The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[tiger1313]

Another excllent piece of rant.

i know what the heck happened and when, we all know that the indians have eaten their own words (as they have done now and would always do) and have retracted from the UN resolution. The idea that the State of J&K should be an integral part of india was included in the J&K State Constitution that was adopted by the assembly on 20 Oct 1956 and came into effect from 29 Jan 1957, but that's not the point in case.

You seem to suffer from xenophobia and tends to derail every thread you drop in. We want to discuss the illegal indian stance of (at your will-we dont even know who that J&K State Government was that approved to convene a constituent assembly) considering J&K its 'integral' part as if it was a Jungle raj (that you people seem to enjoy so much in main land india).

So instead of ranting and yapping and BSing add something to discuss.

We all know what you are upto here. You have trolled in every thread and given it a new direction. i am sure you would be brought to a grinding halt very soon

Sir, I think we all need to understand some things clearly-

1 Status quo is the only solution possible now.
2 Any other solution is possible only in case of a total collapse either in India or Pakistan.
3 Trust me, even the most hardline of Kashmiris realise that and would be amenable with true autonomy.
4 India can never agree to a plebicide now since the sit has changed on ground with demographic changes in your ppart of Kashmir.
5 You have yourself changed the sit by changing the status of Northern Areas which were clearly apart of J & K.
6 Next 50 years will only see an incr in Indian military and eco muscle - so very difficult to force india then.
Once this realisation is there at ur end, i think saner minds can work. Pl do not treat this as a rant, this is the position of most thinking indians.
Insurgencies are no big deal for the indian state. It has and can carry on and tire the insurgents for the next 1000 yrs.
Cheers

 

[Xeric]

You started listing the timeline of comments from GoI and I simply completed it.

i didnt exactly 'started listing the timeline' instead it was to show you people a mirror and those viewing it that facts that how can a govt blatantly go back its commitment and eat it own words and you werent exactly 'completing the timeline' instead you just ranted (a thing that you have mastered) as you just skipped the issue at hand and diverted your attention towards a futile exercise and the info that is known to all.

i might have appreciated your stance had you argued over the stance change and given reasons over this indian denial.

Do you still need to learn how discussion is furthered at forums?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Actually niether. Simply a matter of selective documentary /cherry picking/incomplete knowledge on your part. Also once article 370 got implemented in early 1950s, the constitutional stand of India on the state of J&K became what you see today...

Also from your language you seem to be getting a little too flustererd. As I said, get over it.. Its a discussion and not a negotiation. You and I can not decide the future course of events on this forum.. so avoid the contemptuous content of your post or else

Talk to the Hand...

Anyway, back to the topic,

You stopped short of the complete timeline of statements on Jammu & Kashmir from GoI. But hey, I am not surprised since you copied it from the site of National assembly of Pakistan.. ...Here's the rest of it...


"India had accepted these resolutions, subject to assurances, (mentioned in para 6) and in the hope of having the matter resolved quickly. Pakistan, however, wrecked the implementation of the resolutions at that time by not fulfilling the preconditions. If an offer is made and it is not accepted at the time it is made, it cannot be held for generations over the heads of those who made it".


V.K. Menon UN Security Council (763 Meeting, 23 January, 1957):
With Pakistan's intransigence, and passage of time, the offer lapsed and was overtaken by events


"I wish to make it clear on behalf of my Government that under no circumstances can we agree to the holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir"

representative of India (M.C. Chagla) UN Security Council (1088 meeting, 5 February 1964):


"Any plebiscite today would by definition amount to questioning the integrity of India. It would raise the issue of secession - an issue on which even the United States fought a civil war not so very long ago. We cannot and will not tolerate a second partition of India on religious grounds"

Lal Bahadur Shastri New York, stated on March 31, 1966

What I see in the above quotes is more evidence of India derailing the process to holding a plebiscite.

What intransigence is VK Menon talking about?

The withdrawal of forces was based on negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN commission, and India was the one that balked at UN proposals of retaining 18000 troops to Pakistan's 3000 (something Pakistan agreed to).

That was a respectable number of forces that did not pose a major threat to either side while a plebiscite was held. The Indian refusal to do so only solidifies the suspicions of duplicity and the desire to see all Pakistan forces unilaterally vacate Pakistan controlled territory so India could move in and occupy all of it.

 

[Khajur]

My final solution for kashmir:

1.divide J&K
2.Make Jammu a separate state.
3.Make Ladhak an union territory.
4.Restore article 370 for the Kashmir region after its break up .......

This would bring out the political settlement of the autonomy issue.
Regarding pakistan,as the local support for millitancy dies down,pakistan would have no choice ,but to accept the LOC as the international border and stop of the facade of Azad kashmir and Gilgit region by bringing them into pakistan to start development work in those regions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Can't.. Constitutionally not possible and communicated to UN way back in 1960s. Get over it..

The real reason is that you, and the others, don't buy those poll numbers either. Otherwise the GoI would be jumping at the chance to settle the dispute once and for all, and legitimize the Indian position over J&K.

India changed her constitution to incorporate J&K, and if the constitution is an issue it can amend it to conduct the plebiscite.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of what India communicated to the UN, the territory is disputed and recognized as such by the international community. You can bring about a million constitutional amendments in India proclaiming it an Indian State, that does not legitimize the Indian position.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My final solution for kashmir:

1.divide J&K
2.Make Jammu a separate state.
3.Make Ladhak an union territory.
4.Restore article 370 for the Kashmir region after its break up .......

This would bring out the political settlement of the autonomy issue.
Regarding pakistan,as the local support for millitancy dies down,pakistan would have no choice ,but to accept the LOC as the international border and stop of the facade of Azad kashmir and Gilgit region by bringing them into pakistan to start development work in those regions.

addendum to the above;

G-B, Jammu and Laddakh stay with Pakistan and India respectively, while Azad Kashmir and IAK have a plebiscite, which can be district by district or as one region.

 

[Khajur]

What I see in the above quotes is more evidence of India derailing the process to holding a plebiscite.

What intransigence is VK Menon talking about?

The withdrawal of forces was based on negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN commission, and India was the one that balked at UN proposals of retaining 18000 troops to Pakistan's 3000 (something Pakistan agreed to).

That was a respectable number of forces that did not pose a major threat to either side while a plebiscite was held. The Indian refusal to do so only solidifies the suspicions of duplicity and the desire to see all Pakistan forces unilaterally vacate Pakistan controlled territory so India could move in and occupy all of it.

Agno,

for us indians ,UN resolution on kashmir is long dead and immaterial ...totally meaningless piece of paper gone to the dustbin of history after what we went through and what two countries promised to each other over course of last sixty years.

 

[Khajur]

addendum to the above;

G-B, Jammu and Laddakh stay with Pakistan and India respectively, while Azad Kashmir and IAK have a plebiscite, which can be district by district or as one region.

Agno,

loosing land to pakistan isnt an option at all.
No more partiton can be allowed to occur again as long as indian state is vaible.

To take on ur offer ,the final most gracious concessional solution we two countries can agree up to... is the joint control of Azad Kashmir and indian kashmir minus jammu and Laddhak by both countries with an article 370 like law in place for that both region concerned .

 

[Xeric]

First i am glad that we have someone who can talk about the hard issue and not troll.

Sir, I think we all need to understand some things clearly-

1 Status quo is the only solution possible now.

May be not.

Just because the situation suits india, we cant just say that the status quo is the 'only solution possible now'.

If that be the case then;
-any tom dick and harry in the indian govt can invade Nepal,

-subdue the population there,

-and when the locals kick back the invader's arse and india finds that she would lose further territory, she runs to the UN,

-and works out a cease fire,

-and also agrees to hold a plebiscite,

-but then linger on the issue for long enough,

-and then unilaterally announce that it consider Nepal as an 'integral part of india' and tell the world that the proposal came from the so call State of Nepal (which infact was a disputed territory) Government (or a puppet govt would be a better phrase to be used here) that formed a constituent assembly which debated and gave its reasoned conclusion regarding the accession of the Naplese State to the indian union, (as if the UN resolution meant nothing or should i say they committed a felony by negating a mutually agreed to proposal)

-and then without any logic blatantly and shamelessly announce that as india thinks/considers that now the UN resolution has lost its demeanor so it has decided to accede Nepal to itself! Bravo!! Oh please, spare me the BS!!

2 Any other solution is possible only in case of a total collapse either in India or Pakistan.

Not necessarily.

No one wants to annihilate anyone.

The issue is quite lucid, a free and fair plebiscite.

3 Trust me, even the most hardline of Kashmiris realise that and would be amenable with true autonomy.

Sorry, i dont trust you.

4 India can never agree to a plebicide now since the sit has changed on ground with demographic changes in your ppart of Kashmir.

Yeah right!

Jungle raj, right?

5 You have yourself changed the sit by changing the status of Northern Areas which were clearly apart of J & K.

That's what you think.

It's just another lame excuse to confuse the already complicated issue of Kashmir.

If you can call our NAs as 'disputed' (that's funny man) but we cant call an actually disputed area (which the world recognize as disputed) as disputed!

Azad Kashmir was liberated and is a self governing entity. NAs were never in question, until india brought it to thicken the mud!

6 Next 50 years will only see an incr in Indian military and eco muscle - so very difficult to force india then.

You first need to give your 80% night blind tanks some eyes, and also stop giving statements that tells us that your military is not battle worthy until 2027.

Once this realisation is there at ur end, i think saner minds can work. Pl do not treat this as a rant, this is the position of most thinking indians.

i appreciate if we have something on the table to discuss, but if the usual stubbornness and hypocrisy has to continue from the indian side, nothing can be achieved!

Insurgencies are no big deal for the indian state. It has and can carry on and tire the insurgents for the next 1000 yrs.
Cheers

Well that's what you think.

Try liberating Kashmir and all of your insurgencies would become a nightmare overnight

Seriously, i would require a legal size paper only to jot down the acronyms of these insurgencies, and you tell me that it's no bid deal for you people?!

And guess what, armies have never tired off insurgents, but the insurgents definitely have tired off the occupiers and what i like about this phenomenon is that the history concedes to this fact.

May be you need to read history again

 

[karan.1970]

You started listing the timeline of comments from GoI and I simply completed it.

i didnt exactly 'started listing the timeline' instead it was to show you people a mirror and those viewing it that facts that how can a govt blatantly go back its commitment and eat it own words and you werent exactly 'completing the timeline' instead you just ranted (a thing that you have mastered) as you just skipped the issue at hand and diverted your attention towards a futile exercise and the info that is known to all.

No Sir.. You certainly did list the timeline of all the comments from Pt Nehru and ended you post with the following statement.
" Faulty constitution or betraying your own leaders?! " (you can check your post) implying that India is not honoring Pt Nehru's committment. That was an inaccurate comment as Pt. Nehru himself withdrew those committments before his death and thats exactly what I illustrated.

i might have appreciated your stance had you argued over the stance change and given reasons over this indian denial.

I had certainly begun with that when I wrote that holding a plebiscite is no longer allowed by the constitution of India in response to which you pulled in the timeline of Pt Nehru's comments implying that India is no longer honoring Pt. Nehru's committment or that the constitution is defective which I refuted. plain and simple

Do you still need to learn how discussion is furthered at forums?

Learning is always a continuous process, but going thru your last few responses , I definitely dont need to learn furthering of a forum discussion from you sir..

 

[karan.1970]

India changed her constitution to incorporate J&K, and if the constitution is an issue it can amend it to conduct the plebiscite.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of what India communicated to the UN, the territory is disputed and recognized as such by the international community. You can bring about a million constitutional amendments in India proclaiming it an Indian State, that does not legitimize the Indian position.

Its not the question of buying or not buying into the poll numbers. India today doees not recognize the disputed status of J&K. The same has been amended into the costitution in 1952. Hence the plebiscite is no longer an option.

Fair point on constitutional ammendment but going by the sentiments in India, any political party that even mentions this will get lynched publically by the population.

Today throughout the world, the proponents of a plebstice in Kashmir are significantly lower in number than what there a were 60 years back . Given a choice, virtually whole of the world community will back conversion of LOC to IB.

As a matter of fact Dr. Frank Graham the UNCIP representative stated the following in 1958

“…the execution of the provisions of the resolution of 1948 might create more serious difficulties than were foreseen at the time the parties agreed to that. Whether the UN representative would be able to reconstitute the status quo which it had obtained ten years ago would seem to be doubtful"

Also Highlighting the fact that the UNCIP resolutions did not come under Chapter VII, and were therefore not self enforcing, the UN Secretary General stated at a press conference in Islamabad in March 2001, that “the two parties discussing these issues and finding a peaceful way out, is the route I recommend”.


And we can discuss this to no end, but the crux of the matter is that unless India is beaten militarily, there is no chance in hell that any GoI that wishes to survive, will entertain a discussion that results in changing of boundaries..

In my view, the only hope for a peaceful kashmir lies in maintaining the status quo wrt the territory with reduction in tensions, increase in cross border trade and treatment of Kashmir (both Indian and Pakistani sides) like normal states of India and Pakistan. All Green had put forward an approach a few posts back which I think holds the most promise..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agno,

loosing land to pakistan isnt an option at all.
No more partiton can be allowed to occur again as long as indian state is vaible.

To take on ur offer ,the final most gracious concessional solution we two countries can agree up to... is the joint control of Azad Kashmir and indian kashmir minus jammu and Laddhak by both countries with an article 370 like law in place for that both region concerned .

Joint control is an acceptable proposition. It would be a workable compromise.

 

[karan.1970]

^^^ True.. will allow political face save in both countries..If the modalities can be worked out, the whole Jammu, Kashmir(whole of it), Ladakh and the Northern Areas will become the most prosperous region in the subcontinent..

 

[Xeric]

I had certainly begun with that when I wrote that holding a plebiscite is no longer allowed by the constitution of India in response to which you pulled in the timeline of Pt Nehru's comments implying that India is no longer honoring Pt. Nehru's committment or that the constitution is defective which I refuted. plain and simple

Well you have started behaving now, guud for you.

Anywaz, the constitution that you talk of can be reverted with the same ease as it was enacted.

Dont tell me that your constitution is something that cant be altered, if you can defy the entire UN resolution at your will and can amend your constitution to suite yourself, the same thing can be done again.

Moreover, the solution that you and some other propose (of joint control thingy) is acceptable only if a plebiscite is held both in Azad Kashmir and indian occupied kashmir.

 

[RiazHaq]

Media reports indicate that India and Pakistan have had several rounds of meetings in Bangkok in the past three weeksrecently as part of the back-channel diplomacy on Kashmir. The dialogue was held between former Pakistan High Commissioner Aziz Ahmed Khan and former RAW chief A S Dullat.

Mirwaiz confirmed to the Indian Express in a recent interview that the four-point formula proposed by former Pakistani President Musharraf is being revived to try and settle the Kashmir issues. The Musharraf formula envisions soft or porous borders in Kashmir with freedom of movement for the Kashmiris; exceptional autonomy or "self-governance" within each region of Kashmir; phased demilitarization of all regions; and finally, a "joint supervisory mechanism," with representatives from India, Pakistan and all parts of Kashmir, to oversee the plan’s implementation.

“India is not ready for the joint-management part of the proposals which talk about joint control of foreign affairs, currency and communications in Kashmir,” Mirwaiz told the Indian Express. “There’s a broader agreement on the other aspects of this settlement model”.

Haq's Musings: China's Growing Role in Afghanistan, Kashmir