What's new

Settle Kashmir and Get the Reward!!!

Who cares? Cry all you want. While Pakistan has been bled white in the last ten years, we have had a decade of solid growth. Kashmiris will see sense or we will make them see sense.
 
So you Indians don't want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles.

Well we Kashmiris and Pakistanis DO CARE !

The Kashmiris don't want Indian Occupation.


THE KASHMIRIS CARE!
THE PAKISTANIS CARE!


We PAKISTANIS will never give up to free our Kashmiris brothers from Indian oppression if India does not want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles!

we do want to solve it justly and morally. So we will talk to bangladesh regarding kashmir.. why should it go west pakistan and east pakistan not get a share.
 
We PAKISTANIS will never give up to free our Kashmiris brothers from Indian oppression if India does not want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles!

Don't give up, who cares? Certainly not us. See where 64 years of caring has got you? We can go on for another 64 years & then another 64 without a resolution.You still won't get Kashmir.
 
So you Indians don't want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles.

Well we Kashmiris and Pakistanis DO CARE !

The Kashmiris don't want Indian Occupation.


THE KASHMIRIS CARE!
THE PAKISTANIS CARE!


We PAKISTANIS will never give up to free our Kashmiris brothers from Indian oppression if India does not want to solve the Kashmir dispute according to just and moral principles!


I know you want it but you never gonna get it
Tere haath kabhi na aani
Maane na maane koi duniya yeh saari, tere ishq to gone meri jaani..

th_trollface.png
 
@ PakShah

This is what I had posted

And This is your Illogical Answer to it





Kindly don't say that the arguments are ridiculous - Prove it ! This can be done by using facts, not by using emotionally charged statements that you accept as the truth. Convince us mate ! I have supported every assertion of mine with a fact, can you please do the same or are you not articulate enough to participate in a rational debate.

Your whole paragraph just served to prove point 1 in my answer right "Any minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim". You in your post did exactly what I accuse Pakistan of - you show them empty dreams that you see yourself because your Army shows you those dreams.

Prove even one of my arguments (in the quoted post above) wrong and I will take my whole argument back. Don't give us rhetoric. Don't expect us to accept you as an intelligent member of the forum just because you can come up with such emotional arguments - Only if you can argue your case, will you get that respect.






Sorry, you are flat out wrong.

Point 1:
Muslims in certain provinces of the British Raj were the majority. If we didn't want to be with Hindu majority provinces, and we wanted to form our country, who were the British to stop us?

Point 2:
You are using twisted facts. You say there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan. You are wrong. In fact there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India.

According to the Pew , it says there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India.

The Muslim population of Pakistan is: 174,082,000
The Muslim population of India is : 160,945,000

http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf

I have beaten you with facts.

Now for the sake of argument, lets suppose present-day India has more Muslims than present-day Pakistan, thats still misleading.

What about Bangladesh. The combined Muslim population of Pakistan and Bangladesh is much more than India's Muslim population.

So when Pakistan got independence in 1947, Most Muslims decided not to be with the Hindu majority provinces. So there are more Muslims in South Asia that are not in the Hindu majority areas(today's Bharat). There are more Muslims in the Muslim majority regions (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Maldives), than in India. So stop your blatant lies!



So stop spreading lies. Don't try to look at things from twisted angle!

Point 3: Balochis don't want independence from Pakistan. There is no legitimate Islamic justification for them to do so. Balochistan is not disputed territory like Kashmir.

Pakistanis know Kashmir is disputed territory. Kashmiris know Kashmir is disputed territory.

Down with Indian oppression of Kashmir!

chess-writer your arguments about "economics" have nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute. You are merely trolling and trying to divert the focus of the arguments.


Clearly the Kashmiris don't care about money! The Kashmiris want their FREEDOM. INSH'ALLAH, the Kashmiris in IOK will have their FREEDOM.

Your arguements are ridiculous because much of it is irrelevant and merely to distract people from the focus of the argument.

Again I shall say it again.


Don't give ridiculous arguments.

The Kashmiris don't want India. The Kashmiris want independence.

The 1990's insurgency is evident of that.

Pakistan has the right to claim Kashmir according to just and moral principles.

Your propaganda won't work here.

The Indian film industry and whoever becomes the President of India is irrelevant here.

The point is, the Muslims of Kashmir don't want to be a part of India.

I will give my full and uncompromising support to my Muslim brothers in Kashmir.
 
@PakShah

I will talk about your arguments point by point :

Point 1 : Muslims in certain provinces of the British Raj were the majority. If we didn't want to be with Hindu majority provinces, and we wanted to form our country, who were the British to stop us?

You're right. In certain provinces, Muslims were in majority. But then, you take any country - There will be some provinces in which some minority community will be concentrated and hence be form the majority there. However, it doesn't mean that they get entitled to create a separate country because of it. If we do not restrict ourselves to religion then you'd realise that Baluchs are the majority in Baluchistan, Pashtuns are in majority elsewhere in Pakistan - you'd agree with me that this does not mean that they have a right to get separated. You'll find examples like that everywhere in the world. I will reassert my point that - "ny minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim". You se this happen in your own country (we'll come to the disputed/undisputed argument later)


Point 2: You are using twisted facts. You say there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan. You are wrong. In fact there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India.According to the Pew , it says there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India. The Muslim population of Pakistan is: 174,082,000. The Muslim population of India is : 160,945,000. What about Bangladesh. The combined Muslim population of Pakistan and Bangladesh is much more than India's Muslim population. So when Pakistan got independence in 1947, Most Muslims decided not to be with the Hindu majority provinces. So there are more Muslims in South Asia that are not in the Hindu majority areas(today's Bharat). There are more Muslims in the Muslim majority regions (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Maldives), than in India. So stop your blatant lies!

Ok, I concede, your facts are accurate. But they do not support your argument or oppose mine. The crux is this - The pro-Pakistan leaders during the pre-independence era convinced the muslims that they would be in a state of perpetual disadvantage vis-a-vis hindus if they stayed in India. However, this has proven to be wrong. I concede there have been communal tensions off and on between hindus and muslims in India, but those tensions are nowhere near the scale your leaders talked you into believing. My point when i talk about muslims in Indian politics, cricket team and film industry was meant to reinforce this point. Muslims are better off in India than Pakistan.
If merely being in majority in certain geographical region were used to decide the boundaries than the creation of Bangladesh too was correct. The Bangladeshis would use the exact same arguments that you are using. The only difference would be that instead of Hindus vs Muslims they would categorise it as Urdu muslims vs Bangla muslims. Tomorrow Baluchis may use the same argument, and by your criterion they'd be right !
So my point that just being in a minority doesn't give anyone the right to having another country holds true.


Point 3: Balochis don't want independence from Pakistan. There is no legitimate Islamic justification for them to do so. Balochistan is not disputed territory like Kashmir.
Well, I talked of Minorities in my comments, they could be a religious minority, a linguistic minority or an ethnic minority, It doesn't matter. The question of Islamic justification does not arise. If that were so people would dig up Christian justification, Hindu justification, Buddhist justification and god knows which other justification to support their arguments in favour of a separate state.


Point 4 : Pakistanis know Kashmir is disputed territory. Kashmiris know Kashmir is disputed territory. Down with Indian oppression of Kashmir!
That is the point - you simply know that Kashmir is disputed because you dispute it, And you do so on the basis of religion. Well India is a secular country, all religions co-exist here pretty well. There is no reason that if someone (a Kashmiri) has a separate religion, he'd demand to change his country and be right.
As for the oppression is concerned - It is not that India, Indians or Indian soldiers like to commit human rights violations. It is that the population of Kashmir has been shown this bogey, this dream of a plebiscite and re-unification with an Islamic Pakistan that makes them want to separate. I'd repeat what I said again and explain it - "Any minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim". In that sentence Kashmiris Muslims are the minority and they are being made to think by Pakistan that to separate from India is an acheivable aim. (the way India made the Bangladeshis think the same - But we're not discussing that here).
This leads to heavy military presence by Indian forces in Kashmir, and like any other heavily militarised zone, rights violations do occur ! As I mentioned, the forces do not do it for fun !! Moreover, they simply do not know which person is a militant and who is not so a kind of mass suspicion results. All of this would stop if Pakistan stopped showing them this bogey of independence.

Point 5:Chess-writer your arguments about "economics" have nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute.
Economics has everything to do with Kashmir, friend. Economics has everything to do with everything in the world today. It is the reason why India and China trade more amongst themselves than Pakistan. On the level of an individual citizen , it means that a person will have a better school and a better playground for his kids, a better job for himself, enough money to retire and enough money to have social status. It means that he can fulfill some of the dreams all of us develop as a child. Do not tell me economic arguments are irrelevent.
It will be much better for you if you lived in USA and had more money, that is probably the reason you'd have a relative there. See, Economic reason !

Point 6 : You are merely trolling and trying to divert the focus of the arguments
Just because you cannot come up with a coherent argument does not mean that I am trolling. I have suggested a solution to the Kashmir issue - It should be to either agree to maintain status quo for a prolonged period (say 50 years) or conversion of the Line of Control into the International border. And resolving it this way has rewards for Pakistan(and India too !) - Now kindly read the title of the thread again, it is about rewards !


Lastly my own word
The facts you gave were correct and accurate but do not support your arguments or go against mine. Pakistan should give India Pak occuped Kashmir because the rate of HIV infection in South Africa is 10% - That is how it is !

The case of Kashmir is exactly the same as the case of Bangladesh or the case of Baluchistan or the case of many other places in the world and in India where there are minorities who demand a separate country. Everyone can't have a country simply because they belong to a separate class (especially in a secular country like India in case of Kashmir).

And economics are important, do you not want more money, what makes you think that Kashmiris don't want it ! Having no money is the reason why people come to IOK from Pak occ Kashmir to fight. Had these guys had a job, had they been married and had kids, they wouldn't agree. The average age of Men in Pakistan is 26.3 years - you'd notice no doubt that this is the age when a person is the most economically unstable. This is about the average age when any society faces the maximum amunt of turmoil - As said by Samuel Huntington ! Check it out !

In my entire life, I have never read better argument then this, who are you? What do you do?
 
.......
We PAKISTANIS will never give up to free our Kashmiris brothers from Indian oppression .......

Have you ever for once thought that this is exactly what India wants you to do ? Chasing your own tail in Kashmir & in the process destroying yourself ?

Read up on this article and you will get to know about it. :)
 
@PakShah

I will talk about your arguments point by point :

Point 1 : Muslims in certain provinces of the British Raj were the majority. If we didn't want to be with Hindu majority provinces, and we wanted to form our country, who were the British to stop us?
You're right. In certain provinces, Muslims were in majority. But then, you take any country - There will be some provinces in which some minority community will be concentrated and hence be form the majority there. However, it doesn't mean that they get entitled to create a separate country because of it. If we do not restrict ourselves to religion then you'd realise that Baluchs are the majority in Baluchistan, Pashtuns are in majority elsewhere in Pakistan - you'd agree with me that this does not mean that they have a right to get separated. You'll find examples like that everywhere in the world. I will reassert my point that - "ny minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim". You se this happen in your own country (we'll come to the disputed/undisputed argument later)


Point 2: You are using twisted facts. You say there are more Muslims in India than Pakistan. You are wrong. In fact there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India.According to the Pew , it says there are more Muslims in Pakistan than there are Muslims in India. The Muslim population of Pakistan is: 174,082,000. The Muslim population of India is : 160,945,000. What about Bangladesh. The combined Muslim population of Pakistan and Bangladesh is much more than India's Muslim population. So when Pakistan got independence in 1947, Most Muslims decided not to be with the Hindu majority provinces. So there are more Muslims in South Asia that are not in the Hindu majority areas(today's Bharat). There are more Muslims in the Muslim majority regions (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Maldives), than in India. So stop your blatant lies!

Ok, I concede, your facts are accurate. But they do not support your argument or oppose mine. The crux is this - The pro-Pakistan leaders during the pre-independence era convinced the muslims that they would be in a state of perpetual disadvantage vis-a-vis hindus if they stayed in India. However, this has proven to be wrong. I concede there have been communal tensions off and on between hindus and muslims in India, but those tensions are nowhere near the scale your leaders talked you into believing. My point when i talk about muslims in Indian politics, cricket team and film industry was meant to reinforce this point. Muslims are better off in India than Pakistan.
If merely being in majority in certain geographical region were used to decide the boundaries than the creation of Bangladesh too was correct. The Bangladeshis would use the exact same arguments that you are using. The only difference would be that instead of Hindus vs Muslims they would categorise it as Urdu muslims vs Bangla muslims. Tomorrow Baluchis may use the same argument, and by your criterion they'd be right !
So my point that just being in a minority doesn't give anyone the right to having another country holds true.


Point 3: Balochis don't want independence from Pakistan. There is no legitimate Islamic justification for them to do so. Balochistan is not disputed territory like Kashmir.
Well, I talked of Minorities in my comments, they could be a religious minority, a linguistic minority or an ethnic minority, It doesn't matter. The question of Islamic justification does not arise. If that were so people would dig up Christian justification, Hindu justification, Buddhist justification and god knows which other justification to support their arguments in favour of a separate state.


Point 4 : Pakistanis know Kashmir is disputed territory. Kashmiris know Kashmir is disputed territory. Down with Indian oppression of Kashmir!
That is the point - you simply know that Kashmir is disputed because you dispute it yourself, And you do so on the basis of religion. Well India is a secular country, all religions co-exist here pretty well. There is no reason that if someone (a Kashmiri) has a separate religion, he'd demand to change his country and be right.
As for the oppression is concerned - It is not that India, Indians or Indian soldiers like to commit human rights violations. It is that the population of Kashmir has been shown this bogey, this dream of a plebiscite and re-unification with an Islamic Pakistan that makes them want to separate. I'd repeat what I said again and explain it - "Any minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim". In that sentence Kashmiris Muslims are the minority and they are being made to think by Pakistan that to separate from India is an acheivable aim. (the way India made the Bangladeshis think the same - But we're not discussing that here).
This leads to heavy military presence by Indian forces in Kashmir, and like any other heavily militarised zone, rights violations do occur ! As I mentioned, the forces do not do it for fun !! Moreover, they simply do not know which person is a militant and who is not so a kind of mass suspicion results. All of this would stop if Pakistan stopped showing them this bogey of independence.


Point 5:Chess-writer your arguments about "economics" have nothing to do with the Kashmir dispute.
Economics has everything to do with Kashmir, friend. Economics has everything to do with everything in the world today. It is the reason why India and China trade more amongst themselves than Pakistan. On the level of an individual citizen , it means that a person will have a better school and a better playground for his kids, a better job for himself, enough money to retire and enough money to have social status. It means that he can fulfill some of the dreams all of us develop as a child. Do not tell me economic arguments are irrelevent.
It will be much better for you if you lived in USA and had more money, that is probably the reason you'd have a relative there. See, Economic reason !


Point 6 : You are merely trolling and trying to divert the focus of the arguments
Just because you cannot come up with a coherent argument does not mean that I am trolling. I have suggested a solution to the Kashmir issue - It should be to either agree to maintain status quo for a prolonged period (say 50 years) or conversion of the Line of Control into the International border. And resolving it this way has rewards for Pakistan(and India too !) - Now kindly read the title of the thread again, it is about rewards !


Lastly my own word
The facts you gave were correct and accurate but do not support your arguments or go against mine. Pakistan should give India Pak occuped Kashmir because the rate of HIV infection in South Africa is 10% - That is how it is !

The case of Kashmir is exactly the same as the case of Bangladesh or the case of Baluchistan or the case of many other places in the world and in India where there are minorities who demand a separate country. Everyone can't have a country simply because they belong to a separate class (especially in a secular country like India in case of Kashmir).

And economics are important, do you not want more money, what makes you think that Kashmiris don't want it ! Having no money is the reason why people come to IOK from Pak occ Kashmir to fight. Had these guys had a job, had they been married and had kids, they wouldn't agree. The average age of Men in Pakistan is 26.3 years - you'd notice no doubt that this is the age when a person is the most economically unstable. This is about the average age when any society faces the maximum amunt of turmoil - As said by Samuel Huntington ! Check it out
!

Answering with sincerity and passion doesn't make you right chess-writer.

Point 1: I dispute this: "Any minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim."

What do you mean by this?
Point 1:
The All India Muslim League felt that Muslim majority regions would be at a disadvantage, because the Muslim majority regions would not have autonomy. We Muslims want to rule our lands according to Sharia and by own people. In a secular India, would that have happened? No Hindu in power would have allowed that.

Point 2:
lol, there were many religious benefits by creating Pakistan. By creating Pakistan it gave us Pakistanis the opportunity to rule our lands with Sharia.

Now whether Pakistan is ruled under Sharia today that is a different matter. Pakistan should be. And don't bring what Mr. Jinnah wanted.

Muhammad Asad and Chaudry Rehmat Ali wanted to have a Pakistan to be ruled by Sharia.

Chess-master you are trying to make partition sound as if it was a matter of economics. :lol:

There was also religious angle to it.

Point 3:
I don't know if Muslims in India are better than Muslims in Pakistan. I need do my own research to reach a conclusion.

Point 4:
Don't compare the Balochis to Kashmir. You don't know what you are talking about. Do you even know how things work in Pakistan? Religion is always taken into consideration. Even on the passport your religion is stated.
Most Balochis don't want independence from Pakistan. Most Balochis want to stay with Pakistan. I have yet to see any Balochi in my entire life who wants independence from Pakistan. Balochis are practicing Muslims. They know there is no Islamic justification of Balochi independence from Pakistan. This is where you fail chess-master. Kashmir is a real territorial dispute according to the UN. By the way Balochis do not make up a majority in Balochistan. There is a very large Pukhtoon population in Balochistan. You fail again.

Point 5:
Whether India is a secular country or not, that is irrelevant to the Kashmir dispute. The Kashmiris want freedom from India. This is an undeniable fact. You are just beating around the bush. Pakistani has an education system and a stable yet critical economy.
You are trying to make Pakistan sound like a sub-Saharan country. Don't kid yourself.

There are many Kashmiri leaders such as Syed Ali Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq want to get Kashmir rid of Indian occupation.

Even fair minded Indians such as Arundhati Roy knows the Indian government is wrong.

Point 6:
Before the British came to South Asia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh were a bunch of Kingdoms. So what makes you think present day Pakistan was a part of Bharat in the first place? :azn:

You fail again.

There is no Balochi Muslims vs Urdu Muslims in Pakistan. All the ethnicities in Pakistan are united under the banner of Islam.

The independence of Bangladesh is a different matter pertaining with politics. The Balochis don't have any real grievances with Pakistan, except some issues with resource distribution.

You are comparing ethnic independence with people with want to be independent because they have a different religion. Balochistan will never get independence from Pakistan, because the Balochis know their obligations in Islam. The Balochis have no legitimate reason according to moral and just principles to be independent from Pakistan. This is where you fail again chess master.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Secondly your post 231 is a fail, because if you read the previous thread pages carefully, I was responding to Bang alore, not you.

Therefore my statements you quoted in your post 231, are valid. You just cherry-picked one of my posts and then started to debate with me.
:azn:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are trying to divert the focus the debate of Kashmir to economics, the history of the independence of Pakistan.

All your questions will be satisfactorily answered. However I need time too, to understand your lengthy posts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So you are trying to say there is a minority within the ethnic minority of Balochis of Pakistan who want independence from Pakistan? Those Balochis have no justification according to moral and just principles to secede from Pakistan.

You are comparing the Balochis to the independence of Pakistan?
All Muslims in the majority regions did not want to be with Hindus. Pretty simple.
All Balochis in Balochistan, who don't even make a majority in Balochistan want to be with Pakistan.

There is only a "few to some" 70 to 100 Balochis that want independence from Pakistan.

Its not going to happen.

I think the crux of the matter is this:
Point 1: I dispute this: "Any minority in any country will want independence and a separate state if they think it is an achievable aim."

I disagree with this argument. This argument doesn't hold might weight. It depends on which type of minority and the circumstances involved. You are using a too general statement.


Telugu speakers are a minority in India. Yet they don't feel the need for independence. Why???
LOL, this is where you are defeated.




The Muslims were not a minority in the "British India Empire." Muslims were merely part of the British India Empire.
You are somehow claiming that Pakistan should have been a part of India, in India's independence which quite absurd to be frank.


And what about Myanmar? Myanmar too was part of the British Indian Empire. Myanmar too could have been a part of today's Bharat. So could have Sri Lanka. This is where you fail again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All this is nonsense chess master. you just want to distract us from the main issue.

Point is: Kashmir is a territorial dispute according to the UN. Pakistan has a principled stand on Kashmir and India does not. This is very common knowledge.

All this debate about Pakistan-Indian independence, Balochis, Bangladesh, economics is all nonsense and irrelevant. Pakistan has decent educational system and economy by South Asian standards.

This is all about just and moral principles and India is not following it.

I've already answered all your points.



Kashmiris are Muslims, and make a majority in their country. They want to rule according to their beliefs. Kashmiris were promised a referendum. Kashmiris weren't given one.

Mr. Nehru promised a referendum would be held in Kashmir.


Down with Indian occupation of IOK!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom