The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan can do anything...It can goto UN..US why should India go.

Pleas, read the existing posts - you are the ones that went to the UN, and came to an agreement in teh UN with Pakistan on a referendum, and accepted the UNSc resolutions as declaring Kashri disputed and the means of resolution a plebiscite.

Don't lay this canard of 'Pakistan can do anything, why should India' - India accepted everything Pakistan's policy on Kashmir states, and then violated those agreements.

So legally and morally India has not position - her only argument is 'might is right'.

 

[suresh_]

The problem is that there are many fighting Indian occupation that do not believe India will allow a plebiscite even if they lay down arms, and that the occupation will continue regardless. The GoI is going to have to accept the disputed status (which it currently does not) and come to an agreement such as the one mentioned, which can be publicized and then used to get the insurgents to disarm, and if necessary the Pakistani state can use force at that point against them, since there will be an agreement on a plebisicte.

But to get started on stopping the violence requires accepting that there is a problem, first, and then laying out a solution conditional to the sto pin violence.

this sounds more like a threat: 'accept or violence'.
why should then india bow to such a threat?

whether some groups want to lay down arms or not, india only asks pakistan not to provide such terror groups with infrastructure and not let them use its territory.
thats the only request/demand from GOI. can GOP give that assurance?

 

[suresh_]

Pleas, read the existing posts - you are the ones that went to the UN, and came to an agreement in teh UN with Pakistan on a referendum, and accepted the UNSc resolutions as declaring Kashri disputed and the means of resolution a plebiscite.

Don't lay this canard of 'Pakistan can do anything, why should India' - India accepted everything Pakistan's policy on Kashmir states, and then violated those agreements.

So legally and morally India has not position - her only argument is 'might is right'.

expecting a country to stick to the same 'moral position' that it took half a century ago, is not very practical! pak's position must change to accept the new realities of today like the recent election results.

 

[hasang20]

this sounds more like a threat: 'accept or violence'.
why should then india bow to such a threat?

whether some groups want to lay down arms or not, india only asks pakistan not to provide such terror groups with infrastructure and not let them use its territory.
thats the only request/demand from GOI. can GOP give that assurance?

Pakistan will stop providing "such terror camps" when you leave Kashmire they are not terrorist they are Mujahideen okay peace and wheres MODI ? Indian media is too mind controllling of illetrate kids.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Kenchabhai:

The Two nation theory is a philosophy, it is not the legal basis for partition, nor is it dead due to the existence of Bangladesh, but that is a subject for another thread.

Kashmir is not being claimed on the basis of 'Two nation theory', it is being claimed on the basis of the agreements reached between the Indian , Pakistani and British leadership on partition. That agreement stated that any accession that was disputed would be resolved via plebiscite in that state, and Mountbatten made a specific point of reiterating that condition, accession incomplete without plebiscite, on Kashmir.

So there is the first legal reason for Kashmir.

The second is the UNSC resolutions and India's agreement with Pakistan and the UN on the fact that Kashmir is disputed territory, and that a referendum is the means of resolving the dispute. This ties into the conditions of partition the Pakistani, Indians and British agreed upon.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

this sounds more like a threat: 'accept or violence'.
why should then india bow to such a threat?

whether some groups want to lay down arms or not, india only asks pakistan not to provide such terror groups with infrastructure and not let them use its territory.
thats the only request/demand from GOI. can GOP give that assurance?

Its not a threat - its the reality of the views of the people fighting Indian occupation. There is evidence to back this up - India refused to resolve the dispute peacefully and politically according to the agreements she made with Pakistan and the international community for decades before the insurgency started.

So India needs to respect the principle behind those agreements made, and come to an agreement with Pakistan on a plebiscite in the future, sin some shape or form, provided the violence stops. The onus is on India here because India is the one who violated the agreements before and moved away from the peaceful option for resolution.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

expecting a country to stick to the same 'moral position' that it took half a century ago, is not very practical! pak's position must change to accept the new realities of today like the recent election results.

Since when has 'freedom' and self determination come with an expiration date? How long was India a colony of teh British? Quite a bit more than a hundred years, I suppose giving India freedom was also not 'practical'.

The realities of today are that freedom and self determination are still recognized, and moral, as is the legal status for Kashmri as disputed, and the legality of the referendum.

 

[suresh_]

Its not a threat - its the reality of the views of the people fighting Indian occupation. There is evidence to back this up - India refused to resolve the dispute peacefully and politically according to the agreements she made with Pakistan and the international community for decades before the insurgency started.

So India needs to respect the principle behind those agreements made, and come to an agreement with Pakistan on a plebiscite in the future, sin some shape or form, provided the violence stops. The onus is on India here because India is the one who violated the agreements before and moved away from the peaceful option for resolution.

your last sentence sums up the position of pak, that if india doesnt agree to 'peaceful' resoulution then violence will continue. this amounts to putting gun to head and wat more, it also makes pak a country using terrorism as a state foreign policy.this was commented upon by our PM as well recently.

the rest of your post explains pak's position and india doesnt agree with it. we can negotiate our differences of opinion but terrorism sponsored by pak or from its territory is disrupting the peace process. so stop terrorism in your land and we can explore resolving kashmir. simple. wat is wrong with this request?

 

[hasang20]

your last sentence sums up the position of pak, that if india doesnt agree to 'peaceful' resoulution then violence will continue. this amounts to putting gun to head and wat more, it also makes pak a country using terrorism as a state foreign policy.this was commented upon by our PM as well recently.

the rest of your post explains pak's position and india doesnt agree with it. we can negotiate our differences of opinion but terrorism sponsored by pak or from its territory is disrupting the peace process. so stop terrorism in your land and we can explore resolving kashmir. simple. wat is wrong with this request?

too much bollywood movies and too much watching IBN CNN !

 

[suresh_]

Since when has 'freedom' and self determination come with an expiration date? How long was India a colony of teh British? Quite a bit more than a hundred years, I suppose giving India freedom was also not 'practical'.

The realities of today are that freedom and self determination are still recognized, and moral, as is the legal status for Kashmri as disputed, and the legality of the referendum.

the only difference between indian independence struggle and 'kashmir freedom struggle' is that in kashmir the presence of violence/terror launched from foreign nations in large doses!

india has only asked pak to stop violence/terror. remember, even violence in indian independence was not appreciated by the world. just like today.
pak should wake up and smell the coffee. violence wont work.

 

[ahmeddsid]

I feel That If Pakistan and India agree to give peace a chance then There will be no problem. Some Political Parties in India dont want to solve the Kashmir Issue for their own use. The Army in Pakistan wont compromise on giving an inch of Kashmir away and in short if Kashmir is solved, the Army of Pakistan wont be as powerful as they are today. Again this is my view.

I say, Pakistan should put forward this idea of peace for 10 years and then plebiscite. Pakistan should take the first step and ask all these groups to Disarm as Peace is gonna be given a chance. This will make India act, and the onus will be on India. Get me? If India doesnt act then It means India is not willing to solve it. If thats the case then Pakistan can unmask Indias real face!

Lastly, I feel the suffering of Kashmir is not the Real issue. Its just a farce. Its the Water Resources. The One who holds Kashmir, Holds the Water! Again My view.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

your last sentence sums up the position of pak, that if india doesnt agree to 'peaceful' resoulution then violence will continue. this amounts to putting gun to head and wat more, it also makes pak a country using terrorism as a state foreign policy.this was commented upon by our PM as well recently.

the rest of your post explains pak's position and india doesnt agree with it. we can negotiate our differences of opinion but terrorism sponsored by pak or from its territory is disrupting the peace process. so stop terrorism in your land and we can explore resolving kashmir. simple. wat is wrong with this request?

It is not terrorism since the right to resist an occupation is an internationally recognized right for an occupied people.

The choice is India's, since India was the one that violated the peaceful agreement to begin with. People like you will continue regurgitating jingoism and immoral and illegal positions based on 'might is right'. There is nothign to discuss with you. Other Indians have indicated an interest in compromise, peace, development, and plebiscite in limited areas (AK and IK for example) after a decade or two. Those are the people actually interested in peace and progress.

As to the rest, read the previous posts.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I feel That If Pakistan and India agree to give peace a chance then There will be no problem. Some Political Parties in India dont want to solve the Kashmir Issue for their own use. The Army in Pakistan wont compromise on giving an inch of Kashmir away and in short if Kashmir is solved, the Army of Pakistan wont be as powerful as they are today. Again this is my view.

I say, Pakistan should put forward this idea of peace for 10 years and then plebiscite. Pakistan should take the first step and ask all these groups to Disarm as Peace is gonna be given a chance. This will make India act, and the onus will be on India. Get me? If India doesnt act then It means India is not willing to solve it. If thats the case then Pakistan can unmask Indias real face!

I am willing to have Pakistan offer the first step, but to disarm the freedom fighters before India offers a quid pro quo would be harmful to Pakistan's position in several ways. First it will stir discontent in the Kashmiris who support the struggle that Pakistan sold them out without any movement from India.

I think the two sides need to come to this agreement first through dialog and engagement - its not like India will withdraw the day the agreement is made. Once an agreement is made public, Pakistan has to ensure that all camps and armed groups on her side are shut down, that will be verified by international observers, who will also monitor the situation in both AK and IK. Then 10 - 20 years from then, so long as relative peace is maintained, we can proceed with the plebiscite in whichever areas are determined (likely only AK and IK).

But this has to be a bilateral decision and announcement the two sides make, since there are groups on both sides who will not agree to unilateralism on Kashmir.

Lastly, I feel the suffering of Kashmir is not the Real issue. Its just a farce. Its the Water Resources. The One who holds Kashmir, Holds the Water! Again My view.

If that were the case Pakistan would never be amenable to a compromise solution - a compromise still leaves major waterways in Indian control. Water is not an issue so long as the IWT is respected.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

the only difference between indian independence struggle and 'kashmir freedom struggle' is that in kashmir the presence of violence/terror launched from foreign nations in large doses!

india has only asked pak to stop violence/terror. remember, even violence in indian independence was not appreciated by the world. just like today.
pak should wake up and smell the coffee. violence wont work.

India should wake up and fulfill her commitments that she violated - a small first step would be admitting that Kashmir is a dispute, as she did under the UNSC resolutions that she then violated.

'Taali aek haath say nahin bajti'

 

[ahmeddsid]

I am willing to have Pakistan offer the first step, but to disarm the freedom fighters before India offers a quid pro quo would be harmful to Pakistan's position in several ways. First it will stir discontent in the Kashmiris who support the struggle that Pakistan sold them out without any movement from India.

I think the two sides need to come to this agreement first through dialog and engagement - its not like India will withdraw the day the agreement is made. Once an agreement is made public, Pakistan has to ensure that all camps and armed groups on her side are shut down, that will be verified by international observers, who will also monitor the situation in both AK and IK. Then 10 - 20 years from then, so long as relative peace is maintained, we can proceed with the plebiscite in whichever areas are determined (likely only AK and IK).

But this has to be a bilateral decision and announcement the two sides make, since there are groups on both sides who will not agree to unilateralism on Kashmir.


If that were the case Pakistan would never be amenable to a compromise solution - a compromise still leaves major waterways in Indian control. Water is not an issue so long as the IWT is respected.

Its a Risk pakistan has to take, iF it feels India is an illegal entity in Kashmir and then Go onto Humiliate it. If India Doesnt Oblige, then you can wash your hands off Peace and Say, yes to Guns and Violence. I seriously would have done this If I was ruling Pakistan. India would have no choice but to play along with you if this happens!