Possible Solution of Kashmir issue...Your Opinion

[Maarkhoor]

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.

A one view and its called make the situation favorable.

 

[third eye]

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 !

Which area held by the Chinese do you consider insignificant ?

 

[punit]

@fakhre mirpur @haviZsultan @engineer saad @Imran Khan @Indus Falcon @GreenFalcon @Oscar @MastanKhan

LOC AS International Border with porous boundary between both kashmirs.

 

[TruthPrevails]

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.

With all due respect sir, geo politics is never played keeping people in mind, both Pakistan and India will never want this issue solved, if one agrees the other person will deny, and for the same reason of backlash back in home, we saw the thing happening in UFA agreement with Pakistan, we will see the same reaction if tomorrow modi declares LOC as IB. Both the countries is thinking of buying time, making country economically, militarily and diplomatically powerful, whoever will make the GAP larger will be in better position to win kashmir.

 

[Icarus]

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.

I would beg to differ, even if the Kashmir instant is resolved this very instant, it will take atleast three generation before this enmity is resolved. Until then, Pakistan's position to retain nuclear weapons will remain valid.

 

[Maravan]

An UN referendum is the way forward, Pakistan or India cannot give a legitimate solution. Let the Kashmiris decide what they want, whether they want to become independent or join india or join pakistan. People sitting 100s miles away from Kashmir cannot understand their problem, let the kashmiris say what they want.

 

[ito]

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 !



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."""

Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII. Kashmir is passed under Chapter VI of UN charter.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[WAJsal]

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

Key word: as far as you know*

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.

I agree, this issue has caused many problems, best part is the solution is right in front of our eyes, should have been resolved long ago.

An UN referendum is the way forward, Pakistan or India cannot give a legitimate solution. Let the Kashmiris decide what they want, whether they want to become independent or join india or join pakistan.

Totally agreed, India should stand by this point and push for talks. Dragging the issue isn't going to help.

 

[vsdoc]

I would have been able to get myself a Royal Enfield Classic without having to pay five times its price in duties.

HA! A biker !!!!!

On Kashmire .....

 

[TruthPrevails]

Key word: as far as you know*

I agree, this issue has caused many problems, best part is the solution is right in front of our eyes, should have been resolved long ago.


Totally agreed, India should stand by this point and push for talks. Dragging the issue isn't going to help.

Dragging this issue does help India in buying time, making Pakistan look evil, and forcing Pakistan into arms race. Till date its a win win situation for India, but the moment Pakistan will overtake India, the real race will begin.

 

[ito]

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.

It is possible to have India - Pakistan relations has envisaged by you. We have lot in common, and the commonality and not Kashmir should be used to make the borders between India and Pakistan irreverent. I can go work in Lahore and you can buy Royal Enfield Classic without having to pay five times its price.

 

[third eye]

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.

Well thanks for reminding me of my Royal Enfield - wonderful machine & wonderful memories.

In my opinion ( though some hot headed Indians would not agree) the J&K issue is not an intrinsic part of the Indian national psyche - at least not south of the Aravalis ( excluding Shiv Sena parts of Maharastra) and East of the Indo Gangetic plains.

It is still doable from the Indian side , it would take a lot of manoeuvring but just may be doable.

As regards Ayub not exploiting opportunities - he could not even if he wanted to, Pak was firmly into CENTO , remember spy flights were emanating from Peshawar. There is no way Ayub could have antagonised Uncle Sam in a manner that would suit the communists. Add the fact that the Missile crisis in Cube was just a year old. Stopping communists was high on the agenda. Ayub's popularity & Pak economy was dependent on US help.

 

[Sugarcane]

I would beg to differ, even if the Kashmir instant is resolved this very instant, it will take atleast three generation before this enmity is resolved. Until then, Pakistan's position to retain nuclear weapons will remain valid.

Janab, It's not the opinion of others who already think that Pakistan have no threat from India.

 

[ito]

Key word: as far as you know*

I agree, this issue has caused many problems, best part is the solution is right in front of our eyes, should have been resolved long ago.


Totally agreed, India should stand by this point and push for talks. Dragging the issue isn't going to help.

I know for sure that plebiscite is never going to happen.

 

[Spectre]

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.

Public opinion can quickly change there are precedents for it. However leadership in both countries have to make sincere effort at rapprochement. Absence of any meddling in form of proxies is absolutely essential. Due importance must be given to concerns of the other parties even if they are not reasonable. Case in point Hurriyat Meeting Tamasha. Indian stance may be petty but it is important to Indians. Key to successful democracy is empathy with the other party.

This can only happen when Pakistan is stable and peaceful and rid of it's internal issues. Contrary to conventional wisdom I don't believe that a state of flux in Pakistan is beneficial to India. It may have been in 90s but today it represents an existential danger to India.

A weak country often tries to divert the attention of it's populace to external enemies. Both India and Pakistan are nowhere stable and mature internally.

Your examples about Pakistan of yore just re-enforces my belief in stable Pakistan. Pakistan of 50s and early 60s was good for India. I can only hope that Pakistan has learnt from '65 and '99 and would not indulge in such adventurism when it is once again stable and secure internally instead use this as a platform to engage with India on realistic terms diplomatically.