The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[PAFAce]

When cut down to size, you have resorted to the usual 'Pakistan should represent the will of the majority of Kashmirs'. This sense of entitlement is amazing.

How did you gather that Pakistan is somehow entitled to represent Kashmiris? Did it occur to you that a party to a dispute can't 'represent' a facilitator.

you're the one hell bent on denying them any chance at being involved in the process of resolution. In that case, we have every right to represent them in the room. You don't like it, but it doesn't change the fact that their opinions on their future are a lot similar to ours than yours.

The expats mean diddly squat as long as there is nothing on the ground and the situation on ground is cool as cucumber. If expats' opinion is all you have got to measure a movement, then remember there is a significant number of Baloch expats who are against Pakistan.

Why are you crying? That was my point exactly. It was meant to shut up the idiot who brougt Balochistan into the conversation, and for any idiot who thought he was right to do so. Your past bites you in the back, and you try to vent it at me. I'm not your mother.

You have no clue to what you are talking about. Isn't it?

I work with two people who hail from the Hyderabad (India) and one from Kerala. They are far more critical of Chidambaram than I wrote here. Other than that, Allah has given me the ability to read. So yeah, I do have an idea, more than you might think.

After all a Pakistani knows more about India that Indians themselves.

Generally, I wouldn't think so, but I guess in this case its true.

IA is in Kashmir on the basis of Instrument of Accession which granted India the constitutional right to be in Kashmir.

You choose to bring the UN resolution in when its convenient for you, and ignore it otherwise. When it comes to honoring your promises, your tongue is tied, but when it comes to throwing mud, you're king. You can't have "constitutional rights" to be in Kashmir when the majority rejects the constitution in the first place. Either that, or majority opinion doesn't matter to you and your democracy is a sham. Which is it? Also, the rights of the constitution cannot be provided selectively, and their right to demonstrate and protest freely is granted to them by the constitution. Yet, you do everything in your power to shut down all protests no matter how peaceful, which is a direct violation of their rights. You reject their rights, they reject your laws, simple as that. (Note: you might want to bring the UN Resolution back in here, but make sure you do it selectively if you don't want to highlight your own shortcomings).

But you're right, it's not an occupation. The soldiers are there on a peace-keeping mission. Now you may sleep easy.

Kashmir houses a number of sites which are considered to holy by the Hindus.

Hence the occupation.

i am a sikh but i am also an indian most people who want a khalistan live outsidethe country you go to punjab and see how much most sikhs love india there may have been some problems in the past and i think some people should be punished for their role in delhi riots but we sikhs allways have and allways will be ready to protect our motherland india

And what the heck does this have to do with anything here? Could this online butt-kiss not be handled through Private Messaging or on other forums?

 

[toxic_pus]

you're the one hell bent on denying them any chance at being involved in the process of resolution. In that case, we have every right to represent them in the room. You don't like it, but it doesn't change the fact that their opinions on their future are a lot similar to ours than yours.

Assuming that by 'you', you mean India, you should ask these questions to your leadership as well. For example, at the UN Pakistan was a party to the dispute and yet Pakistan forgot to include the Kashmiris as the other party. Why?

Why did Jinnah refuse plebiscite when it was offered?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

Why are you crying? That was my point exactly. It was meant to shut up the idiot who brougt Balochistan into the conversation, and for any idiot who thought he was right to do so. Your past bites you in the back, and you try to vent it at me. I'm not your mother.

Fair enough.

Although my past, in spite of all the lows, is many orders of magnitude better than yours.

I work with two people who hail from the Hyderabad (India) and one from Kerala. They are far more critical of Chidambaram than I wrote here. Other than that, Allah has given me the ability to read. So yeah, I do have an idea, more than you might think.

Yeah right. I am critical of Chidambaram. I guess that makes me a 'secessionist'.

Then again I heard something from a friend's sister's brother-in-law's 2nd cousin, who heard it from...... See where I'm going with this?

Generally, I wouldn't think so, but I guess in this case its true.

Of course. Why not.

 

[PAFAce]

Kashmir Resolution Proposal #8

Okay, I'm tired of battling bats. Here is a resolution I propose (if self-determination is not feasible):

Benefits to India:
- The most troublesome area of Indian Control Kashmir, the Valley, will no longer be a problem.
- A defined and permanent International Border will allow for relations with Pakistan to improve, which will ultimately be in India's best interest.
- India still retains about 60-70% of the currently disputed territory with Pakistan, as the relatively large but scarcely populated Buddhist majority state of Ladakh and the Hindu majority state of Jammu remain a part of India.
- Economic development in Jammu and Ladakh can be increased to unprecedented levels as it is no longer disputed territory.
- India keeps most of the strategic heights of Siachen, Kargil etc. without having to worry about Pakistani aggression (which can be enforced through a comprehensive treaty).

Benefits to Kashmiris
- The people of the Valley get what they want, separation from India.
- The people of Ladakh and Jammu get what they want, a peaceful Kashmir and increased integration with India.
- The people of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan get what they want, increased integration with Pakistan without a constant threat of war with India.
- The people of all regions of Kashmir will see investment increase and quality of life improve manifold as the region is no longer considered disputed.

Benefits to Pakistan:
- A defined and permanent International Border will allow for relations with India to improve, which will ultimately be in Pakistan's best interest.
- Pakistanis and Kashmiris of the Valley will get what they have always wanted, free and peaceful Kashmir.
- Economic development in Azad Kashmir, the Valley and Gilgit-Baltistan can be increased to unprecedented levels as it is no longer disputed territory.

It's got something for all three parties, and should be far more acceptable than either of the 7 offered solutions. Also, it is believed by many experts and locals that this will be the outcome of any referendum or plebiscite held in the separate districts of Kashmir (if the choice is Pakistan or India only). Added benefit, aesthetically speaking, the map of India gets to keep its head and the map of Pakistan gets to keep its nose.

Let's discuss in a civil fashion, and let's keep the personal attacks out.

 

[brahmastra]

^^^^ Whats assurity that suppose India gives you valley you will not promote terrorism to get remaining kashmir?

and if kashmir is disputed for you than who gave you right to 'gift' some of part of land to China.
why you are not worried about 'chinese occupation' on kashmir and just so colled 'Indian occupation'.

 

[toxic_pus]

You choose to bring the UN resolution in when its convenient for you, and ignore it otherwise. When it comes to honoring your promises, your tongue is tied, but when it comes to throwing mud, you're king.

I brought in UN because some members here attach divinity to those resolutions. You can see though, that my argument is based not on UN resolutions but on Instrument of Accession.

You can't have "constitutional rights" to be in Kashmir when the majority rejects the constitution in the first place.

Accept that the granting of that constitutional right didn't depend on Kashmiris. Hence their 'rejection' doesn't matter. As insensitive as it may sound, that is the cold hard truth of life. Ask Jinnah.

Either that, or majority opinion doesn't matter to you and your democracy is a sham.

Majority opinion does matter. Secessionist opinion doesn't.

Also, the rights of the constitution cannot be provided selectively, and their right to demonstrate and protest freely is granted to them by the constitution. Yet, you do everything in your power to shut down all protests no matter how peaceful, which is a direct violation of their rights. You reject their rights, they reject your laws, simple as that. (Note: you might want to bring the UN Resolution back in here, but make sure you do it selectively if you don't want to highlight your own shortcomings).

Prove that Indian constitution is applied selectively in Kashmir. You can do that by first proving that police in India doesn't break up political rallies or protest etc. in any other parts of India.

But you're right, it's not an occupation. The soldiers are there on a peace-keeping mission. Now you may sleep easy.

I am sleeping OK. Thanks for your concern though.

Hence the occupation.

May be we should attack China. After all Manasarovar is in China.

And what the heck does this have to do with anything here? Could this online butt-kiss not be handled through Private Messaging or on other forums?

Reality hurts. Doesn't it.

 

[PAFAce]

^^^^ Whats assurity that suppose India gives you valley you will not promote terrorism to get remaining kashmir?

There is little anti-India sentiment in Ladakh and Jammu, something which has always existed in the Muslim majority Valley (hence, the most troublesome region). Also, once the Valley is freed, Pakistan has no reason to support the freedom fighters or support any anti-India militancies (which, like I said, are at very manageable levels in L&J). Lastly, it can be ensured by treaty that no such actions are carried out by either side, and that top level intelligence will be shared.

Trust me, once the Valley is freed, the temperature will cool-down to pleasant levels and the populations of both countries will pressure the governments to stop the fighting. The nitty-gritties can be worked out by the diplomats, I can only suggest an overall solution that based on give-and-take and compromise, and most of all, everyone gets most of what they want.

and if kashmir is disputed for you than who gave you right to 'gift' some of part of land to China.
why you are not worried about 'chinese occupation' on kashmir and just so colled 'Indian occupation'.

Pakistan and China resolved their land issue, something that India should take a lesson from. The land contested betwen China and India is something that should be resolved between those two countries (with the involvement of the people of the contested region). I can only represent the Pakistani side, and by commonality of objectives, the Valley's side.

 

[ssheppard]

There is no widespread anti-India sentiment in Ladakh and Jammu, which has always existed in the Muslim majority Valley. Also, once the Valley is freed, Pakistan has no reason to spread so-called "terrorism" or support any anti-India movements (which, like I said, do not exist in L&J). Lastly, ensured by treaty that no such actions are carried out.

Trust me, once the Valley is freed, the temperature will cool-down to pleasant levels and the populations of both countries will pressure the governments to stop the fighting.

Pakistan and China resolved their land issue, something that India should take a lesson from. The land contested betwen China and India is something that should be resolved between those two countries (with the involvement of the people of the contested region). I can only represent the Pakistani side, and by commonality of objectives, the Valley's side.

Remember Khalistan Terrorism......The great Pakistani Initiative to Break Away Punjab from India.......

Pakistan would think of some more _____stans

its better to keep it busy with Kashmir....as long Pakistan is busy in Kashmir ...other parts of India would grow...and prosper......and soon Kashmirs would realize (I have) that its better if they stick to their Country than fighting a battle for a Country that has not let them live peacefully for past 20 years.....

Pakistan thought of bleeding India through Kashmir...but guess who is bleeding now...

 

[PAFAce]

Remember Khalistan Terrorism......The great Pakistani Initiative to Break Away Punjab from India.......
Pakistan would think of some more _____stans

Pakistan's support for Khalistan was because of Kashmir. As long as you keep believing that we live to destroy you, you will never get over your Pakistan-phobia and nothing will ever get resolved. Once Kashmir is resolved, there will be no need for any more ____stans.

Also, without Benazir Bhutto, the Khalistan movement was going nowhere. She did to the Khalistan movement what Hasina is currently doing to the Assam movement. History is a great teacher, you just don't want to learn.

its better to keep it busy with Kashmir....as long Pakistan is busy in Kashmir ...other parts of India would grow...and prosper......and soon Kashmirs would realize (I have) that its better if they stick to their Country than fighting a battle for a Country that has not let them live peacefully for past 20 years.....

You probably never lost a loved one to indiscriminate BSF firing (soldiers of a country who haven't let them live in peace for the past 60 years, which is greater than 20 I think). Stop the BS, nobody's buying what you're selling, we're all pretty aware of the feelings of the average Kashmiri. If the people of the Valley haven't fallen for it in sixty years, I don't think they'll fall for it now. Also, when Pakistan had only Kashmir to worry about, we were doing quite well economically (similar economic growth numbers as India, but without the massive unemployment, poverty or over-population). Once the Talibs are taken care of, we'll go back to that growth, and all you'll get from your premature chest-pumping is a sore chest.

Pakistan thought of bleeding India through Kashmir...but guess who is bleeding now...

And here goes the rhetoric. The Kashmiris are the ones who have bled the most, and since you claim to be one, you should know this (and brother, it ain't because of Pakistan). As a general rule, if you don't have something intelligent to add, don't open the yapper. By the way, your pride at being an Indian is visible form your flags.

 

[toxic_pus]

Lastly, it can be ensured by treaty that no such actions are carried out by either side, and that top level intelligence will be shared.

Bingo. Thats what we need. A 'treaty' to stop terrorism. Why didn't we think of it before?

Pakistan and China resolved their land issue, something that India should take a lesson from. The land contested betwen China and India is something that should be resolved between those two countries (with the involvement of the people of the contested region). I can only represent the Pakistani side, and by commonality of objectives, the Valley's side.

That doesn't answer the question. What gave Pakistan the right to enter into an ex parte agreement with a third party, ceding land, which they themselves claim to be 'disputed'?

 

[toxic_pus]

Pakistan's support for Khalistan was because of Kashmir.

Can you please elaborate how Kashmir could have been solved by supporting Khalistan.

 

[EjazR]

Also, EjazR simply stated what he read or heard, that in no way points to the objectives, which was clearly to attract a greater number of Hindu worshippers every year and encourage them to settle in the area. Obviously, they're not going to write that on the brochure.

PAFAce, legally there is no way that a person outside J&K can buy property there. Only a few states like J&K and in the NE have this law constitutionally under article 370. Just before the row, the separatists had been completely confused because of their boycott for elections being a failure. Infact, Junoon had come and performed in Srinagar just a few weeks before even though the separatists and Salahuddin the head of UJC had asked the GoP not to send them. There were plans to have two more Pakistani bands to come and perform here but that got scrapped as the law and order situation worsened.

The problem was that there was lot of rumor mongering, the Hindu communal elements used this as did the separatists. So your point of using the land to "settle" Hindus from outside J&K is a non-starter. In fact, seeing that the J&K govt. was able to revoke the land transfer and just reconstitute a lease arrangement proves this point.

In both cases this was govt. land that would have been used to assist Hindu pilgrims. The idea was that instead of building, then dismantling shelters every year, lets build permanent shelters that could be used by the pilgrims. Again, no one would settle here. Its similar to the permanent tents put up by the govt. of Saudi Arabia in Arafat for the Hajj. This is why the title deed was being transferred to the shrine board - which was a J&K based organization. However, now the title deed will not change but still the shrine board will lease the land and use it for the same purpose. I won't pass judgment on weather it was the right way to help the pilgrims, but certainly there was no need to communalise this as some "Hindu demographic invasion" of J&K. The other extreme where VHP and other extremists group hijacked the issue was equally repulsive. No local would deny Hindus their right to perform pilgrimage and its usually muslim kashmiris who benefit economically during the pilgrimage season.

That is why A. 370 has been in place till now and not even the BJP govt. could revoke it.

 

[karan.1970]

They are a disputed territory, not an "unbreakable part of India" no matter how much you scream. Therefore, the people have every right to "play with national integrity" because they don't believe in it

People who do not believe in National integrity are not entitled to the rights that you are so strongly advocating. Should be tried and shot for treason.

Freedom is the right denied to them in your constitution, and the To say that they have every right under the constitution other than the freedom to choose their allegiance is self-contradictory.

Constitution of INdia does not give any citizen (any where in India) to choose allegiance to a foreign country. It does allow the citizens to leave with their wealth and go settle anywhere in the world they chose to...

I'm not saying it will happen, but yes, I do believe that it's the best option. First and foremost, it satisfies the people of the Valley, Ladakh and Jammu, secondly it satisfies Pakistan and, most of all, it allows India to keep a major chunk of Kashmir. It's the best possible win-win-win situation, but Indians will end up losing territory, which is unacceptable to any occupying force. I am proud of my obsession with Kashmir, I believe their freedom is every bit as important as yours or mine, even if you and your friends don't. You, on the other hand, should get over your obsession with this occupation and the constant denial; it will be better not only for you, but for the peace of this region. Tough ask, but please do try.

Sir.. there is a distinct difference in the situation in J&K and an occupied territory from an individual's perspective. In an occupied territory, no one is allowed to leave or sell their property or emigrate. None of these apply to Kashmir. People are free to go and settle in P0K if they want to or more importantly if Pakistan would have them. They have all the freedom that any other citizen in any other part of India has. They just dont have the freedom to squander away a part of India which no citizen of a country deserve to have.

It is more than just religious, but that's the way most of you prefer to see it. It's based on many principles. Kashmir, at various times, has been a political, economic and moral struggle. Like I said, you can't deny them the most basic right and then claim they are "free".

Right to take your country's land to a foreign country where you want to emigrate to is a freedom not given to any citizen of India.. Be it in Kashmir or in any other state..

Like I've said before, Kashmir's freedom is every bit as important as Pakistan's, and many Pakistanis have shed their blood alongside Kashmiris for this very reason. Pakistan can support Kashmir's cause for as long as possible, in whichever manner possible. The ball, however, has always been in India's court, and continues to be. As long as their is no awakening of the collective Indian conscience, Kashmir will never be resolved the way it should be. Full-fledged war should be a last resort, but if it's necessary for our brothers in Kashmir, then so be it. I do not love war, but I love the people for whom war may become necessary.

You can choose to shed as much blood Indian or Pakistani. Or feel free to attack India to wrest away Kashmir rofl. Not gonna happen..You have tried it in the past a couple of times.. Give it another shot if you want to.. And about the ball.. Yes its in our court and dont expect it coming back to you. This is a game we will not play..

Yes, it's been very clear that Indians only care about themselves, you don't have to re-iterate it. You also don't have to beat the "we'll do whatever the heck we want and you can't do sh*t about it" drum, because many of your brethren are already doing so.

Yes we Indians only care about ourselves which includes all non traitors(which is the majority of people even though you dont believe it) living in J&K

 

[All-Green]

^^^^ Whats assurity that suppose India gives you valley you will not promote terrorism to get remaining kashmir?

and if kashmir is disputed for you than who gave you right to 'gift' some of part of land to China.
why you are not worried about 'chinese occupation' on kashmir and just so colled 'Indian occupation'.

If this happens then I am confident that there will be no more reason for any Kashmiri to dislike India and when that happens there will be no violence in Kashmir.

Kashmiris have been protesting the Indian occupation since long in the Valley, we do not see such mass unrest in the Pakistani part of Kashmir so it is natural to assume that the Kashmiris in the valley are more affiliated with Pakistan and despite whatever India gives them, it is unlikely that they will be satisfied.

Terrorism is a global phenomena and can strike anywhere but when the locals have no need to use violence as a means to an end then terrorists cannot use the situation to their advantage.
Pakistan is already at war with the terrorist groups, LET being one of the most prominent of them, however lets not kid ourselves if we think that Kashmir struggle under discussion is terrorism, extremist elements may have crept in but the Kashmiris in the valley as a people have not been happy and have been extremely vocal about it. They have come out in numbers many times as a protest against Indian occupation.
The people protesting in thousands strong are not terrorists or foreign elements, they are Kashmiris.

Pakistanis are genuinely sympathetic to the cause of the Kashmiris but when the cause is addressed, there is no reason for Kashmiris and Pakistanis to see India as an enemy, no more phobias of each other...

With a little give and take the issue can be resolved and will bring about much greater benefits in the long run to all parties in question.

 

[karan.1970]

Oh, and by the way, Balochistan was not forced to become a part of Pakistan, they did so at their own will, which is why it has never been contested as disputed territory.

On the same lines, didnt maharaja of Kashmir willingly joined the Indian Nation thru the accession agreement just like Ahmed Yar Khan signed an accession agreement for joining Pakistan?? Why the double standards.. Also if you give an arguement that the decision of the central authority can be overturned by the population, then the same logic can be applied to the Nehru's promise of holding a referendum. Just like in your arguement, that people of Kashmir do not agree to the accession agreement between maharaja of Kashmir and India, the people of India do not agree to the promises made by Nehru about the so called referendum..

Please note that I am not contesting Balochistan but talking about Kashmir.

 

[All-Green]

Remember Khalistan Terrorism......The great Pakistani Initiative to Break Away Punjab from India.......

Pakistan would think of some more _____stans

its better to keep it busy with Kashmir....as long Pakistan is busy in Kashmir ...other parts of India would grow...and prosper......and soon Kashmirs would realize (I have) that its better if they stick to their Country than fighting a battle for a Country that has not let them live peacefully for past 20 years.....

Pakistan thought of bleeding India through Kashmir...but guess who is bleeding now...

So Khalistan was perpetrated by Pakistan operatives?
There was no Sikh movement against Indian state in Punjab?

Read more about the origins of the Sikh dissent, the semi autonomous status which they believed had been promised to them by Gandhi and Nehru.
The subsequent falling out was not something that had anything to do with Pakistan brainwashing the Sikh.

After the golden temple incident, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards who i believe were not on payroll of ISI, the Sikhs massacred in the riots afterward were also not killed by ISI...even a person like Khushwant Singh openly criticized the role of congress in the subsequent Sikh massacres.

I think the way you are going you can easily blame the Naxalite movement on Pakistan as well....

Better wake up and realize that there have been many uprisings in India which were not perpetrated by Pakistan but were carried out by those within the borders of the Indian State and the reasons had nothing to do with Pakistan.

Let us stick to the topic at hand which is very much a flash point between India and Pakistan.