharaja. They want to take revenge of 1832 killings when Gulab singh skinned dozen local sardars alive only to crush freedom struggle. These muslim British officers and residents of Poonch deploy a strategy to get rid of occupiers. So they fought well with very limited resources and liberated entire Poonch and neighboring districts without any external help.
Secondly if residents of J&K supports India then why educated youngsters are joining militant groups day by day and killing your soldiers and officers?
You are just revolving around Kabailis and Nehru. Live with fear.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sorry for asking the larger than life argument.

More like you're 'sorry you tried an argument that has been shown to be incorrect'.

 

[ssethii]

Isn't that the masla everywhere?..isn't it why Pakistan and Bangladesh exist?...and the Kashmir issue exist?..If Kashmir was majority non Muslims. ..would it have been an issue?.

simple no because that was the basis of division.

Says who?. Is that why you have a different prime minister for PO K?.

pakistan has no right to hand over any land of J&K to china.

Foreign occupation?..like the foreign religion called Islam from arabistan - is that the leverage you are talking about?.

Why is it your problem and why you use it as an excuse to shy away from Kashmir issue.
Then who has the right, the plantation or the animals in that region?
There is no such thing as foreign religion in this age of information, don't make up terms to prove your point.

 

[Joe Shearer]

simple no because that was the basis of division.

This is a common enough mistake.

The basis of division applied only to the Punjab and to Bengal. Otherwise, the northern segment and the eastern segment that were assigned to form the new Dominion of Pakistan was on the basis of the majority in terms of religion.

This principle applied to British India. It did not apply to the sovereign rulers of the princely states. Kashmir was a princely state.

Why is it your problem and why you use it as an excuse to shy away from Kashmir issue.
Then who has the right, the plantation or the animals in that region?
There is no such thing as foreign religion in this age of information, don't make up terms to prove your point.

 

[ssethii]

This is a common enough mistake.

The basis of division applied only to the Punjab and to Bengal. Otherwise, the northern segment and the eastern segment that were assigned to form the new Dominion of Pakistan was on the basis of the majority in terms of religion.

This principle applied to British India. It did not apply to the sovereign rulers of the princely states. Kashmir was a princely state.

If it was as simple as you state then why state of India accepted to hold a plebiscite under UN mandate.

 

[Gen Padmanabhan]

More like you're 'sorry you tried an argument that has been shown to be incorrect'.

Obviously for you, your discussion is hollier than thou.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If it was as simple as you state then why state of India accepted to hold a plebiscite under UN mandate.

First, what I stated was not simple. The princely state consisted of at least seven different regions, with different attitudes to the Dogra ruler, and to Pakistan and India. Of these seven, one set consisted of subordinate states which broke away on the British withdrawing. Another was Gilgit-Baltistan, which the British had ruled over directly from 1877 onwards, and assumed greater authority from 1935 onwards. Power was restored to the Dogra ruler only a few weeks before independence. Mirpur and Poonch had always harboured a grievance against the Dogras, and could not be expected to accept any further Dogra domination without a struggle, which duly ensued. Jammu was pro-Dogra in the east, against the Maharaja in the west, the Vale had broadly pro-India feelings solely due to the influence of the National Conference. Ladakh was quite happy to do whatever they were told was good for them, and were not belligerent on any side.

Second, it was in these conditions that Mountbatten reacted to Hari Singh's effort to win military cover from the Indian Army by insisting that there should finally be a plebiscite. India did not accept a plebiscite under a UN mandate, India suggested it. And India went on, through its Prime Minister, to approach the UN for a vacation of Pakistani aggression.

Please read the terms of the reference to the UN by India.

Please then read the wording of the resolution as finally passed. In it, the UN clearly asks Pakistan to withdraw totally, asks India to maintain law and order, and asks India to hold a plebiscite.

I suspect that you are not even aware of these fundamental facts. Nor is it probable that you know about what ensued. I would appreciate it if you read on the background, including the proceedings of the Plebiscite Commission, before commenting, because your comment was really not one which displays a detailed knowledge of the facts and circumstances.

Please do not hesitate to ask for any further clarification. But please do take a look at the original documents.

 

[ssethii]

First, what I stated was not simple. The princely state consisted of at least seven different regions, with different attitudes to the Dogra ruler, and to Pakistan and India. Of these seven, one set consisted of subordinate states which broke away on the British withdrawing. Another was Gilgit-Baltistan, which the British had ruled over directly from 1877 onwards, and assumed greater authority from 1935 onwards. Power was restored to the Dogra ruler only a few weeks before independence. Mirpur and Poonch had always harboured a grievance against the Dogras, and could not be expected to accept any further Dogra domination without a struggle, which duly ensued. Jammu was pro-Dogra in the east, against the Maharaja in the west, the Vale had broadly pro-India feelings solely due to the influence of the National Conference. Ladakh was quite happy to do whatever they were told was good for them, and were not belligerent on any side.

Second, it was in these conditions that Mountbatten reacted to Hari Singh's effort to win military cover from the Indian Army by insisting that there should finally be a plebiscite. India did not accept a plebiscite under a UN mandate, India suggested it. And India went on, through its Prime Minister, to approach the UN for a vacation of Pakistani aggression.

Please read the terms of the reference to the UN by India.

Please then read the wording of the resolution as finally passed. In it, the UN clearly asks Pakistan to withdraw totally, asks India to maintain law and order, and asks India to hold a plebiscite.

I suspect that you are not even aware of these fundamental facts. Nor is it probable that you know about what ensued. I would appreciate it if you read on the background, including the proceedings of the Plebiscite Commission, before commenting, because your comment was really not one which displays a detailed knowledge of the facts and circumstances.

Please do not hesitate to ask for any further clarification. But please do take a look at the original documents.

You make it look like India is a victim in this issue.
India the savior and liberator of Kashmiri people whereas Pakistan is the oppressor and wont let go the rest of Kashmir against the will of the prople (dejavu). Bravo.
Original documents like 'instrument of succession'.
I accept my ignorance. peace.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You make it look like India is a victim in this issue.
India the savior and liberator of Kashmiri people whereas Pakistan is the oppressor and wont let go the rest of Kashmir against the will of the prople (dejavu). Bravo.
Original documents like 'instrument of succession'.
I accept my ignorance. peace.

India was not the victim, not exactly. But the Vale and the people of the Vale were.

Secondly, you are being mischievous, no doubt in what you think is a good cause. My point always has been that the princely state of J&K was an artificial, constructed state, and it fell apart on predictable lines the moment there was external pressure, and the moment the Maharaja and his administration lost their focus. Perhaps even earlier; the moment the Maharaja's administration was displanted from a large part of the state.

Third, his own mistakes contributed to the uprising in western Jammu and in Mirpur. Those areas rose in revolt against the depredations of the Jammu functionaries and military.

Fourth, there was no document called 'instrument of succession'. There was an instrument of accession. Just for the sake of accuracy, although it is clear what you meant.

As f?or my personal views, I believe that the split that occurred, although it was a pity that the PA intervened, it was going well enough without the intervention by the qabailis and later, by the regular PA, was the best possible thing that could have happened.

It isn't a question of individual ignorance; these aren't facts which are known much. We talk in broad brush-strokes and seldom do we approach the discussion with any serious knowledge of the facts. My interest is not in pushing one country's case or the other, but to put forth the facts as accurately as possible. When a very knowledgeable Pakistani commentator (@Samundri?) corrected me drastically, and when I found he was right, I was very happy to adopt his correct version in place of what I had relied on earlier.

Nothing personal about this, so why you should make a point about ignorance, yours, mine or anybody else's, is not clear. That is not the intention, not at all.

@ssethii

On reading through my last two posts, it is with regret that I noticed that my being an old and crotchety professor came out rather clearly. Sincere apologies for sounding like that.


Coming to think of it, I am that.

 

[ssethii]

India was not the victim, not exactly. But the Vale and the people of the Vale were.

Secondly, you are being mischievous, no doubt in what you think is a good cause. My point always has been that the princely state of J&K was an artificial, constructed state, and it fell apart on predictable lines the moment there was external pressure, and the moment the Maharaja and his administration lost their focus. Perhaps even earlier; the moment the Maharaja's administration was displanted from a large part of the state.

Third, his own mistakes contributed to the uprising in western Jammu and in Mirpur. Those areas rose in revolt against the depredations of the Jammu functionaries and military.

Fourth, there was no document called 'instrument of succession'. There was an instrument of accession. Just for the sake of accuracy, although it is clear what you meant.

As f?or my personal views, I believe that the split that occurred, although it was a pity that the PA intervened, it was going well enough without the intervention by the qabailis and later, by the regular PA, was the best possible thing that could have happened.

It isn't a question of individual ignorance; these aren't facts which are known much. We talk in broad brush-strokes and seldom do we approach the discussion with any serious knowledge of the facts. My interest is not in pushing one country's case or the other, but to put forth the facts as accurately as possible. When a very knowledgeable Pakistani commentator (@Samundri?) corrected me drastically, and when I found he was right, I was very happy to adopt his correct version in place of what I had relied on earlier.

Nothing personal about this, so why you should make a point about ignorance, yours, mine or anybody else's, is not clear. That is not the intention, not at all.

@ssethii

On reading through my last two posts, it is with regret that I noticed that my being an old and crotchety professor came out rather clearly. Sincere apologies for sounding like that.


Coming to think of it, I am that.

Firstly, for the record I'm not here to troll so i don't know why i sound mischievous to you.
Secondly, I take others opinions on face value not on their intentions. You seem very knowledgeable but at the same time very cunningly twist facts to suit your inner belief.
Third, I admit that i haven't done any research on the topic or looked up for any official documents. I believe the best document to judge the ground reality would have been any election data but unfortunately the people were never given the chance to express their opinion.
Lastly I do follow the news from independent outlets regarding Kashmir and I have been to furthest parts of Azad Kashmir and these two are my sources of information and basis for my opinion. And one does not need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that there is an unrest within the people of Kashmir regarding status quo. Even the polititions that are part of govt distinguish Kashmir as an independent entity. Only thing Indian in Kashmir is the large number of military and para military forces thus the notion of occupation.

P.S: I am a student and i will second your conclusion with my experience. No offense but I never thought that professors were treated as professionals in PDF unless from some defense institute,

 

[Zibago]

First, what I stated was not simple. The princely state consisted of at least seven different regions, with different attitudes to the Dogra ruler, and to Pakistan and India. Of these seven, one set consisted of subordinate states which broke away on the British withdrawing. Another was Gilgit-Baltistan, which the British had ruled over directly from 1877 onwards, and assumed greater authority from 1935 onwards. Power was restored to the Dogra ruler only a few weeks before independence. Mirpur and Poonch had always harboured a grievance against the Dogras, and could not be expected to accept any further Dogra domination without a struggle, which duly ensued. Jammu was pro-Dogra in the east, against the Maharaja in the west, the Vale had broadly pro-India feelings solely due to the influence of the National Conference. Ladakh was quite happy to do whatever they were told was good for them, and were not belligerent on any side.

Second, it was in these conditions that Mountbatten reacted to Hari Singh's effort to win military cover from the Indian Army by insisting that there should finally be a plebiscite. India did not accept a plebiscite under a UN mandate, India suggested it. And India went on, through its Prime Minister, to approach the UN for a vacation of Pakistani aggression.

Please read the terms of the reference to the UN by India.

Please then read the wording of the resolution as finally passed. In it, the UN clearly asks Pakistan to withdraw totally, asks India to maintain law and order, and asks India to hold a plebiscite.

I suspect that you are not even aware of these fundamental facts. Nor is it probable that you know about what ensued. I would appreciate it if you read on the background, including the proceedings of the Plebiscite Commission, before commenting, because your comment was really not one which displays a detailed knowledge of the facts and circumstances.

Please do not hesitate to ask for any further clarification. But please do take a look at the original documents.

Jammu,s Muslims were not pro dogra dont twist history but unlike Mirpuris they didnt have the same history with the British colonial army which helped us oust the racist bigot from our land
1947-When Jammu’s Rivers Turned Red | Jammu Regional Muslim's Research Organisation

And you didnt reply after my post about Azad Kashmir ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Firstly, for the record I'm not here to troll so i don't know why i sound mischievous to you.

I meant 'mischievous' in a playful sense, not as a wicked trait.

Secondly, I take others opinions on face value not on their intentions. You seem very knowledgeable but at the same time very cunningly twist facts to suit your inner belief.

This is not right of you. Which fact have I twisted?

Third, I admit that i haven't done any research on the topic or looked up for any official documents. I believe the best document to judge the ground reality would have been any election data but unfortunately the people were never given the chance to express their opinion.

There have been elections on the Indian administered side for fifty years now. You might like to look up the records for the Pakistan side. If I put the facts before you, you seem to be in the frame of mind to deduce that some distortion is taking place, even before looking at the facts.

Lastly I do follow the news from independent outlets regarding Kashmir and I have been to furthest parts of Azad Kashmir and these two are my sources of information and basis for my opinion. And one does not need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that there is an unrest within the people of Kashmir regarding status quo. Even the polititions that are part of govt distinguish Kashmir as an independent entity. Only thing Indian in Kashmir is the large number of military and para military forces thus the notion of occupation.

"...within the people of Kashmir"? How do you define Kashmir? According to your own statement, you have "...been to furthest parts of Azad Kashmir", and presumably not through Gilgit-Baltistan, certainly not through Jammu, or the Vale, or Ladakh. I have been through Jammu, and the Vale, but not through Ladakh. I question your conclusion that there is unrest within the people of Kashmir regarding status quo, since it is very doubtful that either Mirpur or Gilgit-Baltistan wants some different kind of arrangement from what they have at present. It simply doesn't make sense to conclude that the inhabitants wish to be under the legislative and administrative control of the majority in the Vale. No politician in Indian administered Kashmir distinguishes "Kashmir", whatever you mean by that term, as an independent entity.

Regarding the number of military and para-military forces, and the claim of occupation, how is it that the similar number of forces on the Pakistan side do not make them occupiers of their occupied portion of Kashmir? And are you aware of the actual number of soldiers posted in Kashmir by the Indian Army? If not, what do you mean by "large numbers"?

P.S: I am a student and i will second your conclusion with my experience. No offense but I never thought that professors were treated as professionals in PDF unless from some defense institute,

No offence, but you should look up the records of past transactions before rushing to share your (valuable) opinion. I was deeply involved in defence matters in two phases in the past, and have been teaching, as a full professor in a law university, for the last three years. I hope that settles your lingering doubts about my situation.

Jammu,s Muslims were not pro dogra dont twist history but unlike Mirpuris they didnt have the same history with the British colonial army which helped us oust the racist bigot from our land
1947-When Jammu’s Rivers Turned Red | Jammu Regional Muslim's Research Organisation

And you didnt reply after my post about Azad Kashmir ?

I never said that Jammu Muslims, the inhabitants of western Jammu in my note, were pro-Dogra; it seems that you have a problem comprehending any but the simplest prose passages.

You did not get a reply to your post, because I decided that it was a waste of time. The posts were of uniformly poor quality, and I really don't see any value in them. Sorry.

 

[Zibago]

You didnt reply to my pst where i corrected your delebrate twisting of facts about Koshaur/Kashmiri not being a language of Azad Kashmir and Pahari not being a language of Indian Occupied Kashmir?

Jammu was pro-Dogra in the east, against the Maharaja in the west, the Vale had broadly pro-India feelings .

Both in the east and west of Jammu opposition or support of Dogras was largely based on communal lines, even in Mirpur,Kotli,Bhimber,Poonch the situation was same Hindus were mostly pro and Muslims mostly anti dogra

lol that little sliver of land you call "azad" is not Kashmir, you have no Kashmiri culture, no Kashmiri language, nothing about "azad" Kashmir is Kashmir.

Kashmir actual is in India

ib4 pics of Pakistan flag in srinagar

Tell that to the Koshaur/Kashmiri speaking people of Neelum and Muzafarabad

 

[Joe Shearer]

You didnt reply to my pst where i corrected your delebrate twisting of facts about Koshaur/Kashmiri not being a language of Azad Kashmir and Pahari not being a language of Indian Occupied Kashmir?

I suggest that you go through the published data on which language was spoken in what percentages in which areas. It is available. It is because of these quibbles that I do not wish to encourage your trolling.

Both in the east and west of Jammu opposition or support of Dogras was largely based on communal lines, even in Mirpur,Kotli,Bhimber,Poonch the situation was same Hindus were mostly pro and Muslims mostly anti dogra

And where did I deny that? It is recorded that west Jammu had a larger concentration of Muslims, which explains my wording. If, instead of trying to be clever, you were to concentrate on the argument, there would be some point in discussing the matter. As it is, a smart kid trying to show the forum that he is a smart kid is a complete waste of time for me.

Tell that to the Koshaur/Kashmiri speaking people of Neelum and Muzafarabad

There are Burashaski speakers in Srinagar. So what?

Please DO NOT waste my time any more.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Lolzzz thanks for reminding and we got away very lightly in mumbai attacks as well thank you mighty Indians for sparing us

To think that you have the effrontery and the gall to brag about this criminal act. Shame on you.