Reality of Kashmir today June 2016 (Truth is Bitter)

[livingdead]

Been there.
Beautiful place but felt more like a police state rather than a part of india. India still has very poor infrastructure in the north states like UP, Rajasthan, Bihar, etc southern india seems to be doing a lot better.

it has more security presence than other states... but the fact that tourists can still visit(foreigners too) shows its not as bad as people portray here. how many can visit border areas in pak hit by insurgency of their own.

 

[Tiger Genie]

Bullsh!t. Coming after 24 hours. More bullsh!t. Try something new paper tiger.

not at all ....you have been totally predictable; there's a bunch of your types and tehy never fail to do exactly what you do when all is lost.

 

[Areesh]

not at all ....you have been totally predictable; there's a bunch of your types and tehy never fail to do exactly what you do when all is lost.

Seriously speaking you have contributed nothing to this thread. After so many posts try to make yourself useful and post something meaningful. Thank You.

 

[Tiger Genie]

Seriously speaking you have contributed nothing to this thread. After so many posts try to make yourself useful and post something meaningful. Thank You.

even if all it accomplish was just an attempt to show you what a semblance of reality looks like, it is useful. to that extent, you are welcome. Beyond that, whether you actually see it or not is purely a factor of what stuff you are made of and what you want to make of yourself.

 

[OrionHunter]

Why not do similar to Northern Ireland? Allow the Kashmiris to choose which nationality to take; de-militarize both Kashmirs, release movement restrictions for the Kashmiris so they can move about freely in either Kashmir?

See, the point is that as per the UN Resolutions, all Pak forces including those Pakistanis used for the purpose of fighting in Kashmir (when forces led by Brigadier Akbar Khan invaded Kashmir) were to withdraw from the whole of Kashmir before a plebiscite could be held. That was in 1947. It's now 2016 and we're still waiting for the withdrawal!

The fact is that the Pak Army will never withdraw from areas occupied by it during its invasion of Kashmir.

So your contention that all of Kashmir should be demilitarized, doesn't hold water. And needless to say, impracticable.

 

[WAJsal]

The fact is that the Pak Army will never withdraw from areas occupied by it during its invasion of Kashmir.

Why post half the story...Indian personals are also to withdraw...
"(c) When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned in (a) above, arrange for consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the remaining forces to he carried out in accordance with the following principles:

(i) That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the State.

(ii) That as small a number as possible should he retained in forward areas.

(iii) That any reserve of troops which may he included in the total strength should he located within their present base area." [1]
[1]http://kashmirvalley.info/un-resolutions/

@Joe Shearer , talked to a retired Brigadier served in PA NLI regiment, he is from Hunza. Did go to Bunji last time we went to GB, met one of my uncles there, quite a good base that and quite beautiful too...Couldn't link him to the family tree and quite surprisingly too, we are in a good number in Hunza... Anyway provided a good analysis on the subject:
PA will not withdraw it's troops as it fears Indian side to not go forward with the part it is supposed to play, without any agreement or a third force PA cannot take any such step. Considered to be a foolish step of the highest degree.
And the Indian Army will not withdraw or play it's part as it fear local mutiny and the backlash from local forces present in GB or AJK(for example NLI).
One of the golden points touched: As per the resolution:
"(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani Nationals not normally resident therein, who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State."
Meaning local forces will not be withdrawn, meaning NLI. Roughly it is said to be 85% local force(people from GB and AJK) and others making up from Chitral and surrounding areas not a lot of Punjabi or other Pakistani personnel's. So technically Pakistan will only have to withdraw a limited number of force.
Secondly, folks need to understand that Pakistan cannot just take the first step and expect India to follow-up. There is a need to have mutual agreement between the two states regarding the plebiscite. So i don't really understand this comment...

That was in 1947. It's now 2016 and we're still waiting for the withdrawal!

Maybe folks tend to forget that there is a thing called mutual agreement.
PS: Sartaj Aziz has already stated that Pakistan wants the UN resolution to be implemented. This has always been our stance. It is India that doesn't want to reach a mutual agreement, as Indian intellectuals are scared of any plebiscite. And so is the general population.
Actually any Indian who has studied the region knows any plebiscite is like handing over Kashmir to Pakistan. One of our Indian friends provided a good solution to this problem for India..., though not surprised.

A similar solution...

The fact is that the Pak Army will never withdraw from areas occupied by it during its invasion of Kashmir.

Withdraw what a 5-10% of it's force, technically NLI will not have to be withdrawn as it is a local force. PA is not losing the argument mate, too much delusion.

A usual argument from our Indian friends, but they tend to ignore basic needs and start making false claims. Stating that Pakistan needs to be the one who needs to withdraw troops and that India is waiting for that is actually the most innocent argument one can think of. Anyway you can use this post for future references...
@Arsalan ,@HRK ,@Manticore ,@Irfan Baloch ,@Gufi ,@Jonah Arthur ....

 

[Arsalan]

Why post half the story...Indian personals are also to withdraw...
"(c) When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned in (a) above, arrange for consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the remaining forces to he carried out in accordance with the following principles:

(i) That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the State.

(ii) That as small a number as possible should he retained in forward areas.

(iii) That any reserve of troops which may he included in the total strength should he located within their present base area." [1]
[1]http://kashmirvalley.info/un-resolutions/

@Joe Shearer , talked to a retired Brigadier served in PA NLI regiment, he is from Hunza. Did go to Bunji last time we went to GB, met one of my uncles there, quite a good base that and quite beautiful too...Couldn't link him to the family tree and quite surprisingly too, we are in a good number in Hunza... Anyway provided a good analysis on the subject:
PA will not withdraw it's troops as it fears Indian side to not go forward with the part it is supposed to play, without any agreement or a third force PA cannot take any such step. Considered to be a foolish step of the highest degree.
And the Indian Army will not withdraw or play it's part as it fear local mutiny and the backlash from local forces present in GB or AJK(for example NLI).
One of the golden points touched: As per the resolution:
"(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani Nationals not normally resident therein, who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State."
Meaning local forces will not be withdrawn, meaning NLI. Roughly it is said to be 85% local force(people from GB and AJK) and others making up from Chitral and surrounding areas not a lot of Punjabi or other Pakistani personnel's. So technically Pakistan will only have to withdraw a limited number of force.
Secondly, folks need to understand that Pakistan cannot just take the first step and expect India to follow-up. There is a need to have mutual agreement between the two states regarding the plebiscite. So i don't really understand this comment...

Maybe folks tend to forget that there is a thing called mutual agreement.
PS: Sartaj Aziz has already stated that Pakistan wants the UN resolution to be implemented. This has always been our stance. It is India that doesn't want to reach a mutual agreement, as Indian intellectuals are scared of any plebiscite. And so is the general population.
Actually any Indian who has studied the region knows any plebiscite is like handing over Kashmir to Pakistan. One of our Indian friends provided a good solution to this problem for India..., though not surprised.
View attachment 315289

A similar solution...
View attachment 315292


Withdraw what a 5-10% of it's force, technically NLI will not have to be withdrawn as it is a local force. PA is not losing the argument mate, too much delusion.

A usual argument from our Indian friends, but they tend to ignore basic needs and start making false claims. Stating that Pakistan needs to be the one who needs to withdraw troops and that India is waiting for that is actually the most innocent argument one can think of. Anyway you can use this post for future references...
@Arsalan ,@HRK ,@Manticore ,@Irfan Baloch ,@Gufi ,@Jonah Arthur ....

Well drafted and to the point post. Thanks for sharing it here.
I hope to see a sane reply and feel that this can turn into a good discussion. The next reply to this post will be the deciding factor.

 

[HRK]

See, the point is that as per the UN Resolutions, all Pak forces including those Pakistanis used for the purpose of fighting in Kashmir.

same old mantras debunked numbers of times but idiots will repeat it as they don't have any ground to hide their hypocrisy ... but for others

https://defence.pk/threads/beautifu...s-logical-comment.336426/page-12#post-6244371
plz have a look at Karachi agreement

 

[omegalamba7XL9]

I wish some pakistanis get visa and actually travel to kashmir...
nobody is denying sunni majority dont want to be with India.. that bit is known to most Indians.. what is different is, its quite safe now... I was there in 2009 when terrorism was down and tourists were back although not in big numbers... and nobody can ever accuse me of being brave

You are funny dude. I come to your house with guns and take over the house. You don't want me in the house but I turn around and tell you hey its safe here now.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why post half the story...Indian personals are also to withdraw...
"(c) When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned in (a) above, arrange for consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the remaining forces to he carried out in accordance with the following principles:

(i) That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the State.

(ii) That as small a number as possible should he retained in forward areas.

(iii) That any reserve of troops which may he included in the total strength should he located within their present base area." [1]
[1]http://kashmirvalley.info/un-resolutions/

Quite right, me bhoyo, but incomplete.

You forgot to point out, or perhaps didn't know, that in the proceedings of the commission (it actually met), India clearly agrees to all points, without a single deviation!

@Joe Shearer , talked to a retired Brigadier served in PA NLI regiment, he is from Hunza. Did go to Bunji last time we went to GB, met one of my uncles there, quite a good base that and quite beautiful too...Couldn't link him to the family tree and quite surprisingly too, we are in a good number in Hunza... Anyway provided a good analysis on the subject:

PA will not withdraw it's troops as it fears Indian side to not go forward with the part it is supposed to play, without any agreement or a third force PA cannot take any such step. Considered to be a foolish step of the highest degree.

This was mentioned by the Pakistani side to the Commission. They were reminded that the place to seek amendments was in the UN itself, and not by persuading, browbeating or intimidating the Commission members, who were helpless to change a single word of the mandate given to them.

And the Indian Army will not withdraw or play it's part as it fear local mutiny and the backlash from local forces present in GB or AJK(for example NLI).

Incorrect.

This was a Pakistani surmise.

There was NEVER a single instance of the Indian side disagreeing.

This was one of the murkiest parts of the transactions, and puts the entire


One of the golden points touched: As per the resolution:
"(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani Nationals not normally resident therein, who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State."

Meaning local forces will not be withdrawn, meaning NLI. Roughly it is said to be 85% local force(people from GB and AJK) and others making up from Chitral and surrounding areas not a lot of Punjabi or other Pakistani personnel's. So technically Pakistan will only have to withdraw a limited number of force.

Here you have shifted ground, from conditions in 1947-48 to conditions today.

First, let me remind you of what conditions were then, specifically, about Gilgit, by inference, about Baltistan.

1. Only the Gilgit Scouts were normally resident therein. There was no Northern Light Infantry.
2. The Chitral State Forces, and their artillery component, were also players. Without their enthusiastic participation, Skardu would not have been captured, nor would Kargil (.(it was garrisoned by a brave Gurkha officer of the J&K State Forces and a handful of men, and they were ultimately starved out).
3. Creating a force - the NLI - some 24 years after independence, during the period 1971 to 1998, can hardly be slipped into the account. Only the Gilgit Scouts and the Chitral State Forces are legitimate presences.
4. I agree that there were NO Punjabi or other Pakistani personnel; that was not a question in the context of Gilgit or Baltistan; it was a question only when it comes to the so-called Azad Kashmir, the Mirpur strip.

Secondly, folks need to understand that Pakistan cannot just take the first step and expect India to follow-up. There is a need to have mutual agreement between the two states regarding the plebiscite. So i don't really understand this comment...

All this would not have happened if Pakistan had in the first place gone by the wording of the UN Resolution that you have yourself quoted. India was furious that the UN had not condemned Pakistan as an aggressor and thrown out the aggression, but, as always, honoured the international proceedings. Pakistan did not.

Maybe folks tend to forget that there is a thing called mutual agreement.

Sure.

But to start by disagreeing with a third-party formulation, stating one's own position, and then expecting the other party to abandon its own position, abandon the third party's position and accept the dissenting party's position is a trifle extreme, wouldn't you say?

PS: Sartaj Aziz has already stated that Pakistan wants the UN resolution to be implemented. This has always been our stance. It is India that doesn't want to reach a mutual agreement, as Indian intellectuals are scared of any plebiscite. And so is the general population.

This is so horribly untrue, in the light of facts and events as they actually happened, that there is no point even responding.

Sartaj Aziz comes across as a hypocritical master of bureaucratic double-speak, whom I have personally come to loathe as I loathe only a very few other Pakistanis - the infamous 195, Bhutto the father, Bhutto the daughter, Hamid Gul.

Actually any Indian who has studied the region knows any plebiscite is like handing over Kashmir to Pakistan. One of our Indian friends provided a good solution to this problem for India..., though not surprised.
View attachment 315289

A similar solution...
View attachment 315292


Withdraw what a 5-10% of it's force, technically NLI will not have to be withdrawn as it is a local force. PA is not losing the argument mate, too much delusion.

A usual argument from our Indian friends, but they tend to ignore basic needs and start making false claims. Stating that Pakistan needs to be the one who needs to withdraw troops and that India is waiting for that is actually the most innocent argument one can think of. Anyway you can use this post for future references...
@Arsalan ,@HRK ,@Manticore ,@Irfan Baloch ,@Gufi ,@Jonah Arthur ....[/QUOTE]

So, dear Sir, can you.

I suggest that you look up the actual proceedings of the Commission. They will make your flesh creep, whether you read it as a loyal Pakistani or as a neutral analyst.

No Pakistani is prepared to listen to any narration that shows that Pakistan has never accepted any international rule or principle that violated two core principles:

1. Pakistan and India were peers and equals;
2. All Pakistani demands were ipso facto legitimate and non-negotiable.

A gentle reminder: the Rann of Kutch and Pakistani claims therein. Another reminder: the history of repeated Pakistani complaints about the Indus River Treaty.

same old mantras debunked numbers of times but idiots will repeat it as they don't have any ground to hide their hypocrisy ... but for others

https://defence.pk/threads/beautifu...s-logical-comment.336426/page-12#post-6244371
plz have a look at Karachi agreement

Give us a break, @HRK .

I do not make statements without prior careful research. All that you have painstakingly dug out is vitiated by facts on the ground, not facts of our creation or due to our actions, but exclusively facts created or due to the actions of Pakistan. Come back and talk to me once you have gone into the details that you should have gone into.

And a request: try to avoid the word 'hypocrisy'. It is redolent with irony.

Well drafted and to the point post. Thanks for sharing it here.
I hope to see a sane reply and feel that this can turn into a good discussion. The next reply to this post will be the deciding factor.

I don't think so.

I do not expect ever to convince a Pakistani audience, no matter how much information I put into such an effort. This is an emotional issue.

 

[HRK]

Give us a break, @HRK .

I do not make statements without prior careful research. All that you have painstakingly dug out is vitiated by facts on the ground, not facts of our creation or due to our actions, but exclusively facts created or due to the actions of Pakistan. Come back and talk to me once you have gone into the details that you should have gone into.

And a request: try to avoid the word 'hypocrisy'. It is redolent with irony.

You are entitled to your opinion .... but can you deny these facts .... ??

& plz before to make any claim that you don't post without proper research ... plz go & research what military assets & resources were available to Pakistan in 1947 & 1948 ... only after that make any comment about the 'actions' of Pakistan .... in Kashmir ....

& PLEASE NOTE I AM NOT INTERESTED IN INDIAN VERSION OF HISTORY ....

 

[cerberus]

same old mantras debunked numbers of times but idiots will repeat it as they don't have any ground to hide their hypocrisy ... but for others

https://defence.pk/threads/beautifu...s-logical-comment.336426/page-12#post-6244371
plz have a look at Karachi agreement

The Karachi Agreement was a cease-fire agreement signed by Military Representatives Its has No relevance Against UNSC Decision

If Your Following Karchi Agreement You should Also Follow Simla Agreement


Before Reading what India's Guidelines According To UN Resolution 47 First you Should Dictate What Pakistan Guidelines according to Same Resolution Mentioned Above in Charter

Source
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmogip/documents.shtml

 

[Joe Shearer]

You are entitled to your opinion .... but can you deny these facts ..(1). ??

& plz before to make any claim that you don't post without proper research ... plz go & research what military assets & resources were available to Pakistan in 1947 & 1948 ... only after that make any comment about the 'actions' of Pakistan .... in Kashmir ....(2)

& PLEASE NOTE I AM NOT INTERESTED IN INDIAN VERSION OF HISTORY ..(3)..

(1) A counter-question: Have you read my note?
(2) I did. And that research is reflected precisely and exactly.
(3) What is your definition of an "Indian version of history"?

 

[somebozo]

Kasmir is not issue of sunni muslim or shia muslim or Pakistanand india. Instead it is issue of people of kashmir and they want freedom from Indian illegal occupation. Thier struggle for independence from india is replica of indian struggle of independence from Britishers. If indian movement of freedom is justified on ethical and humanitarian grounds , freedom movement of people of kashmir is equally good on similar lines.

Gandhi Ji and Nehru Papa did not approve freedom struggle..they advocated non-violence..it was Subhash Chandra Bose who wanted to fight bullets with bullets...real man.....

 

[WAJsal]

You forgot to point out, or perhaps didn't know, that in the proceedings of the commission (it actually met), India clearly agrees to all points, without a single deviation!

Initial mistake on our side was:
". Pakistan ignored the UN mandate, did not withdraw its troops and claimed the withdrawal of Indian forces was a prerequisite as per this resolution.[5]"
Actually i wouldn't call it a mistake, Our concerns were more than genuine don't you think so? but stated in my last post:

PA will not withdraw it's troops as it fears Indian side to not go forward with the part it is supposed to play, without any agreement or a third force PA cannot take any such step. Considered to be a foolish step of the highest degree.

This was mentioned by the Pakistani side to the Commission. They were reminded that the place to seek amendments was in the UN itself, and not by persuading, browbeating or intimidating the Commission members, who were helpless to change a single word of the mandate given to them.

The two parties should have resolved the issue. I would still say that it's good to have not taken the risk.

Incorrect.

This was a Pakistani surmise.

There was NEVER a single instance of the Indian side disagreeing.

This was one of the murkiest parts of the transactions, and puts the entire

Dear, opinion of the mentioned Brigadier in my last post. Only mentioning the ground realities and opinion of the two sides, obviously you will not publicly mention these grievances as it makes your case weak.

Here you have shifted ground, from conditions in 1947-48 to conditions today.

And knowingly too, only stating the present ground realities...

First, let me remind you of what conditions were then, specifically, about Gilgit, by inference, about Baltistan.

1. Only the Gilgit Scouts were normally resident therein. There was no Northern Light Infantry.
2. The Chitral State Forces, and their artillery component, were also players. Without their enthusiastic participation, Skardu would not have been captured, nor would Kargil (.(it was garrisoned by a brave Gurkha officer of the J&K State Forces and a handful of men, and they were ultimately starved out).
3. Creating a force - the NLI - some 24 years after independence, during the period 1971 to 1998, can hardly be slipped into the account. Only the Gilgit Scouts and the Chitral State Forces are legitimate presences.
4. I agree that there were NO Punjabi or other Pakistani personnel; that was not a question in the context of Gilgit or Baltistan; it was a question only when it comes to the so-called Azad Kashmir, the Mirpur strip.

Even then it doesn't change the fact that NLI is a local force, NLI was formed later and GB scouts was made part of it. GB scouts are still present BTW, as a para-military force. Only Pakistani personals are to be withdrawn, technically NLI force and the locals will still remain.

All this would not have happened if Pakistan had in the first place gone by the wording of the UN Resolution that you have yourself quoted. India was furious that the UN had not condemned Pakistan as an aggressor and thrown out the aggression, but, as always, honoured the international proceedings. Pakistan did not.

And the blame game continues...

This is so horribly untrue, in the light of facts and events as they actually happened, that there is no point even responding.

Sartaj Aziz comes across as a hypocritical master of bureaucratic double-speak, whom I have personally come to loathe as I loathe only a very few other Pakistanis - the infamous 195, Bhutto the father, Bhutto the daughter, Hamid Gul.

Actually some of the Indian intellectuals such as yourself do not have a problem with the locals deciding their fate. Majority of the Pakistanis do not have a problem with Kashmiris deciding. On the contrary a good number of Indians want the LOC to be declared International border and want nothing to do with a plebiscite, quite ironically India claims GB and AJK, which is again contrary to their opinion. And then there is a good number of Indians who want this, i think we have forgotten the British rule on subcontinent quite fast. We don't have a problem with being the occupiers in our case.

No Pakistani is prepared to listen to any narration that shows that Pakistan has never accepted any international rule or principle that violated two core principles:

1. Pakistan and India were peers and equals;
2. All Pakistani demands were ipso facto legitimate and non-negotiable.

I actually challenge you to put yourself in our position, would you go forward with the demands in those times? We would be stupid to have basically handed over Kashmir to India.