Pushing Kashmir toward Pakistan

[dabong1]

Indian govt is making a terrible mistake in kashmir. this economic blockade has turned even neutral kashmiris against india. we have to lift this blocakde, and in my opinion, issue an apology to the people of kashmir.

I just hope they never put you in charge of india.

 

[jaison]

that was a good one dabong1coming to the topic i still insist that all or most indians dont have the same ideology of hindu fanatics who do these things to gain political popularity........'true indians' are always for the welfare of everyone on earth

 

[dabong1]

that was a good one dabong1coming to the topic i still insist that all or most indians dont have the same ideology of hindu fanatics who do these things to gain political popularity........'true indians' are always for the welfare of everyone on earth

I am being serious about su-47........i have this image in head that one day india will apologise to the kashmiris and compansate them for the loss's,promise to hold a free election in the space of 10 years,during that time india kills the kashmiris with love.
When they do hold the elections who do you think the kashmiris would vote for?

I want kashmir to be part of pakistan and the way the past 20 years have gone i can see only one thing that the "indian kashmiris" want is to join pakistan....if people like su-47 get into power kashmir will join india.

I have a few hindu friends and i know that all hindus are not fanatics...please give me some credit am not total buffoon.

I got told when was a kid that " there only types of people on this earth..good and bad......they come in all colours ,races and religions...you try to stay with the good".

 

[Goodperson]

I am being serious about su-47........i have this image in head that one day india will apologise to the kashmiris and compansate them for the loss's,promise to hold a free election in the space of 10 years,during that time india kills the kashmiris with love.
When they do hold the elections who do you think the kashmiris would vote for?

I want kashmir to be part of pakistan and the way the past 20 years have gone i can see only one thing that the "indian kashmiris" want is to join pakistan....if people like su-47 get into power kashmir will join india.

I have a few hindu friends and i know that all hindus are not fanatics...please give me some credit am not total buffoon.

I got told when was a kid that " there only types of people on this earth..good and bad......they come in all colours ,races and religions...you try to stay with the good".

Nearly all of the Indians are for lifting blockade as it harms Indian only economically and politically only local leaders in jammu manged to stage blockade. Dissidents did take advantage it.

Some Dissidents want Kashmir to be liberated and want to take help of Pakistan to achieve the same. Local Elections are continued to be held in Kashmir however plebiscite is out of the question as no country holds it for its own state. Why doesn't Pakistan carry out the same in its AK ? or Baluchistan ?

 

[jaison]

'promise to hold a free election'
don be kidding pak didnt hold elections from 1999 to 2007.......so its better to hold something instead of dictatorship........and once again i repeat that most indians dont think the way you believe we are.......i suuport welfare of kashmir and end to communal disharmony..........and the only way to do that is through democracy ,doesnt matter if its through pakistan or india........and the world knows who performs well in democracy

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Some Dissidents want Kashmir to be liberated and want to take help of Pakistan to achieve the same. Local Elections are continued to be held in Kashmir however plebiscite is out of the question as no country holds it for its own state. Why doesn't Pakistan carry out the same in its P.O.K ? or Baluchistan ?

The international position on Kashmir is that it is disputed territory, so it is not tantamount to holding a 'plebiscite in your own state'. The UN resolutions call for holding a plebiscite in all of J&K, which is why Pakistan has not integrated either the NA's or Azad kashmir.

The Indian government herself took the dispute to the UN for arbitration, and the UN ruled that the territory was disputed and final settlement would depend upon a plebiscite. Furthermore, the instrument of accession is also conditional to a plebiscite being held in Kashmir, so even in that sense the legality of India's claim to Kashmir is suspect.

The reference to Balochistan is completely out of context, and a continued red herring dredged out by some Indians when there is no other argument left to deny the internationally recognized disputed status of Kashmir.

Balochistan is not being claimed by another state, therefore it is not disputed territory, and therefore it does not compare to Kashmir.

The majority of the people of Baluchistan did indeed vote to join Pakistan through their representatives (Jirga), with only some Sardar's wishing to form an independent State - so on this count as well there is no comparison.

 

[jaison]

you are a good personi wish they understood that we are legally stronger reminds me of my history teacher ms.parveen aslam who taught me these through my history books..... she was intelligent,insperational ( amazingly for a dry subject),neutral and attractive as welli really miss her..........i wish every indian muslim were like her.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I suppose you can call what India did with Mukti Bahini as terrorism. But the difference was that India was not encouraging its own people to go to such camps and fight for the greater good. Neither was it based on the 'religious jehad' concept that Pakistan used. It was a clear concept-to make East Pakistan free. It did not entail all the consequences of a global jehad. Whilst Pakistan chose that path, all the muslims the world over came to those camps to train for their jehad, and the governemnt only encouraged it in the name of Islam-that is the problem. Had Pakistan made it Kashmir specific and not made it a Jehad against Hindu's in Kashmir, things would not be this bad. Pakistan could have merely gone for the self determination/sovereignty route, but it chose religious extremism as a catalyst for its purpose. It encouraged its own people to join in. General Zia chose to radicalize its own population with Sharia laws and whatnot.

When the CIA and ISI were supporting the Mujahideen, and later the ISI supporting the Taliban, the institutional policy was not one of creating a 'global Jihad', it was of channeling religious sentiment into a worthwhile cause of freeing a Muslim country from a Soviet occupier, and in the case of Kashmir, freeing it from Indian 'occupation'. A lot of the criticism of Pakistan's polices from those years comes from a retrospective analysis of the situation - an analysis that is influenced heavily by events that have taken place since then, in which Islamic extremism has played a large role. Such analysis implies that Pakistan pushed these policies knowing full well what the results would be in the long run, when that is patently untrue. It is a simple case of no one, not the Pakistanis, not the Americans nor the Saudis (who have had the creation whose rise they funded and provided the ideology for, come back to challenge their rule and system) knowing what the long terms consequences would be.

No one would be criticizing the policy of using religion had Islamic extremism not blown out of control - no one really questioned it with any conviction while it was being implemented, including the CIA. For religiously conservative societies, it made perfect sense to use Islam as a driving cause. Understand that for many Muslims Islam is perceived to provide a code that, if followed, ensures justice, equality and peace, and policies incorporating Islam used that loyalty to religious faith as the basis - not the idea that suicide bombings or out of control violent militant groups challenging the writ of even Muslim states would be the eventual outcome.

See, the point is that India had been howling that Pakistan was sponsoring terrorism against India for a decade but no one gave a damn. No one cared, at that time, the arguments were raised that one man's terrorist was another man's freedom fighter. And 'how do we define terrorism'. Then the 9/11 happened, and other terrorist strikes the world over. Then suddenly almost every terrorist strike had a Pakistan connection somehow. Had Pakistan limited itself to Kashmir and kept things on a low(local) level, things would not have been bad for Pakistan itself, but it chose to make itself the global camp or transit route. It chose to make terrorism an extension of the state instrument.

Until India started becoming a valuable partner for the West, there was no reason to address its complaints on Kashmir because India had done the same in East Pakistan, and the West had done the same elsewhere. The same policies that the US had pursued itself were now being used against India, and since India was in the Soviet camp, why become a hypocrite for her, and criticize Pakistan?

Its all about national interest and real politic - when the West's interest came under threat, they reacted. Around that time India was emerging as an economic powerhouse, the West had growing interests there, and those threatening India had links to those threatening the West, so now being a hypocrite was fine.

So Agno, no other country would have done the same, almost all other countries would have chosen a different way, a different path.

The US cut its losses or victory and left long ago mate. Pakistan continued on that path. Its not US who's having the problems Pakistan is having now is it?
The only problem US has is of spending money to sustain its wars. Pakistan however has problems of much greater magnitude.

That assertion is belied by the fact that the USA and USSR have done exactly that, interfere and support through proxy and covert acts (often with violent and bloody consequences), elements that were deemed as advancing their interests. India intervened in East Pakistan for the same reason, all the talk about 'freeing the East Pakistanis' aside, the time lines of events in the Indian camp make clear what the intent was - as I have argued in the Pakistan should apologize to Bangladesh thread.

So, my claim is not even hypothetical - history shows us that what Pakistan did to protect its national interest has been done by other nations throughout history, and some of those actions have also backfired horribly. Pakistan alone cannot be blamed for undertaking such actions in its own national interest.

Your call. However we are discussing terrorism and that encompasses the entire spectrum, including how its harming your society. Should you not wish to continue in this aspect, i will not post on this particular issue.

My apologies first of all for being uncivil - 'ranting' was too strong a word to use for a legitimate argument (even if I think it is unrelated).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Jaison and Goodperson,

The post has been deleted since it was a rehash of arguments that have been argued (and IMO debunked, you may disagree) in this thread: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...es/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html

So please read the thread, and raise questions afterwards. This thread has been pointed out countless times for those wishing to discuss the UN resolutions.

 

[jaison]

Jaison and Goodperson,

The post has been deleted since it was a rehash of arguments that have been argued (and IMO debunked) in this thread: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...es/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html

So please read the thread, and raise questions afterwards. This thread has been pointed out countless times for those wishing to discuss the UN resolutions.

rules rule here....i understand

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

GP,

Furthermore, the assertion was that

1. Kashmir cannot be compared to Baluchistan - no response on the arguments raised.

2. The instrument of accession (if valid) being conditional to a plebiscite.

Kashmir’s accession to India was contested by Pakistan. This accession was to
be provisional, contingent upon popular approval. However, no plebiscite was conducted.

http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/globalization/kashmir.pdf

3. The UN essentially agreeing with the view that legally the accession could not be valid unless a plebiscite was conducted and passing resolutions to that effect which India agreed to.

The issues you raised, of whether it was Pakistan or India that violated the conditions for the plebiscite, are important, but not central to the argument I am raising to point out why your post about 'no plebiscite in a state' and comparisons to Baluchistan are flawed, and why Kashmir is 'disputed territory'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Balochistan posts moved to Balochistan thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/12882-balochistan.html

 

[Neo]

The international position on Kashmir is that is is disputed territory, so it is not tantamount to holding a 'plebiscite in your own state'. The UN resolutions call for holding a plebiscite in all of J&K, which is why Pakistan has not integrated either the NA's or Azad kashmir.

The Indian government herself took the dispute to the UN for arbitration, and the UN ruled that the territory was disputed and final settlement would depend upon a plebiscite. Furthermore, the instrument of accession is also conditional to a plebiscite being held in Kashmir, so even in that sense the legality of India's claim to Kashmir is suspect.

The reference to Balochistan is completely out of context, and a continued red herring dredged out by some Indians when their is not other argument left to deny the internationally recognized disputed status of kashmir.

Balochistan is not being claimed by another state, therefore it is not disputed territory, and therefore it does not compare to Kashmir.

The majority of the people of Baluchistan did indeed vote to join Pakistan through their representatives, with only some Sardar's wishing to form an independent State - so on this count as well there is no comparison.

Excellent post AM!

 

[su-47]

I am being serious about su-47

Thanx i appreciate that. I am not being sarcastic.

........i have this image in head that one day india will apologise to the kashmiris and compansate them for the loss's,promise to hold a free election in the space of 10 years,during that time india kills the kashmiris with love.
When they do hold the elections who do you think the kashmiris would vote for?

I want kashmir to be part of pakistan and the way the past 20 years have gone i can see only one thing that the "indian kashmiris" want is to join pakistan....if people like su-47 get into power kashmir will join india.

Kashmir is legally in indian hands (thanks to Hari Singh), and i will always maintain that kashmir is an integral part of india. But thats not enough. As an indian, it pains me to see my countrymen in kashmir suffer. i want them to love india just like the rest of us, and be proud to be indian. for that the indian govt has to win their hearts and minds. and this economic blockade f***ed up everything. the sooner we lift it, the less kasmiris would hate us. in fact, i think the govt should compensate them.

india did pretty well to sort out the khalistan issue back in the 80s. punjab is now one of the richest states in india and sikhs are amongst the most patriotic in our country. i hope we can do the same with kashmir.

 

[Flintlock]

Its too complicated - with the lines between Radical Islam and Moderate Islam being blurred, and the rise of the Hindu Right, which seems great for Hindus but bad for Hindustan....then there's the whole Global Islamic Insurgency.....and the Hindu reaction to it.....