@AM:
What you have responded to is cross fire b/w me and developero. Request your views on #196.
permalink I understand you are busy with exams, so I will wish you the best, and patiently await your response whenever you are done. I have been hard at work after you rejected my earlier terms of engagement for Indo-Pak.
Again why are you guys so hung up on K? Just like superstitious cousins of Kekta Kapoor. I have proposed so many things. Nobody takes those up. I am even calling out for more problems, so solutions may be suggested along the lines I proposed.
Anyways, to answer this.
live, work and reside in Kashmir
Kashmiris are not doing anyone a favour by virtue of just being there. Anyone who has had the means has moved to other places in India/abroad(rich Kashmiri Muslims largely to the west/Kashmiri Hindus under ethnic cleansing pogrom to ghetto camps in Jammu & else where).
Remember how the yankees treated the natives when they were building rail roads criss crossing the American sub continent. India treats Kashmiris with kid gloves (succumbing to present day realities), unlike the Red Indian of yore that met the wrong end of the gun. And I am not saying India is here to civilise the Kashmiri, I am just recounting how attitudes have changed & what used to be the benchmark of brutality. Again today look at how Srilanka treated LTTE & Pakistan has a gag on press in its WoT. India has been a lot more open, a lot more western in thought about its territorial problem and all shidt has hit the fan with Human Rights and wrongs. That brings me to the Indian Army.
The Indian Army not just lives, works, resides but more tragically dies for Kashmir, just as average Kashmiris caught in the battle do. The Army represents the state. The state represents the people of India. So there again the populace of India has a say to what will be final solution.
In the much abused guerrilla warfare, what is moral support to you, is loss of life to me. Ask a family that has lost their son/father/husband to a ravaging lunatic. The fidayeen goes to heaven in his twisted world & does things with virgins (something he could ill afford in a deeply conservative society on this planet), the soldier dies for duty (is he the son of a lesser God? Does his death not count?), leaving behind a family that has to live with his loss forever. That loss is not lost on the family & kid that has grown up, in your and developero's world
with nothing at stake in Kashmir. Bull f-ing shidt. The kid lost everything he could have ever laid claim to. A quarter of the grand parenting for his/her own children. Each death counts for that much!
If you still don't empathise with our sense of loss, look at how you are handling Swat/FATA. Army PR teams working overtime & dead men (again who have died honourable deaths in the line of duty) have been lionized as Shaheeds. And that is right too. Do you still think dying soldiers leave no lasting impression on the home country? Will you endorse the same plebiscite BS for Balochistan and NWFP? If Iran/Afghanistan were to take the bifurcated ethnicity homeland story to the UN.
We gave up our claims to the other sides when we proposed and accepted ceasefire in '48. Nehru going to UN has complicated stuff. 2 more wars have complicated stuff. Nuclear weapons have complicated stuff, but fact is you did not wish to fight anymore, nor did India and this is way back in 48.
Tab se abhi tak kya kashmir kashmir laga rakha hai?
Similarly I have reasoned that all of India and Pakistan are stakeholders. In the event of a nuclear war over Kashmir (and there is probably NOTHING else we can possibly fight nuclear over) everyone, without any reservation, who risks annihilation is party to the settlement. All stakeholders who may end up paying for the final settlement with their life. During the Kargil conflict/2002 deployment when Mush was moving his missiles around, do you think he was aiming them towards Kashmir? Democracy is a self righting system. It places each human on an equal footing, you can't get any fairer than that.
I am even going to say, you hold a plebiscite in the valley and let all of Kashmir vote en masse for Independence/Pakistan. Kashmir will be India.
Whose lives?
Exactly.
the ones who deserve a voice
Oh Kashmiris have a voice alright! They have used it all too often. Google this:
kashmir independence 1,440,000 results
tibet independence 345,000 results
taiwan independence 1,380,000
carried out @ Tuesday, September 08 2009, 07:50 PM IST
With so much information emanating from Kashmir, you dont think powerful blocs like EU and US know the R-E-A-L situation on ground? & yet they are in favour of LoC as permanent borders - India's long stated position.
That makes sense also since Pakistan has enough to take care of already. Try and improve the living standards for your ordinary folks before peering over the fence at the 'plight' of [HYPOCRISY]Occupied[/HYPOCRISY] Kashmiris.
- not those on the periphery
periphery? roast meat in radioactive heat. Why is this idea not catching on?
driven by an irrational nationalism.
So is your drive for this side of Kashmir. Pakistan only extends upto where you have state presence.
negotiating the best means
Why is what I suggest seeming so out of the blue. One (wo)man, one vote. The best model in efficient democracy so far as I could see.
letting the people of J&K decide their destiny through a plebsicite
out the window long time ago
the Simla Agreement.. Charter of the United Nations
Your fetish for Charters! Implement CoD. All will be well.
OK Specifically taking up
Charter of the United Nations
Fact: The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco
Fiction: It promises plebiscite for Kashmir.
Lookey here:
Charter of the United Nations: Introductory Note
Dude, the charter got signed before British India broke up. There is NO KASHMIR in this charter. Is this conclusive enough for you to never play rabble rouser again?
Simla Agreement unambiguously realises LoC as the basis for settlement to Kashmir. Relevant snip:
In Jammu and Kashmir the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line.
The UN charter reference to brotherly love between 2 nations is misleading (if that gets you thinking about plebiscite), probably to give Bhutto something to save face. It amounts to nothing. Bhutto is now dead. Look at what he has signed Pakistan to.
The ONLY debatable part is the Siachen Glacier-Saltoro Ridge area. But Kargil is LoC and Musharraf violated Shimla Agreement by taking a walk across the hills.
BBC has had those solutions for years now:
BBC NEWS
Lets not go with the Brits for a 2nd partition, show me some ingenuity. The ONLY one that works (and it is not in THOSE 7) is where there is no redrawing boundaries, no displacement of people. I think what Mush and MMS were negotiating was within this framework laid down by Vajpayee. LoC is the dividing line in any final solution. If it is made into a soft border that should take care of Kashmiri concerns too. If not, then there are other instances of people being born in war zones and families being divided and learning to live with it, N/S Korea.
