What's new

Rising above differences!

Sir think about the locals and their lives. Best thing in my opinion is independent state, that too through referendum

Nothing is wrong with the locals if they are left alone.

India should stop fingering those west of Chakoti while Pak does the same to those East of Chakoti.

If Bengal & Punjab can be divided so can J&K.
 
And what bout selective quoting ? you remain silent about the Kashmiri Pundits forceful exodus by ordinary local people in Kashmiri till now and raising about Hyderabad ? Do you know, this latest exodus of Kashmiri pundits is the seventh exodus ? Atleast normal Hindus have not done this in Hyderabad. You are talking about Hyderabad ? What about Baluchistan which was forcefully taken by your army ? If you bring army and go back to 48 I will go back to several centuries back.

First Kashmiri Pundits will be resettled, then secular solution of Kashmir. Till than, there will be no solution. If you blame India, I will blame Pakistan.

And please look at in Internet and see how many Massacre of Hindus happened too.

Cool down brother. Eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.

No one is denying the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits. God Willing, they will be re-settled, govt is already making plans for it.

But you have to agree the situation is Kashmir is not ideal. India and Pakistan spend 1 million usd ON SIACHIN alone which is barren piece of icy desert, if we take the amount spent on army in Kashmir it would many billions in Indian side alone annually. Won't it be better if the problem is solved and the money can be used for better purpose?

That said right now that money has to be spent and army has to be present in Kashmir as present situation stands. No arguments on that
 
Ok, I agree there is a problem, I would be a liar and worse a fool to say that all Kashmiris are happy and all is hunky dory.

But if the majority of Kashmir population was unhappy easiest thing for them to do would be to boycott the elections held recently. No one can arrest you or harm you for not voting. Instead what we saw was higher than Indian avg vote percentage in Kashmir.

You have said in your prior post that situation is Kashmir is critical, in that case forget voting there would have been no elections all together and state of emergency imposed in Kashmir to control a popular uprising. The current situation is opposite, increasingly we have seen voting percentages rising and peaceful elections.

Now you have to see there will always be some people unhappy, in case of Kashmir - the massive army presence and AFSPA makes people even unhappier but army is necessary to fight the insurgents who cross over frequently with express purpose to destabilize the elected govt in Kashmir.

The point regarding Kashmiri leaving India in a large no to settle overseas is also not so serious. If it would have been then there would a refuge crisis some thing like Syria. UK govt would have released a report saying tens of thousands of Kashmiris are applying for asylum due to Indian army brutality. We have seen none of this.

It would be helpful if some data were available so we can compare avg no of Kashmiris leaving with the Indian avg as a whole. The absence of such data itself suggest there is no large scale migration.

I know perhaps you have a differing opinion and I welcome it. I agree that a solution is urgently needed to alleviate the suffering of Kashmiris and I pray that it happens

@ito @third eye @Norwegian your views on this

If number of people leaving and settling overseas was a yardstick all of Punjab would be in turmoil ! I dont thins there is hardly a family whose people have not migrated to Canada / US/ UK.

The situation is not bad, its made to look bad to keep an industry going.

Elections help to let off steam and are indicators of inclusion of people in J&K unlike those across.
 
But if the majority of Kashmir population was unhappy easiest thing for them to do would be to boycott the elections held recently. No one can arrest you or harm you for not voting. Instead what we saw was higher than Indian avg vote percentage in Kashmir.
Sir, first thing. These people are fed up, they want change and how else can they bring change in society, except of course vote. It's good to see people in Kashmir vote, that is one of the only way their voice can be heard by Indian's.
Now you have to see there will always be some people unhappy, in case of Kashmir - the massive army presence and AFSPA makes people even unhappier but army is necessary to fight the insurgents who cross over frequently with express purpose to destabilize the elected govt in Kashmir.
Huge number of army stationed there is affecting the lives of the locals. A very sad situation.
The point regarding Kashmiri leaving India in a large no to settle overseas is also not so serious. If it would have been then there would a refuge crisis some thing like Syria. UK govt would have released a report saying tens of thousands of Kashmiris are applying for asylum due to Indian army brutality. We have seen none of this.
There is not a huge number of these people. In fact most of them are doing quite well in UK. Again it was a point made, have no record of this.
I know perhaps you have a differing opinion and I welcome it. I agree that a solution is urgently needed to alleviate the suffering of Kashmiris and I pray that it happens
Thus the reason why i am emphasizing on letting the people decide.
If Bengal & Punjab can be divided so can J&K.
It's been 68 years, things aren't moving forward.
What about Baluchistan which was forcefully taken by your army ? If you bring army and go back to 48 I will go back to several centuries back.
It's a integral part of Pakistan, forcefully taken. No point in debating with you. Stupidity redefined.
 
Cool down brother. Eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.

No one is denying the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits. God Willing, they will be re-settled, govt is already making plans for it.

But you have to agree the situation is Kashmir is not ideal. India and Pakistan spend 1 million usd ON SIACHIN alone which is barren piece of icy desert, if we take the amount spent on army in Kashmir it would many billions in Indian side alone annually. Won't it be better if the problem is solved and the money can be used for better purpose?

That said right now that money has to be spent and army has to be present in Kashmir as present situation stands. No arguments on that
Of course, eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. So be it. Either both of us will be blind or both of us will have two eyes. I can not leave with two eyes and allow the other to live with both the eyes who has taken my eye. You got my point ?

Yes it is not Ideal. It wont remain Ideal as long as kashmiri Pundits are not resettled.
 
It's been 68 years, things aren't moving forward.

Thats because Pakistan is still stuck with an ' All or nothing' approach.

India, despite having lost Aksai Chin meanwhile is moving on with or without Pakistan.
 
Thats because Pakistan is still stuck with an ' All or nothing' approach.

India, meanwhile is moving on with or without Pakistan.
While destroying the lives of the locals. Again have a good day. Denying the very fact that there is no problem will only create more problems. Your point made.
 
Sir, first thing. These people are fed up, they want change and how else can they bring change in society, except of course vote. It's good to see people in Kashmir vote, that is one of the only way their voice can be heard by Indian's.

Huge number of army stationed there is affecting the lives of the locals. A very sad situation.

There is not a huge number of these people. In fact most of them are doing quite well in UK. Again it was a point made, have no record of this.

Thus the reason why i am emphasizing on letting the people decide.

It's been 68 years, things aren't moving forward.

It's a integral part of Pakistan, forcefully taken. No point in debating with you. Stupidity redefined.
Similarly Hyderabad is an Integral Part of India, forcefully taken. So compare Hyderabad with Baluchistan, not with Kashmir.
 
Similarly Hyderabad is an Integral Part of India, forcefully taken. So compare Hyderabad with Baluchistan, not with Kashmir.
Baluchistan voted for Pakistan, it is a part of Pakistan. There were no killings in Baluchistan. Are you a retard or something.
In Hyderabad Indian Army killed thousands of people and took over Hyderabad. Cannot be compared with Baluchistan, which became a part of Pakistan without any atrocity.
 
While destroying the lives of the locals. Again have a good day. Denying the very fact that there is no problem will only create more problems. Your point made.

Were the lives of those in Punjab & Bengal not devastated when they had to migrate for no fault of theirs ?

Sure, there is a problem & there is a solution.
 
Baluchistan voted for Pakistan, it is a part of Pakistan. There were no killings in Baluchistan. Are you a retard or something.
In Hyderabad Indian Army killed thousands of people and took over Hyderabad. Cannot be compared with Baluchistan, which became a part of Pakistan without any atrocity.
The Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yaar Khan chose independence as this was one of the options given to all of the 535 princely states by Clement Attlee.[35]

Shortly after Pakistan's independence in 1947, the Pakistan Army began operations to subdue Kalat-based insurgents who had rejected the King of Kalat's decision to accede to Pakistan.
These are the List of conflicts in Baluchistan.

First conflict 1948[edit]
Balochistan consisted of four princely states under the British Raj. Three of these, Makran, Las Bela and Kharan willingly joined with Pakistan in 1947 after independence.[34]

The Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yaar Khan chose independence as this was one of the options given to all of the 535 princely states by Clement Attlee.[35]

Shortly after Pakistan's independence in 1947, the Pakistan Army began operations to subdue Kalat-based insurgents who had rejected the King of Kalat's decision to accede to Pakistan.

Second conflict 1958–59[edit]
Nawab Nowroz Khan took up arms in resistance to the One Unit policy, which decreased government representation for tribal leaders. He and his followers started a guerrilla war against Pakistan, and were arrested, charged with treason, and imprisoned in Hyderabad. Five of his family members (sons and nephews) were subsequently hanged under charges of treason and aiding in the murder of Pakistani troops. Nawab Nowroz Khan later died in captivity.[36]

Third conflict 1963–69[edit]
After the second conflict, a Baloch separatist movement gained momentum in the 1960s, following the introduction of a new constitution which limited provincial autonomy and enacted the 'One Unit' concept of political organization in Pakistan. Tension continued to grow amid consistent political disorder and instability at the federal level. The federal government tasked the Pakistan Army with building several new bases in key areas of Balochistan. Sher Muhammad Bijrani Marri led like-minded militants into guerrilla warfare by creating their own insurgent bases, spread out over 45,000 miles (72,000 km) of land, from the Mengal tribal area in the south to the Marri and Bugti tribal areas in the north. Their goal was to force Pakistan to share revenue generated from the Sui gas fields with the tribal leaders. The insurgents bombed railway tracks and ambushed convoys. The Army retaliated by destroying vast areas of the Marri tribe's land. This insurgency ended in 1969, with the Baloch separatists agreeing to a ceasefire. In 1970 Pakistani President Yahya Khan abolished the "One Unit" policy,[37] which led to the recognition of Balochistan as the fourth province of West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan), including all the Balochistani princely states, the High Commissioners Province, and Gwadar, an 800 km2 coastal area purchased from Oman by the Pakistani government.

Fourth conflict 1973–77[edit]
For more details on this topic, see Baloch Insurgency and Rahimuddin's Stabilization.
The unrest continued into the 1970s, culminating in a government-ordered military operation in the region in 1973.

In 1973, citing treason, President Bhutto dismissed the provincial governments of Balochistan and NWFP and imposed martial law in those areas,[38] which led to armed insurgency. Khair Bakhsh Marri formed the Balochistan People’s Liberation Front (BPLF), which led large numbers of Marri and Mengal tribesmen into guerrilla warfare against the central government.[39]According to some authors, the Pakistani military lost 300 to 400 soldiers during the conflict with the Balochi separatists, while between 7,300 and 9,000 Balochi militants and civilians were killed.[14]

Assisted by Iran, Pakistani forces inflicted heavy casualties on the separatists. The insurgency fell into decline after a return to the four-province structure and the abolishment of the Sardari system.

Fifth conflict 2004–to date[edit]
See also: Sistan and Baluchestan insurgency
In 2005, the Baluch political leaders Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and Mir Balach Marri presented a 15-point agenda to the Pakistan government. Their stated demands included greater control of the province's resources and a moratorium on the construction of military bases.[40] On 15 December 2005 the inspector general of the Frontier Corps, Major General Shujaat Zamir Dar, and his deputy Brigadier Salim Nawaz (the current IGFC) were wounded after shots were fired at their helicopter in Balochistan Province. The provincial interior secretary later said that, after visitingKohlu, "both of them were wounded in the leg but both are in stable condition."[41]

In August 2006, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, 79 years old, was killed in fighting with the Pakistan Army, in which at least 60 Pakistani soldiers and 7 officers were also killed. Pakistan's government had charged him with responsibility of a series of deadly bomb blasts and a rocket attack on President Pervez Musharraf.[42]

In April 2009, Baloch National Movement president Ghulam Mohammed Baloch and two other nationalist leaders (Lala Munir and Sher Muhammad) were seized from a small legal office and were allegedly "handcuffed, blindfolded and hustled into a waiting pickup truck which is in still [sic] use of intelligence forces in front of their lawyer and neighboring shopkeepers." The gunmen were allegedly speaking in Persian (a national language of neighbouring Afghanistan and Iran). Five days later, on 8 April, their bullet-riddled bodies were found in a commercial area. The BLA claimed Pakistani forces were behind the killings, though international experts have deemed it odd that the Pakistani forces would be careless enough to allow the bodies to be found so easily and "light Balochistan on fire" (Herald) if they were truly responsible.[43] The discovery of the bodies sparked rioting and weeks of strikes, demonstrations, and civil resistance in cities and towns around Balochistan.[44] (See Turbat killings).

On 12 August 2009, Khan of Kalat Mir Suleiman Dawood declared himself ruler of Balochistan and formally announced a Council for Independent Balochistan. The council's claimed domain includes Sistan and Baluchestan Province, as well as Pakistani Balochistan, but does not include Afghan Baloch regions. The council claimed the allegiance of "all separatist leaders including Nawabzada Bramdagh Bugti." Suleiman Dawood stated that the UK had "a moral responsibility to raise the issue of Balochistan’s illegal occupation at international level."[45]

The Economist writes:

"[The Baloch separatists] are supported—with money, influence or sympathy—by some members of the powerful Bugti tribe and by parts of the Baloch middle class. This makes today’s insurgency stronger than previous ones, but the separatists will nevertheless struggle to prevail over Pakistan’s huge army."[25]

The Economist, April 2012
U.S.-based exiled Baloch journalist and newspaper editor Malik Siraj Akbar writes that the ongoing Baloch resistance has created "serious challenges" for the Pakistan government, "unlike the past resistance movements", because it has lasted longer than previous insurgencies, has greater breadth -- including the entire province "from rural mountainous regions to the city centers", involves Baloch women and children at "regular protest rallies", and has drawn more international attention -- including a 2012 hearing by the U.S. Congress. Islamabad has accused its neighbor India of supporting the insurgency in Balochistan.[21] However infighting between insurgent groups as of late 2014 has weakened the movement.[21]

Dont lie to me. you have occupied a princely state by force. we have occupied a princely state by force. Violence is going on in your Princely state till. No violence in Hyderabad.

Both of us have done the same thing.

Kashmir is different from this.
 
The Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yaar Khan chose independence as this was one of the options given to all of the 535 princely states by Clement Attlee.[35]

Shortly after Pakistan's independence in 1947, the Pakistan Army began operations to subdue Kalat-based insurgents who had rejected the King of Kalat's decision to accede to Pakistan.
These are the List of conflicts in Baluchistan.

First conflict 1948[edit]
Balochistan consisted of four princely states under the British Raj. Three of these, Makran, Las Bela and Kharan willingly joined with Pakistan in 1947 after independence.[34]

The Khan of Kalat, Ahmed Yaar Khan chose independence as this was one of the options given to all of the 535 princely states by Clement Attlee.[35]

Shortly after Pakistan's independence in 1947, the Pakistan Army began operations to subdue Kalat-based insurgents who had rejected the King of Kalat's decision to accede to Pakistan.

Second conflict 1958–59[edit]
Nawab Nowroz Khan took up arms in resistance to the One Unit policy, which decreased government representation for tribal leaders. He and his followers started a guerrilla war against Pakistan, and were arrested, charged with treason, and imprisoned in Hyderabad. Five of his family members (sons and nephews) were subsequently hanged under charges of treason and aiding in the murder of Pakistani troops. Nawab Nowroz Khan later died in captivity.[36]

Third conflict 1963–69[edit]
After the second conflict, a Baloch separatist movement gained momentum in the 1960s, following the introduction of a new constitution which limited provincial autonomy and enacted the 'One Unit' concept of political organization in Pakistan. Tension continued to grow amid consistent political disorder and instability at the federal level. The federal government tasked the Pakistan Army with building several new bases in key areas of Balochistan. Sher Muhammad Bijrani Marri led like-minded militants into guerrilla warfare by creating their own insurgent bases, spread out over 45,000 miles (72,000 km) of land, from the Mengal tribal area in the south to the Marri and Bugti tribal areas in the north. Their goal was to force Pakistan to share revenue generated from the Sui gas fields with the tribal leaders. The insurgents bombed railway tracks and ambushed convoys. The Army retaliated by destroying vast areas of the Marri tribe's land. This insurgency ended in 1969, with the Baloch separatists agreeing to a ceasefire. In 1970 Pakistani President Yahya Khan abolished the "One Unit" policy,[37] which led to the recognition of Balochistan as the fourth province of West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan), including all the Balochistani princely states, the High Commissioners Province, and Gwadar, an 800 km2 coastal area purchased from Oman by the Pakistani government.

Fourth conflict 1973–77[edit]
For more details on this topic, see Baloch Insurgency and Rahimuddin's Stabilization.
The unrest continued into the 1970s, culminating in a government-ordered military operation in the region in 1973.

In 1973, citing treason, President Bhutto dismissed the provincial governments of Balochistan and NWFP and imposed martial law in those areas,[38] which led to armed insurgency. Khair Bakhsh Marri formed the Balochistan People’s Liberation Front (BPLF), which led large numbers of Marri and Mengal tribesmen into guerrilla warfare against the central government.[39]According to some authors, the Pakistani military lost 300 to 400 soldiers during the conflict with the Balochi separatists, while between 7,300 and 9,000 Balochi militants and civilians were killed.[14]

Assisted by Iran, Pakistani forces inflicted heavy casualties on the separatists. The insurgency fell into decline after a return to the four-province structure and the abolishment of the Sardari system.

Fifth conflict 2004–to date[edit]
See also: Sistan and Baluchestan insurgency
In 2005, the Baluch political leaders Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and Mir Balach Marri presented a 15-point agenda to the Pakistan government. Their stated demands included greater control of the province's resources and a moratorium on the construction of military bases.[40] On 15 December 2005 the inspector general of the Frontier Corps, Major General Shujaat Zamir Dar, and his deputy Brigadier Salim Nawaz (the current IGFC) were wounded after shots were fired at their helicopter in Balochistan Province. The provincial interior secretary later said that, after visitingKohlu, "both of them were wounded in the leg but both are in stable condition."[41]

In August 2006, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, 79 years old, was killed in fighting with the Pakistan Army, in which at least 60 Pakistani soldiers and 7 officers were also killed. Pakistan's government had charged him with responsibility of a series of deadly bomb blasts and a rocket attack on President Pervez Musharraf.[42]

In April 2009, Baloch National Movement president Ghulam Mohammed Baloch and two other nationalist leaders (Lala Munir and Sher Muhammad) were seized from a small legal office and were allegedly "handcuffed, blindfolded and hustled into a waiting pickup truck which is in still [sic] use of intelligence forces in front of their lawyer and neighboring shopkeepers." The gunmen were allegedly speaking in Persian (a national language of neighbouring Afghanistan and Iran). Five days later, on 8 April, their bullet-riddled bodies were found in a commercial area. The BLA claimed Pakistani forces were behind the killings, though international experts have deemed it odd that the Pakistani forces would be careless enough to allow the bodies to be found so easily and "light Balochistan on fire" (Herald) if they were truly responsible.[43] The discovery of the bodies sparked rioting and weeks of strikes, demonstrations, and civil resistance in cities and towns around Balochistan.[44] (See Turbat killings).

On 12 August 2009, Khan of Kalat Mir Suleiman Dawood declared himself ruler of Balochistan and formally announced a Council for Independent Balochistan. The council's claimed domain includes Sistan and Baluchestan Province, as well as Pakistani Balochistan, but does not include Afghan Baloch regions. The council claimed the allegiance of "all separatist leaders including Nawabzada Bramdagh Bugti." Suleiman Dawood stated that the UK had "a moral responsibility to raise the issue of Balochistan’s illegal occupation at international level."[45]

The Economist writes:

"[The Baloch separatists] are supported—with money, influence or sympathy—by some members of the powerful Bugti tribe and by parts of the Baloch middle class. This makes today’s insurgency stronger than previous ones, but the separatists will nevertheless struggle to prevail over Pakistan’s huge army."[25]

The Economist, April 2012
U.S.-based exiled Baloch journalist and newspaper editor Malik Siraj Akbar writes that the ongoing Baloch resistance has created "serious challenges" for the Pakistan government, "unlike the past resistance movements", because it has lasted longer than previous insurgencies, has greater breadth -- including the entire province "from rural mountainous regions to the city centers", involves Baloch women and children at "regular protest rallies", and has drawn more international attention -- including a 2012 hearing by the U.S. Congress. Islamabad has accused its neighbor India of supporting the insurgency in Balochistan.[21] However infighting between insurgent groups as of late 2014 has weakened the movement.[21]

Dont lie to me. you have occupied a princely state by force. we have occupied a princely state by force. Violence is going on in your Princely state till. No violence in Hyderabad.

Both of us have done the same thing.

Kashmir is different from this.
You are literally too stupid to insult.
I will let a Baloch reply to your stupidity. @DESERT FIGHTER , your choice replying to this troll.
 
I love peace and I long for it when it comes to peaceful co-existence between Bharat and Pakistan.

But sadly,

Knowing the trends in Bharat, such wish is getting harder and harder to achieve.

Still wishing everyone

Peace

You know this is the basic problem for the reason for such article........ You are indirectly putting entire blame on "India"..... And this kind of attitude, we shall repeat our mistakes of past 70 odd years........

@Topic : I guess time has come that we stop bothering each other and try creating problems, we have enough problems of our own and no need to create more....... We have learnt to solve several issues in our own ways, and i guess both nations can learn from each other on this.....

I seriously hope both nations can be friendly one day......
 
You are literally too stupid to insult.
I will let a Baloch reply to your stupidity. @DESERT FIGHTER , your choice replying to this troll.

You have no idea how much I have abused and insulted this regarded Bharti bahiya ... He's the sort of scum who has no shame .. Gets banned and returns to eat our sh1t!


Just report him... Why waste your time on that TURD.
 
You are literally too stupid to insult.
I will let a Baloch reply to your stupidity. @DESERT FIGHTER , your choice replying to this troll.
Ha ha ha ha ha. No answer and engage another one to this debate. should I engage any Hyderabadi here ? Leave it dude. you are selective. If you do, its ok. If we do " Oh bad, India, Horrible India" etc. I know it. You really are selective.

Regarding Kashmir, the problem will only be solved when Kashmiri Pundits are rehabilitated. Till then no solution.
 
Back
Top Bottom