What's new

Pakistan is no friend of Kashmir, either

Kabira

BANNED
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,383
Reaction score
-20
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
In a recent opinion piece penned for the New York Times, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan asked the world to wake up to the conflict in Kashmir because if it does not, there is a risk of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Like previous Pakistani premiers, he sought to present Pakistan as a champion of the Kashmiri cause.

While the world indeed needs to take action on ongoing crackdown and rights abuses in India, it should not overlook the role Pakistan has played in the Kashmiri tragedy.

Over the past decades, it has shown little commitment to Kashmiri self-determination.

When India and Pakistan gained independence from Great Britain in 1947, Kashmir was a princely state which wanted to remain independent, a choice given by the colonial masters to all such entities and agreed upon by both countries.

Pakistan even signed a standstill agreement with the Kashmiri Hindu ruler of that time, Maharaja Hari Singh, which basically meant it agreed to its status as it was. However, a few months later, Pakistan broke that agreement and helped Pashtun tribesmen invade the region, eventually sending its own security forces to Kashmir in a bid to take over the valley.

In response, the Kashmiri ruler asked India for help to defend his kingdom. New Delhi agreed to intervene but only if Kashmir would agree to accede to it, albeit temporarily. The conflict escalated into what has come to be known as the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948, which led to the de facto partitioning of the region by Pakistan and India.

In 1948, the United Nations passed a resolution, according to which Pakistan was supposed to withdraw its forces first (as it acted as an aggressor), while India was to maintain a minimum military presence until an independence referendum was held to let Kashmiris decide their own future. However, neither India nor Pakistan abided by that resolution.

Then in 1965, the Pakistani military launched a secret mission called Operation Gibraltar which involved military officials infiltrating the valley and attempting to engineer a rebellion from within by mixing themselves with the locals.

The calculations by General Ayub Khan, the Pakistani dictator who was in power at that time, were that since India had just been exhausted by the Sino-Indian War of 1962, there was a good opportunity to take New Delhi by surprise. However, Operation Gibraltar failed to rouse the local population, and instead India launched a counter-offensive, forcing Pakistan to retreat.

Paradoxically, every year on September 6, Pakistan marks its "victory" over the Indian army attacking its territory in 1965. The official narrative does not mention Operation Gibraltar which effectively triggered the conflict.

Then in the aftermath of the 1987 election in the valley, which was widely perceived as rigged, massive agitations broke out in Indian-administered Kashmir, which Pakistan supported. In the wake of these protests, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) had taken centre stage and become the leading voice for Kashmir's armed resistance.

A few years later militants based in Pakistan headed towards Kashmir and started to target and kill the leadership of pro-independence groups like the JKLF, leaving behind mostly pro-Pakistani militancy in the region.

Then in 1999, Pakistan once again attempted to infiltrate the valley using its military in what came to be known as the Kargil War.

In the following two decades, Pakistan-based groups have been repeatedly accused of carrying out terrorist activities, not just in Kashmir but also in mainland India. From the 2001 attack on the parliament in New Delhi to the Mumbai attack in 2008, to recent attacks in Pathankot and Pulwama, these aggressive tactics have sealed India's perception of the Kashmiris through the lens of its historic confrontation with Pakistan.

With its past actions and hesitancy to crack down on militant groups in its territory, Pakistan has given India repeatedly the opportunity to present the unrest in Kashmir to the world as nothing more than a Pakistan-backed insurgency. This has effectively undermined the struggle of the local population of Indian-administered Kashmir.

At home, Pakistan has also not been too keen to accommodate Kashmiri people political rights and has targeted pro-independence group like JKLF.

In Pakistani-administered Kashmir, no political parties can contest the general elections if they do not agree to an accession agreement to Pakistan. Because of that, only Pakistan-based political parties end up participating and winning elections in the region.

Also, most of the bureaucracy and civil service is controlled by Islamabad, and a body called the Kashmir Council headed by the Pakistani prime minister oversees all government affairs. Moreover, Pakistan has made efforts to absorb the region into Pakistan by carving out parts of its territory - the Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) region - and by creating a separate entity for it in the 1970s.

The Pakistani authorities took away GB's special status and until today it is mostly governed by Islamabad directly.

If Pakistan is sincere about the Kashmir cause and cares for the wellbeing of its people, then it must first demonstrate its commitment at home. It can do so only by putting an end to rights abuses and letting Kashmiris decide their own fate. Only then will the world take Pakistan's concerns about Kashmir seriously.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Taha Siddiqui

Taha Siddiqui is an award-winning Pakistani journalist living in exile in France.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/pakistan-friend-kashmir-190911133539203.html
 
Nothing wrong in saying that Pakistan doesn't want GB and AJK to go away and become independent. From our POV GB people have no issues, they want to become province eventually. There are some elements in AJK which are pro independence but how many is yet to be seen.

Now we are left with IoK who will likely to vote for independence if India ever gives them this option. Which is unlikely anytime soon.
 
The article shows Pakistan in bad light....projecting it has always been Pakistan's fault with regards to past conflicts and the current situation.
I would say, during partition, the basis was religious majority of the population (not justifying it was good or bad), bit if no other state had option of being neutral (had to choose between India and Pakistan) then why even on being Muslim majority state, J&K king chose to be independent? Why it was allowed?
 
Please select an article which do not help Indian / enemy agenda/propaganda.
Help Pakistan by showing the world ugly Indian face.
 
In a recent opinion piece penned for the New York Times, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan asked the world to wake up to the conflict in Kashmir because if it does not, there is a risk of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Like previous Pakistani premiers, he sought to present Pakistan as a champion of the Kashmiri cause.

While the world indeed needs to take action on ongoing crackdown and rights abuses in India, it should not overlook the role Pakistan has played in the Kashmiri tragedy.

Over the past decades, it has shown little commitment to Kashmiri self-determination.

When India and Pakistan gained independence from Great Britain in 1947, Kashmir was a princely state which wanted to remain independent, a choice given by the colonial masters to all such entities and agreed upon by both countries.

Pakistan even signed a standstill agreement with the Kashmiri Hindu ruler of that time, Maharaja Hari Singh, which basically meant it agreed to its status as it was. However, a few months later, Pakistan broke that agreement and helped Pashtun tribesmen invade the region, eventually sending its own security forces to Kashmir in a bid to take over the valley.

In response, the Kashmiri ruler asked India for help to defend his kingdom. New Delhi agreed to intervene but only if Kashmir would agree to accede to it, albeit temporarily. The conflict escalated into what has come to be known as the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948, which led to the de facto partitioning of the region by Pakistan and India.

In 1948, the United Nations passed a resolution, according to which Pakistan was supposed to withdraw its forces first (as it acted as an aggressor), while India was to maintain a minimum military presence until an independence referendum was held to let Kashmiris decide their own future. However, neither India nor Pakistan abided by that resolution.

Then in 1965, the Pakistani military launched a secret mission called Operation Gibraltar which involved military officials infiltrating the valley and attempting to engineer a rebellion from within by mixing themselves with the locals.

The calculations by General Ayub Khan, the Pakistani dictator who was in power at that time, were that since India had just been exhausted by the Sino-Indian War of 1962, there was a good opportunity to take New Delhi by surprise. However, Operation Gibraltar failed to rouse the local population, and instead India launched a counter-offensive, forcing Pakistan to retreat.

Paradoxically, every year on September 6, Pakistan marks its "victory" over the Indian army attacking its territory in 1965. The official narrative does not mention Operation Gibraltar which effectively triggered the conflict.

Then in the aftermath of the 1987 election in the valley, which was widely perceived as rigged, massive agitations broke out in Indian-administered Kashmir, which Pakistan supported. In the wake of these protests, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) had taken centre stage and become the leading voice for Kashmir's armed resistance.

A few years later militants based in Pakistan headed towards Kashmir and started to target and kill the leadership of pro-independence groups like the JKLF, leaving behind mostly pro-Pakistani militancy in the region.

Then in 1999, Pakistan once again attempted to infiltrate the valley using its military in what came to be known as the Kargil War.

In the following two decades, Pakistan-based groups have been repeatedly accused of carrying out terrorist activities, not just in Kashmir but also in mainland India. From the 2001 attack on the parliament in New Delhi to the Mumbai attack in 2008, to recent attacks in Pathankot and Pulwama, these aggressive tactics have sealed India's perception of the Kashmiris through the lens of its historic confrontation with Pakistan.

With its past actions and hesitancy to crack down on militant groups in its territory, Pakistan has given India repeatedly the opportunity to present the unrest in Kashmir to the world as nothing more than a Pakistan-backed insurgency. This has effectively undermined the struggle of the local population of Indian-administered Kashmir.

At home, Pakistan has also not been too keen to accommodate Kashmiri people political rights and has targeted pro-independence group like JKLF.

In Pakistani-administered Kashmir, no political parties can contest the general elections if they do not agree to an accession agreement to Pakistan. Because of that, only Pakistan-based political parties end up participating and winning elections in the region.

Also, most of the bureaucracy and civil service is controlled by Islamabad, and a body called the Kashmir Council headed by the Pakistani prime minister oversees all government affairs. Moreover, Pakistan has made efforts to absorb the region into Pakistan by carving out parts of its territory - the Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) region - and by creating a separate entity for it in the 1970s.

The Pakistani authorities took away GB's special status and until today it is mostly governed by Islamabad directly.

If Pakistan is sincere about the Kashmir cause and cares for the wellbeing of its people, then it must first demonstrate its commitment at home. It can do so only by putting an end to rights abuses and letting Kashmiris decide their own fate. Only then will the world take Pakistan's concerns about Kashmir seriously.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Taha Siddiqui

Taha Siddiqui is an award-winning Pakistani journalist living in exile in France.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/pakistan-friend-kashmir-190911133539203.html
These bastards live on foreign funded money. Don't know whqt Pakistani state was doing when India was recruiting them..
They do bought a huge chunk from our left giving them an edge of narrative.
And as always the alleged number 1 intelligence agency kept on sleeping.
 
India cages millions of people in their homes
Kills thousands
Rapes thousands
Tortures thousands
Uses pellet guns to make Kashmiris blind
Shuts down internet

And Taha Siddiqui writes an article critical of Pakistan who is the only one actually supporting Kashmiris and not India

I hope my country gets enough balls some day to treat this rat like he should be treated

And shame on you too @Kabira for posting this shit piece of this gandu traitor on this forum
 
These bastards live on foreign funded money. Don't know whqt Pakistani state was doing when India was recruiting them..
They do bought a huge chunk from our left giving them an edge of narrative.
And as always the alleged number 1 intelligence agency kept on sleeping.

Such people have existed, and not in small numbers, since Pakistan came into being. We must appreciate that a large number of Muslims, who became citizens of Pakistan, were vehemently against the idea of Pakistan. That legacy continues.
 
The article shows Pakistan in bad light....projecting it has always been Pakistan's fault with regards to past conflicts and the current situation.
I would say, during partition, the basis was religious majority of the population (not justifying it was good or bad), bit if no other state had option of being neutral (had to choose between India and Pakistan) then why even on being Muslim majority state, J&K king chose to be independent? Why it was allowed?

Back then secular muslim leader of IoK wanted to become PM in return of accession to India.
 
Will you guys please delete this trash from this forum? I don't want this taha harami to be given any more space

@waz @Arsalan @Dubious

The article shows Pakistan in bad light....projecting it has always been Pakistan's fault with regards to past conflicts and the current situation.
I would say, during partition, the basis was religious majority of the population (not justifying it was good or bad), bit if no other state had option of being neutral (had to choose between India and Pakistan) then why even on being Muslim majority state, J&K king chose to be independent? Why it was allowed?

The article is written by a run away traitor

So obviously it would show pakistan in bad light and would try its best to absolve India of its crimes in kashmir issue

Such kind of trash shouldn't even be posted on this forum
 
daf525ec25e74266b06b59e6371c2de5_6.jpg
What a turd
 
A few years later militants based in Pakistan headed towards Kashmir and started to target and kill the leadership of pro-independence groups like the JKLF, leaving behind mostly pro-Pakistani militancy in the region.
Again more propaganda. First read that sht in Pakistan a hard country. Yasin Malik wouldn't be neutral towards Pakistan had we been involved in target killing JKLF leadership. They also came here to get arms, only difference was that they weren't supported as much as pro-Pakistan groups were.

The whole piece is dustbin worthy. Written from the Indian perspective he conveniently ignores the ground realities which forced Pakistan to undertake said ventures. No mention of indigenous uprisings in Poonch and GB, instead blames solely Pakistan for the tribal invasion. Mentions the violation of standstill agreement, forgets Indian annexations of Hydrabad and Junagarh followed by forced annexation of Goa. Ignores UN resolutions and broken promises of Nehru.

At the time when IOK is under lockdown for over a month and gross violations of human rights acknowledged by UNHRC he comes up with this trash in order to dilute Indian atrocities and tarnish Pakistan's image by playing the "it's on both sides" tune.
 
The article shows Pakistan in bad light....projecting it has always been Pakistan's fault with regards to past conflicts and the current situation.
I would say, during partition, the basis was religious majority of the population (not justifying it was good or bad), bit if no other state had option of being neutral (had to choose between India and Pakistan) then why even on being Muslim majority state, J&K king chose to be independent? Why it was allowed?
The thumb rule of religious majority and geographical contiguity applied for the parts that were governed by the British, not the princely states. Their rulers were to opt between India and Pakistan and were advised by Mountbatten to keep the geographical and religious factors in mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom