Possible Solution of Kashmir issue...Your Opinion

[NHUDA]

Hello ... My First Post ..... (However Reading THis Forum for Decades, time to start adding my Two Cents)

As i see it today, no country is in mood of surrendering there section to others, but Status Quo cannot remain for Ever ... the Issue NEEDs to be solved and there is NO Military issue ... None whatsover .

In my opinion we can proceed as follows;

Have UN conduct referendum in ALL parts of Kashmir (from Gilgit Baltistan to Valley to Ladakh & Jammu) {Nope No one is going to agree on de-militarization}.... thn instead of COMPLETE vote count to swing the whole region one way or another, do a region wise count (like they do in USA for states).

The Referendum should be Joining Pakistan, Joining India, Independent

I have been to North Pakistan (GB & AJK) multiple times .. thr is significant Chances they will choose Joining Pakistan..
Jammu is for Sure going to choose joining India & Ladakh, (Leh Kargil) may follow....
Kashmir Valley will for sure seek independence & they can very well sustain .. Tourism, Agriculture, Transit Fees , it is not that hard.

In short If i have to I m in favor of Option - 6 (i am also up for Option - 5 ) but i highly doubt i- AJK want to secede Pakistan, ii- AJK & Kashmir Valley both will find very hard to form a power sharing system .. but if it has to be this option ... it is also a fine one !

the reason why i want a refrendum is to give both countries a way out .. a way to "SELL" the idea to its general public.

 

[Bang Galore]

Its upto u what you think but grounf realities will remain hurting India.

Don't worry about India. We will manage.

 

[Viny]

Kashmir is unfinished agenda of partition, Kashmir case is different from other mulims of India they did't accept Indian occupation since 1947 but other muslims in India accepts now they are regretting their decision. Kashmiri on the other hand struggle against India from the first day.

Thats probably your view point.
We have more than 1 billion who dont agree to same, leaving aside the rest of the world count.

 

[Icarus]

Nehru was a politician. Politicians promise many things and they mean very little of those promises. I would go by the legal forcebility of the UN resolutions and they are non binding on India

That isn't a very convincing argument to say that Nehru was lying through his teeth the whole time. Yes, the resolutions remain non-binding but only so long as India is not close to its permanent UNSC seat. If such an opportunity should open, these resolutions, in theory, would become a stumbling block.

 

[WAJsal]

I think Pakistan's policy on the matter is very reasonable, we don't ask for India to give up on Kashmir and hand it over to us on a silver platter. We are prepared to play our chips and ask India to do the same by agreeing to the plebiscite as promised by Nehru and then whatever the Kashmiri people decide, its their choice. Whether they opt for independence, union with India or union with Pakistan, both sides should accept it as the legitimate will of the people.

Couldn't have put it any better. It was India that agreed to a Plebiscite, over the years due to the fear it could not continue.
Kashmiris should decide what their future should be.

Nehru was a politician. Politicians promise many things and they mean very little of those promises. I would go by the legal forcebility of the UN resolutions and they are non binding on India.

India to this date stands by those proposals. Well officially it does, why it can't continue-figure it out.

Convert LOC to IB and rest in peace.
Or else demand for P-O-K will rise and Pakistan might lose even what is in its control as of now.

demand and comments will be made and India will continue ditching the talks. If India is so confident it should be the one pushing for talks, not running away from them.

Clear solution is letting the people decide. @Abu Namr .

 

[TruthPrevails]

It would be a huge comedown for India but converting the LC into an IB is the only option.

No matter what India will neither give kashmir nor will convert LOC into IB. Because it will be a huge blow to the central government`s popularity no matter who stay in the power, also burning issue of Kashmir helps India buy time to not only become a economic powerhouse and then forcing Pakistan to give up, but also everytime Pakistan claims kashmir on religion basis India gets a brownie point in UN and in front of the world

 

[danger007]

No wonder how you get -25 keep it up buddy trolling is good for you.


No Sir Muslim majority areas should be handed to Pakistan.

ok then do like this... convert LoC and LaC into IB... take the all Muslims in kashmir who wants to go pak....

 

[third eye]

The problem lies in the fact that the separation of Punjab and Bengal was never made a politicized issue like Kashmir. Saying it sounds reasonable enough but if we try to turn the LOC into the IB, the Kashmiris as well as Pakistani and Indian conservatives will be up in revolt.

From the Indian side It would be huge come down but then what other options do we have ?

Like Mush I could give a number of options on GB & P OK . But I choose not to opine on a piece of land that never was with me since independence.

Families often pay the price of the follies and / or missed opportunities of their elders.

In my opinion India & Pakistan too must accept conversion of LOC into an IB as the price for not having captured Srinagar and denied Indians an opportunity to land troops to save the valley ( Pak side) and going to the UN from the Indian side.

I could carry on fighting in court with my relatives of the property they took away as my Grand father did not leave behind a will or wrote a contentious one.

Prudence dictates I should accept it as fait accompli . Instead of lamenting on what I do not have I should move on with my life and work to generate options for my next generation rather than lamenting of what I do not have.

 

[Sugarcane]

Kashmir dispute is the reason Pakistan keep modernizing Armed Forces and holds nukes. So, until Pakistan don't become strong/independent enough to withstand the pressure of give up strategic weapons (which will be the demand once dispute is resolved) the status quo is best thing for Pakistan.

 

[NHUDA]

Plebiscite is a non starter.

China is now the 3rd party . There are other reasons too.

CHINA is a third Party for the Land Control .. the Population in the Region controlled by them is not Significant ...

if India / Pakistan Agree to Plebiscite, they can do so !

Not at all. Just last week, the Indian home minister said the same. I also believe given the legal status both P0K and GB should be with India.



UN resolutions on Kashmir are non binding on India, hence India didn't violated anything as claimed by Pakistan.

I disagree ... the UN Resolutions are binding on ALL Parties until unless the said resolution is bring to the close....

Following is UN Standpoint on UNMOGIP .. U can Find it one there website

Please google search "UN mission for kashmir" (i m unable to post links)

"""In July 1972, India and Pakistan signed an agreement defining a Line of Control in Kashmir which, with minor deviations, followed the same course as the ceasefire line established by the Karachi Agreement in 1949. India took the position that the mandate of UNMOGIP had lapsed, since it related specifically to the ceasefire line under the Karachi Agreement. Pakistan, however, did not accept this position.

Given the disagreement between the two parties over UNMOGIP's mandate and functions, the Secretary-General's position has been that UNMOGIP could be terminated only by a decision of the Security Council. In the absence of such an agreement, UNMOGIP has been maintained with the same arrangements as established following December 1971 ceasefire. The tasks of UNMOGIP have been to observe, to the extent possible, developments pertaining to the strict observance of the ceasefire of 17 December 1971 and to report thereon to the Secretary-General.

The military authorities of Pakistan have continued to lodge complaints with UNMOGIP about ceasefire violations. The military authorities of India have lodged no complaints since January 1972 and have restricted the activities of the UN observers on the Indian side of the Line of Control. They have, however, continued to provide accommodation, transport and other facilities to UNMOGIP."""

 

[Maarkhoor]

ok then do like this... convert LoC and LaC into IB... take the all Muslims in kashmir who wants to go pak....

Yes sure but with the land also after changing the borders first.

 

[ito]

That isn't a very convincing argument to say that Nehru was lying through his teeth the whole time. Yes, the resolutions remain non-binding but only so long as India is not close to its permanent UNSC seat. If such an opportunity should open, these resolutions, in theory, would become a stumbling block.

But that is how politicians are. They promise lot of things which they don't real mean or say just to suit situations. IMO, I don't understand if India has not violated any UN resolutions why should it be deprived of its status. But in spite, if these resolutions become a stumbling block, so be it. India can do without UNSC seat.

 

[third eye]

Kashmir dispute is the reason Pakistan keep modernizing Armed Forces and holds nukes. So, until Pakistan don't become strong/independent enough to withstand the pressure of give up strategic weapons (which will be the demand once dispute is resolved) the status quo is best thing for Pakistan.

Going by this , Pak should not stop ranting on J&K ( not Kashmir) because it wants to hold on to its Nukes !

The underlined part is the key. This is the thinking of a military mind which is at the root of the problem.

 

[Icarus]

From the Indian side It would be huge come down but then what other options do we have ?

Like Mush I could give a number of options on GB & P OK . But I choose not to opine on a piece of land that never was with me since independence.

Families often pay the price of the follies and / or missed opportunities of their elders.

In my opinion India & Pakistan too must accept conversion of LOC into an IB as the price for not having captured Srinagar and denied Indians an opportunity to land troops to save the valley ( Pak side) and going to the UN from the Indian side.

I could carry on fighting in court with my relatives of the property they took away as my Grand father did not leave behind a will or wrote a contentious one.

Prudence dictates I should accept it as fait accompli . Instead of lamenting on what I do not have I should move on with my life and work to generate options for my next generation rather than lamenting of what I do not have.

Ideally that should have been the cases ages ago, however, the matter was compounded by governments on both sides until it became such an intrinsic part of national identity that now people from both sides would be ready to lose their own homes but would not accept any sort of compromise on Kashmir which was looking like a possibility when Musharraf was in power.
The Kashmir crisis is responsible for creating an impenetrable wall of hate between India and Pakistan when as late as 1959 Pakistan was ready to offer India a no-War pact, then in 1962 when India was fighting China, Ayub did not exploit the opportunity to make moves on Kashmir but rather proposed collective defence of the subcontinent to India. Although the Indians did not accept the offer, they were able to divert half of their troops in Kashmir (a third of the total fighting strength) to reinforce their positions in the North.
If it had been agreed at that time, this issue would have been much more easy to deal with, we would have had much friendlier relations and I would have been able to get myself a Royal Enfield Classic without having to pay five times its price in duties.

 

[ito]

India to this date stands by those proposals. Well officially it does, why it can't continue-figure it out.
@Abu Namr .

As far as I know, India doesn't stand by UN resolutions. India says Kashmir is integral part of India.