Six countries support India in rejecting OHCHR report on Kashmir

[Cobra Arbok]

This is completely your own opinion.



Why do Indians have a habit of asking the same questions again and again, expecting a different answer? The answer will be the same every time. Turkey and China. Sometimes Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, KSA, UAE, Palestine step up also. For the latter countries, it depends on which way the wind is blowing.

Did those countries sponsor resolutions against India or something?

 

[Yaseen1]

reality is that indian army casualities increasing everyday in kashmir and one day it will be out of their control like Syrian areas

 

[Cobra Arbok]

After the Simla treaty you gave back almost all the land taken AFAIK, I'd like a source that proves otherwise.



Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.



Not at all, the status quo would be Hindustan having complete control over all of the Kashmir region, and Pakistan retaining authority over the Bengalis. That's not the case, Hindustan has lost control of 40% of the Kashmir region, the other 60% is riddled with insurgency, Bangladesh got independence, and Pakistan gained control over parts of Hindustan such as Chamb and small amounts of Kutch.

We currently occupy more Hindustani territory than vice versa.



Not by that much, as explained before, we are 5th in the world when it comes to how much terrorism we suffer from, where as you are 8th.



Don't know don't care.

Kashmir was an independent country on August 15 47. By the time the Maharaj acceded to India, Pakistan already captured AJK and GB. It was about to capture Srinagar until the Indian Army intervened and decisively defeated Pakistan. As for the Shimla Treaty, India gained more land than Pakistan, and today controls strategically important districts in Baltistan such as Turtuk. As for Kutch, India got back all the territory lost in Kutch in the Treaty of Tashkent. Your confusing 1971 with 1965. Today, India controls half of Sir Creek, whereas Pakistan claims its entirety. And don't forget how we control almost all of Siachen, which allows us to overlook all Pakistani and Chinese positions. More importantly, it gives us control of the Indus, your nation's lifeline.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

reality is that indian army casualities increasing everyday in kashmir and one day it will be out of their control like Syrian areas

Good thing India is not like Syria then.

 

[manga]

So india beat pakistan 6-0

Can anybody explain why nobody is voting for paksitan. Not even their so called "braadars".

 

[The Accountant]

UN is a shitty organization loosing her face faster than ever ... Soon there will be a protest against UN as well ...

 

[Cobra Arbok]

And if you want to apply the same standards in 1947 to today, Hyderabad and Junagadh were independent states that wanted to join Pakistan, but are now integral parts of India. So overall, India has been favored over the past 70 years.

 

[Hamza913]

India captured more than 800 sq km territory in Baltistan in 1971 and Pakistan got only 120 sq km in chhamb. In fact even top Pakistani journalist Nasim Zehra admitted in her book that Kargil peaks were under Pakistani control till 1971.


India captured several peaks on Pakistani side of LoC during Kargil such as point 5310, Point 5770, Mount Anzabar etc.

Again, I'd like a source that proves Hindustan captured and kept that much land from Gilgit Baltistan.

I don't care what a journalist says, if we take their words as the truth, we're going to have to believe in some pretty stupid things. Kargil was never under Pakistani control until the Kargil War occurred, and after that we took the key points in the area.

Those were all occupied after the Kargil War, offer very little strategic benefit as compared to the peaks Pakistan took in Kargil, and they were never occupied by Pakistan in the first place AFAIK.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Again, I'd like a source that proves Hindustan captured and kept that much land from Gilgit Baltistan.

I don't care what a journalist says, if we take their words as the truth, we're going to have to believe in some pretty stupid things. Kargil was never under Pakistani control until the Kargil War occurred, and after that we took the key points in the area.

Those were all occupied after the Kargil War, offer very little strategic benefit as compared to the peaks Pakistan took in Kargil, and they were never occupied by Pakistan in the first place AFAIK.

Once again which key points are those? You only control one peak which we had never occupied, and it is surrounded by peaks we took control of.

 

[Hamza913]

Kashmir was an independent country on August 15 47. By the time the Maharaj acceded to India, Pakistan already captured AJK and GB. It was about to capture Srinagar until the Indian Army intervened and decisively defeated Pakistan. As for the Shimla Treaty, India gained more land than Pakistan, and today controls strategically important districts in Baltistan such as Turtuk. As for Kutch, India got back all the territory lost in Kutch in the Treaty of Tashkent. Your confusing 1971 with 1965. Today, India controls half of Sir Creek, whereas Pakistan claims its entirety. And don't forget how we control almost all of Siachen, which allows us to overlook all Pakistani and Chinese positions. More importantly, it gives us control of the Indus, your nation's lifeline.

Irrelevant, the ruler still intended to join Hindustan, hence why he tried to cleanse Kashmir of Muslims so he could create a demographic shift to justify joining Hindustan. He only made his intentions even more clear when he signed the instrument of accession to join Hindustan.

You never defeated us lol, you lost 40% of Kashmir. That's a crippling defeat, you gained nothing.

Almost all land was returned to their original owners post 1971 other than Chamb. Only a small amount of land captured by Hindustan in 1971 remains under Hindustani control, and it pales in comparison to what we have taken from you, not to mention the Kashmir region was originally yours in the first place, so you were just taking back what you already lost.

I'm not talking about the war, prior to that Pakistan gained a small amount of Kutch via diplomacy.

The Siachen is regarded as strategically unimportant by pretty much everyone, and just drains you guys of resources and man power. You wasting them on this useless piece of land is great. Also, again, you are just taking back land you originally lost.

Stephen Cohen (in his book) is one among many who calls it "2 bald men fighting over a comb".

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-sh...ggle-of-two-bald-men-over-a-comb/20120412.htm

You know very well that if you cut off our water supply, war will break and out and no matter what happens, you will suffer one way or another.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

The US Army also did research into the War and found that India was favored. It was discussed in an earlier thread.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/karg...-us-military-on-high-altitude-warfare.424823/
But this is ridiculous. There are already countless threads on Kargil here. This thread was supposed to be about Pakistan's diplomatic supporters on Kashmir

Irrelevant, the ruler still intended to join Hindustan, hence why he tried to cleanse Kashmir of Muslims so he could create a demographic shift to justify joining Hindustan. He only made his intentions even more clear when he signed the instrument of accession to join Hindustan.

You never defeated us lol, you lost 40% of Kashmir. That's a crippling defeat, you gained nothing.

Almost all land was returned to their original owners post 1971 other than Chamb. Only a small amount of land captured by Hindustan in 1971 remains under Hindustani control, and it pales in comparison to what we have taken from you, not to mention the Kashmir region was originally yours in the first place, so you were just taking back what you already lost.

I'm not talking about the war, prior to that Pakistan gained a small amount of Kutch via diplomacy.

The Siachen is regarded as strategically unimportant by pretty much everyone, and just drains you guys of resources and man power. You wasting them on this useless piece of land is great. Also, again, you are just taking back land you originally lost.

Stephen Cohen (in his book) is one among many who calls it "2 bald men fighting over a comb".

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-sh...ggle-of-two-bald-men-over-a-comb/20120412.htm

You know very well that if you cut off our water supply, war will break and out and no matter what happens, you will suffer one way or another.

If the Mahajaj failed, that's on him, not us. And no, he never wanted to join India, he was forced to after Pakistan invaded. 1947 was actually a crippling loss for Pakistan, because it intended to capture the entirety of JaK state from Jammu to Ladakh, but they only got 40%, which menas it lost 60% of its territory. Pakistan also claimed, Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kutch, and parts of Assam, but lost those as well. Jinnah actually called what is now Pakistan a "moth eaten Pakistan"

 

[Hamza913]

Once again which key points are those? You only control one peak which we had never occupied, and it is surrounded by peaks we took control of.

@Indus Priest King has a great thread on the subject.

It was confirmed in Yale strategic affairs journall India captured 804 sq km of territory in Baltistan. Turtuk sector

httpwww,yalejournal,org/photo-essay_post/wait-of-baltistan/

Anyways Nasim Zehra book was endorsed by Pakistani generals like Tariq Khan and she reveals that Kargil peaks were captured by India in 1971 when India pushed LoC in kargil sector by 2-3 km into Pakistan

The link doesn't work, and I want proof Hindustan retained all that land post 1971.

Again, I don't care what some journalist says especially when that's just not true. You're probably just misinterpreting what she said.

Endorsement means very little, everyone has an agenda.

If the Mahajaj failed, that's on him, not us. And no, he never wanted to join India, he was forced to after Pakistan invaded. 1947 was actually a crippling loss for Pakistan, because it intended to capture the entirety of JaK state from Jammu to Ladakh, but they only got 40%, which menas it lost 60% of its territory. Pakistan also claimed, Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kutch, and parts of Assam, but lost those as well. Jinnah actually called what is now Pakistan a "moth eaten Pakistan"

Then why did he try to create a demographic shift by cleansing Kashmir of Muslims?

No, because even if we wanted to take all of it, we still took 40% of it, so we still gained land where as you lost it. You got 40% less than you would have had we not invaded Kashmir.

We did get small parts of Kutch.

Anyway, as you said, this is irrelevant. Let's stick to the subject at hand.

 

[newb3e]

And if you want to apply the same standards in 1947 to today, Hyderabad and Junagadh were independent states that wanted to join Pakistan, but are now integral parts of India. So overall, India has been favored over the past 70 years.

applauses claps cheers for supa powa from afghanistan bhutan some lala land in galaxy far far away and some supa island that no one heard of!!

india and her 6 mightly power will rule the world! NOT!!!

 

[danger007]

even Russia america and isreal didn't support india, wow, what happened to bharat mata's 3 best boyfriends???

Stick to the topic, or your stay on the forum will be EXTREMELY short.

Good that you warned him, but didn't you noticed this guy posts?

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

If the Mahajaj failed, that's on him, not us. And no, he never wanted to join India, he was forced to after Pakistan invaded. 1947 was actually a crippling loss for Pakistan, because it intended to capture the entirety of JaK state from Jammu to Ladakh, but they only got 40%, which menas it lost 60% of its territory. Pakistan also claimed, Junagadh, Hyderabad, Kutch, and parts of Assam, but lost those as well. Jinnah actually called what is now Pakistan a "moth eaten Pakistan"

What is this BS conjectures which you are trying to pass as proof to drum up your ego?

Those of us who are from the region understand very well the demographics and dynamics of 1947. India is a nation without morals or decorum whose sole policy has been to stifle and coerce one state after another into embracing slavery.

In Hyderabad they massacred thousands to conquer that land, in complete intransigence of the Muslim Hyderabadis who have still never forgiven them. In Kashmir, the bloodbath continues unabetted 70 years on.

Indian rule is weakening and India will collapse like a house of cards just as the Soviet Union did. It’s only a matter of time.

We are not stressed about it. Allah swt has a way of making justice prevail in the end. A theif cannot outrun his kismet (destiny.)