New Kashmiri Weapon Against India

[Captain03]

If Pakistan stops supporting terrorism in Kashmir, the troops can eventually go home, and the anti-establishment feeling will change over time.

pakistan does not support terrorism as we are fighting terrorism ourselves
and they indian troops were there forever for no reason what so ever but to control kashmir and not lose it to pakistan
and its not an anti-establishment feeling but a pro-independence feeling

 

[Beskar]

A fair Referendum could certainly move things to some conclusion. I mean seriously, how hard would it be? Why not give the entire region a chance to vote for their freedom?

They can choose to be a part of Pakistan or India. The third option they could vote for is an independent Kashmir. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

But i believe such a thing is not possible simply because in any case, India would loose. Either the Majority of the Muslims would vote for a separate state or they would vote to join Pakistan. They've lived under the Indian rule and obviously they aren't happy.

 

[Captain03]

A fair Referendum could certainly move things to some conclusion. I mean seriously, how hard would it be? Why not give the entire region a chance to vote for their freedom?

They can choose to be a part of Pakistan or India. The third option they could vote for is an independent Kashmir. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

But i believe such a thing is not possible simply because in any case, India would loose. Either the Majority of the Muslims would vote for a separate state or they would vote to join Pakistan. They've lived under the Indian rule and obviously they aren't happy.

thats true and india realized that in around 1947 and deployed troops there
they probably thought the kashmiris would change their mind and join india but thats never gonna happen lol
i am proud of my people for not giving up!!!

 

[sajan]

Divide J & K state into three states. Jammu state, Kashmir state and Ladakh state. Let each states have their own gov. And the people of jammu and ladakh think differently frm kashmiris.

 

[Vinod2070]

I disagree - participating in the elections does not indicate an acceptance of the status quo, it only indicates that while continuing to argue for the right to self determination, the Kashmiris also want to better their lives and the lives of their children.

But if India actually believed that the Kashmiris did not want to separate, she would have no qualms over conducting a plebiscite to resolve the dispute with Pakistan.

I have quoted the example of Quebec before, and it applies here as well - despite peace and development and integration, Quebec came very, very close to independence in a referendum held there. The error made by Indians in analyzing Kashmir is ascribing the separatist sentiment entirely to some sort of 'anti-establishment' sentiment or lack of development, when the dispute is ideological and one of competing nationalism - Pakistani vs Indian vs Kashmiri.

Quebec is not a very good comparison. Canada has a history of how many years! You go there and they consider 50 year old events as historic! We don't think anything less than 1000 years is historic.

The British and French just occupied a large chunk of land in Canada. It is easy come, easy go. Very different from the case here.

I agree with your first statement though. They want a change from the status quo.

For India (and for official Pakistan and obviously for most of the world), I don't think plebiscite is an option anymore. The days of change of border are gone. So the elections are about having the Kashmiris chose their own government the same way it is for all Indians. No one has the right to secede. Kashmiris (of all faiths) can go on to any position in India and have done so in the past. There are thousands of Kashmiri Muslims in the educational institutes and professions in all corners of India.

Frankly, I think this issue of plebiscite is kept alive in the forums by a few people, it is not a real issue anymore.

 

[Rafael]

yea , but unline your ppl we ddint send intruders to captured kashmir. If you ddint try to captured kashmir, it will be free country then.

You started the trouble their. Read History, who send the Army first their.

As for Kashmir, kashmiri never wanted to go with PAK, So you are only dreaming.

is that so??? than what is your govt afraid of?? lets give kashmiris a fair chance....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not possible because the conditions that prevailed during 1947 are not the same now. There is large resettlement of population in Pak-administered Kashmir.

I am aware of some resettlement in the NA's under Zia, but not in AK. Besides, there has been a huge movement of Kashmiris out of Kashmir into other parts of Pakistan as well.

You can find them all over the country.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Quebec is not a very good comparison. Canada has a history of how many years! You go there and they consider 50 year old events as historic! We don't think anything less than 1000 years is historic.

The British and French just occupied a large chunk of land in Canada. It is easy come, easy go. Very different from the case here.

I agree with your first statement though. They want a change from the status quo.

For India (and for official Pakistan and obviously for most of the world), I don't think plebiscite is an option anymore. The days of change of border are gone. So the elections are about having the Kashmiris chose their own government the same way it is for all Indians. No one has the right to secede. Kashmiris (of all faiths) can go on to any position in India and have done so in the past. There are thousands of Kashmiri Muslims in the educational institutes and professions in all corners of India.

Frankly, I think this issue of plebiscite is kept alive in the forums by a few people, it is not a real issue anymore.

I am not sure what a 'definition of history' or 'history' has to do with any thing.

In any case, the history of India is counterbalanced with the history of Pakistan, so that still arguably leaves both nations with strong historical ties to Kashmir, especially Pakistan. The situation in both is similar form the perspective of 'nationalism' and a sense of 'otherness'.

Quebec is an excellent example, and in fact given the historic ties and competing nationalism in the shape of Pakistan and a part of Kashmir with Pakistan, which does not exist in the case of Quebec, the Kashmiri movement has even more fuel.

Your comment of 'pushed by a few people in forums' is way off the mark, and presumptuous. The Kashmiris are not seceding since they never were legally a part of India - they protested to be allowed to determine their future as per the UNSC resolutions and the instrument of partition.

You might be happy in perpetuating the illegal occupation of a people and their land against international resolutions and agreements, to satisfy nationalist egos, I am not.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Divide J & K state into three states. Jammu state, Kashmir state and Ladakh state. Let each states have their own gov. And the people of jammu and ladakh think differently frm kashmiris.

Yes, and hold a referendum in Kashmir and Azad Kashmir to determine their future.

 

[dabong1]

The more pakistan moves towards accommodating the indians in kashmir the more the indians are turning hardline on the kashmir issue.
Pakistan has tried many times to move for a peaceful solution but been kicked down by the indians.
Either pakistan accepts it has lost the war in kashmir or it should fully supports the freedom movement with men,weapond and logistics.

 

[Vinod2070]

I am not sure what a 'definition of history' or 'history' has to do with any thing.

In any case, the history of India is counterbalanced with the history of Pakistan, so that still arguably leaves both nations with strong historical ties to Kashmir, especially Pakistan. The situation in both is similar form the perspective of 'nationalism' and a sense of 'otherness'.

Quebec is an excellent example, and in fact given the historic ties and competing nationalism in the shape of Pakistan and a part of Kashmir with Pakistan, which does not exist in the case of Quebec, the Kashmiri movement has even more fuel.

My point was that the passions of the people in the subcontinent are roused easily over such matters because of the baggage of the long history that we carry and the perceived injustices that we have suffered. That causes all of us to be almost incapable to look at any issue dispassionately on it's own merit without linking it with the long and painful history.

For Pakistan, Kashmir should be part of them not because they were Pakistanis at any time in their history (which is impossible by definition) but because they are Muslims. This sense of two nation theory and the otherness starts from the invasion by Bin Qasim as per even your Mr. Jinnah and many others. So even this is the result of a long history and you perceive that the partition was unjust.

Besides this, Quebec is not appropriate because there is no third country involvement there. It may be more appropriately compared to the people of Balochistan (or some province in India) wanting to secede from the Union at some point in time after joining the Union earlier. I am not sure many people in Pakistan or India would be willing for that.

Your comment of 'pushed by a few people in forums' is way off the mark, and presumptuous. The Kashmiris are not seceding since they never were legally a part of India - they protested to be allowed to determine their future as per the UNSC resolutions and the instrument of partition.

You might be happy in perpetuating the illegal occupation of a people and their land against international resolutions and agreements, to satisfy nationalist egos, I am not.

Let us understand that both of us are just pushing our respective national positions. We feel that it is Pakistan which has cynically used terror and the people of Kashmir for it's ends (which is capturing the territory), that Pakistan doesn't care a fig for the people of Kashmir, doesn't care for their welfare except paying lip service when it suits them. There are enough facts and data points that prove this assertion. You may have your own opinions and "facts".

So, we will do well not to accuse each other personally (of being happy with something wrong) and rather keep to the issue itself. All things being equal, if we swapped positions, we will be pushing the national viewpoints still.

I think we will overcome this period with our Kashmiri brothers and things will be normal again. This requires the stopping of all external interference and the terrorism coming in from outside. It may take time but it will happen.

 

[Vinod2070]

The more pakistan moves towards accommodating the indians in kashmir the more the indians are turning hardline on the kashmir issue.
Pakistan has tried many times to move for a peaceful solution but been kicked down by the indians.
Either pakistan accepts it has lost the war in kashmir or it should fully supports the freedom movement with men,weapond and logistics.

I think Pakistan has tried that for decades with disastrous results for itself.

What do you think will be new now? More of the same, sufferings for the Kashmiris, continuing problems of militancy of the Pakistani society. If India has sustained it for 2 decades, it can sustain it for the next many decades. Besides the world has no stomach for this now and Pakistan would suffer grievously if it is perceived as being on the side of terrorists. It has come close to being declared a terrorist state earlier and the threat is never too far.

Indians are not hardliners. We just can not give in to terror and extreme maximalist positions from anyone. That should be easy enough to understand!

You can't win on table what you couldn't in the war. We all need to have more realistic positions and things will sort out slowly. Let's make it better for the Kashmiris first.

 

[dabong1]

I think Pakistan has tried that for decades with disastrous results for itself..

Sorry ,but you wrong.....the only "disastrous results for pakistan itself" came when pak govt joined the US/NATO in attacking afghanistan.

What do you think will be new now? More of the same, sufferings for the Kashmiris, continuing problems of militancy of the Pakistani society. If India has sustained it for 2 decades, it can sustain it for the next many decades. Besides the world has no stomach for this now and Pakistan would suffer grievously if it is perceived as being on the side of terrorists. It has come close to being declared a terrorist state earlier and the threat is never too far...

The powerful and wealthy are the people who will be affected the most by pakistan "being declared a terrorist state" the common man will be affected the least.
Pakistan "making india bleed for decades to come in kashmir" is a very good policy that will keep half a million men tied down.
The billions spent on the indian war machine is better for pakistan then the indians spending billions on development for its poor.

Indians are not hardliners. We just can not give in to terror and extreme maximalist positions from anyone. That should be easy enough to understand!...

So it should be easy for you to understand that the kashmiris also will "not give in to terror and extreme maximalist positions from anyone".

You can't win on table what you couldn't in the war...

Thats why a say pakistan should back the freedom fighters and take kashmir by war......the indians are not willing to give it over the table are they..?

We all need to have more realistic positions and things will sort out slowly.

If you mean by "more realistic positions" forget the UN....i dont think so!
Its been 60 odd years and kashmir has not got what it want....how much slower do you want things to go.....100 years time span would be fine india but not for the kashmiris.

Let's make it better for the Kashmiris first.

Yes .....sent the indian occupation army back to india.

 

[Vinod2070]

Sorry ,but you wrong.....the only "disastrous results for pakistan itself" came when pak govt joined the US/NATO in attacking afghanistan.

Your refusal to see the reality sitting 5000 miles away doesn't change the facts. The deterioration had set in during the Zia days. Every serious Pakistani commentator acknowledges that. The worst sectarian killings, mosque bomb blasts of rival sects, killing of Shia doctors and professionals, the Sipah-e-Sahabas, the Lashkars, The Jaishs.......

The first move to declare Pakistan a terrorist state by the USA came in 1990s! So you better correct your fact.

The powerful and wealthy are the people who will be affected the most by pakistan "being declared a terrorist state" the common man will be affected the least.

You are dead wrong again. It will be the poor who will get affected the most. You may be happy in imagining that they have nothing to lose, the reality is there is no depth the human misery can't sink to. The powerful and the wealthy will likely scoot to foreign locations like you and leave the poor and the miserable more so.

Pakistan "making india bleed for decades to come in kashmir" is a very good policy that will keep half a million men tied down.
The billions spent on the indian war machine is better for pakistan then the indians spending billions on development for its poor.

The problem with people like you is that you never learn from your failures. That is the reason for the present state of your country. You may have been "talked out" and sitting safely away in Britain now (not sure if you informed the British authorities of your activities before being "talked out") but you want other poor sods continue wasting their lives!

The billions on the war machine (much beyond their means) are being spent by Pakistan, not India. You have almost broken your back with this policy that is bound to fail if not failed already. You need to be "rescued" so often that even China and Saudis are no longer interested.

Your only recourse is to point a gun to your own head (quoting a recent pinion here) and tell people how horrible it will be if you go down!

I have more humanity than you and feel that those billions should go towards Pakistani and Indian poor instead of needlessly killing people whether Pakistanis or Indians.

So it should be easy for you to understand that the kashmiris also will "not give in to terror and extreme maximalist positions from anyone".

Exactly. That is the reason we have not given in to terror and extremism coming from your side.

Thats why a say pakistan should back the freedom fighters and take kashmir by war......the indians are not willing to give it over the table are they..?

You have tried that for 60 years and failed. Is that too difficult to understand! Now even your army knows it can't do it. They realized it decades back after multiple failures (and division of the country in the process) and hence the 1000 cut policy and Operation Topac, Even that failed and many of them have realized it except the rogue elements.

India will not give in to terror.

If you mean by "more realistic positions" forget the UN....i dont think so!
Its been 60 odd years and kashmir has not got what it want....how much slower do you want things to go.....100 years time span would be fine india but not for the kashmiris.

Doesn't matter what you think or don't think. Don't presume to speak for the Kashmiris. They are Indians.

You are not even speaking for Pakistan now, just for your bruised ego.

You can't take Kashmir now or ever. Any which way!

What is being discussed is a way to mitigate the sufferings of people.

Yes .....sent the indian occupation army back to india.

No just "talk out" the others too. Let them take it out on the forums instead of the streets and forests of Kashmir.

 

[jarnee]

I need to know one good reason, other then religion that Kashmiri's should choose Pakistan. ? Joining Pakistan will just invite more trouble for them, already a bankrupt country will not be able to provide infrastructure to them. Where as Democratic govt in Kashmir with already approved huge funds from India will do lot of Good. More over Kashmir was prosperous bec. of Indian and International tourists. Tourism is and always was biggest industry in Kashmir, and Kashmiri people know taht, they have grown up before Militancy , seeing that. Pakistan will not be able to provide similar number of Tourists (1/10th the population of India), 2. Already weak Economy 3. High inflation, 4. High Oil prices. And Forgien tourist will not take a Pakistani visa to Visit Kashmir.

And If Kashmir wants to be independent , then it would want kashmir with Pakistan to also join it to be Free, but in that case it will be Land locked between 2 Hostile countries.
With No Economy other then tourism.
So only viable solution for them is what they are doing, meaning voting and selecting Govt. and maybe seek some sought of Atonomy. as part of negotiation. Mir waiz will also be looking at settling at that eventually, today he may want to become popular. But at the end of the day do not forget he is also a politician and could be aspiring to be the CM of the state in future who knows, Indian politics have huge money mate....
and Money is above all!!