The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[Jade]

I think you are referring to the 2% hindus that live in Jammu and Kashmir, it can happen, it is a typo. This has been discussed before and I am a Kashmiri and 2%multiply by 40 may be correct figure.

Pakistan already captured 29% of it and we just need the rest. We will get there Inshallah. Your 2% lie is not going to work on this forum maybe works in Indian newspapers to misguide the Indian population.

The demographics of J&K(India): Muslims: 66 %;Hindus: 30%; Sikhs 2%; Buddhists 2%

 

[toxic_pus]

By these coordinates even the cities of Pakistani Gujrat, Kharian and Gujranwala are included in Kashmir, dont be ridiculous!

Some posters here had speculated if you can read maps. Unfortunately, this comment is turning their speculation into fact. It appears you are not aware of how a region is marked on a map by identifying the co-ordinates of its extreme points. Also, if you had taken the trouble of reading the Gazette, you would have come across the physical description of Kashmir's boundaries as well.

Also i was talking of the Mahraja invasion in 1819, much earlier than your time line. Indeed it was not the british authority to include or exclude just anything from a piece of land. It may hold guud till the time the brits were in power (or else by that definition even today Pakistan should be part of india). Most importantly Kashmir is the only place in the history of this world that has been invaded, 'gifted' and occupied not once but many times. Here's a little insight:

* Up to 1325: Ruled by 155 Rajas independent and sovereign 1325 to 1585: Muslim Sultans independent and sovereign (1420 to 1470) "Golden period of Kashmir history" Periods of Occupation and Struggle for Freedom
* 1586 to 1752: Mughal Rule
* 1752 to 1819: Tyrannical Afghan Rule
* 1819 to 1846: Colonized by Sikhs
* 16 March 1846: British sold Kashmir to Dogras
* 1846 to 1947: Dogra Rule
* 15 August 1947: Partition of British India Indo-Pak war to gain control over the territory of Kashmir
* 22 Oct.1947 : Tribal-backed Invasion of Kashmir
* 24 Oct. 1947: Pakistan controls one third of Kashmir - Provisional Govt. of Azad Kashmir proclaimed
* 27 Oct. 1947: Indian military invasion in Kashmir- two thirds of Kashmir occupied by India
* Indo-Pak War: Cease-fire achieved 1 Jan, 1949.

So why dont you go a bit further deep into history and tell us that Kashmir belongs to Afghans/Pathans who invaded in it 1752? Why choose a specific period of time, just because it suites? If we accede to your definition then half of the world today would belong to the brits and the remaining half (the areas in it) would claim each other as a part of theirs!

You have already answered your question. Refer to the line highlighted. The entire Kashmir was under Brit suzerainty since 1857. (If you don't know what suzerainty means, google.) When power was transferred to the Maharaja, circa 1947, it was transferred from the Brits and not from the Afghans or Pathans or Sikhs. So what held 'guud' to the Brits at the time of transfer of power became relevant, not what was 'guud' to the Afghans, Pathans or Sikhs during the stone age. Now since the Maharaja 'inherited' - for lack of better words - the entire Kashmir, hence on signing of Instrument of Accession, the entire Kashmir legally became India's property. Hence any reference to Kashmir includes the entire NA.

One more thing. Kashmir was never completely held by any one entity, other than the Dogras, post 1860. Also since Ladakh was a conquest, by your logic it shouldn't be part of Kashmir as well.

You got that right.

I know.

But the agreement is not 'null and void' just because it awaits a final solution of Kashmir, indeed as the area 'was a no-man's undemarcated border land' and as these 'contiguous areas the defence of which is under the actual control of Pakistan, in a spirit of fairness, reasonableness, mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, and on the basis of the ten principles as enunciated in the Bandung conference' and for the 'development of good neighbourly and friendly relations, but also to help safeguard Asian and world peace' the agreement is subject to the final resolution of Kashmir issue as the 'Asian and world peace' and the regional tranquility is intermingled so deeply to Kashmir issue that it cant be seen in isolation. Indeed, if this 'modern' war on terror cant be seen in isolation and its success is subject to the final resolution of the Kashmir issue', how can we relegate an area whose (not only the) proximity warrants a solution to the 6 decade old issue?!

I am going to hazard a guess that you have never been within a mile of a legal document, let alone prepare one. Anyway, the Pak-Chin agreement regarding Saksam Valley, is null and void because it is an ex parte agreement and not for all the gibberish you have typed.

Or may be by your understanding if Pakistan today says that IPI gas pipeline is subject to the final resolution of Kashmir issue (as Kashmir is the main bone of contention between the two countries) the province of Balochistan should also become part of Kashmir?!

Except for putting a question mark on the competence of the Pakistani legal team, it won't mean anything like you have suggested. Historically Balochistan was never a part of Kashmir, in the same way as Gilgit, Baltistan, Hunza and Ladakh provinces are. It will have the same validity if Mexico enters into a contract with USA subject to 'final solution to Kashmir'.

 

[toxic_pus]

Speaking frankly as per the UN demand, Pakistan has already pulled back its 'men and material' support (if any) from Kashmir since long, there are no tribals there now and no more are going in, so the only hindrance to the resolution of Kashmir issue is the presence of indian soldiers who commit crimes against humanity day and night and which is condemned the world over. Today, it is only india who has to fulfill its 'promise'.

So now you are going to invent facts?

As per UN resolutions, Pakistan is supposed to withdraw its entire military apparatus and the 'territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission'.

And what constitutes 'territory evacuated'? In a letter dated 25th August, 1948, addressed to Nehru, Joseph Korbel the Chairman of the Commission clarified that, 'evacuated territory refers to those territories in the State of Jammu and Kashmir which are at present under the effective control of the Pakistan High Command.' This, by the way is another confirmation of how NA is part of the territory pending 'final solution'.

 

[Xeric]

Some posters here had speculated if you can read maps. Unfortunately, this comment is turning their speculation into fact. It appears you are not aware of how a region is marked on a map by identifying the co-ordinates of its extreme points. Also, if you had taken the trouble of reading the Gazette, you would have come across the physical description of Kashmir's boundaries as well.

Lolz...why dont you do me a favor and mark all the 'extreme' points and let us know what exactly constitutes of Kashmir?

i am waiting, let's see who is better at map-reading a soldier or ranter.

You have already answered your question. Refer to the line highlighted. The entire Kashmir was under Brit suzerainty since 1857. (If you don't know what suzerainty means, google.) When power was transferred to the Maharaja, circa 1947, it was transferred from the Brits and not from the Afghans or Pathans or Sikhs. So what held 'guud' to the Brits at the time of transfer of power became relevant, not what was 'guud' to the Afghans, Pathans or Sikhs during the stone age. Now since the Maharaja 'inherited' - for lack of better words - the entire Kashmir, hence on signing of Instrument of Accession, the entire Kashmir legally became India's property. Hence any reference to Kashmir includes the entire NA.

You know what, you posts puts me in a delima - should i laugh or should i bang my head at your stupidity.

Just because the great maharaja was given the 'entire' Kashmir so we ALL should take that point as the reference and forget what went before that. Voila!

Why dont you tell us all from which point of time in the history should we start accepting our history?

Lolz..the brits gave maharja something and therefore one should only consider this point worthy enough to make future decisions as if nothing else in the history merits any significance less the brits.

And BTW, i used the Pathans/Afghans for just a random reference, nothing specific. The same example can hold GUUD Mugals and Rajas.

One more thing. Kashmir was never completely held by any one entity, other than the Dogras, post 1860. Also since Ladakh was a conquest, by your logic it shouldn't be part of Kashmir as well.

And it is therefore that your intellect tells us that anything past/before this era is insignificant and useful.

You are so blinded by false superiority and perceived notions, ever heard of that kowain ka mandaq? i doubt you had, or else by now you must have figured out a way to come out of that god forsaken hole!

I am going to hazard a guess that you have never been within a mile of a legal document, let alone prepare one. Anyway, the Pak-Chin agreement regarding Saksam Valley, is null and void because it is an ex parte agreement and not for all the gibberish you have typed.

i am soldier and not a LDA, so may be you can help me out on this one!

The decision was ex parte because the area was ours and ours alone, we consulted those who had a stake in the 'Saksam' valley and obviously not those who were merely irritants and nothing more!

Except for putting a question mark on the competence of the Pakistani legal team, it won't mean anything like you have suggested. Historically Balochistan was never a part of Kashmir, in the same way as Gilgit, Baltistan, Hunza and Ladakh provinces are. It will have the same validity if Mexico enters into a contract with USA subject to 'final solution to Kashmir'.

Well that's what you sounded like, dont blame me, question your intellect.

 

[Xeric]

So now you are going to invent facts?

As per UN resolutions, Pakistan is supposed to withdraw its entire military apparatus and the 'territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission'.

And what constitutes 'territory evacuated'? In a letter dated 25th August, 1948, addressed to Nehru, Joseph Korbel the Chairman of the Commission clarified that, 'evacuated territory refers to those territories in the State of Jammu and Kashmir which are at present under the effective control of the Pakistan High Command.' This, by the way is another confirmation of how NA is part of the territory pending 'final solution'.

As i have already observed that you are in the bad habit of cherry-picking sentences, dates and events to your on suitability, this time again you did the same thing. You just copy pasted what suited your agenda from the letter to justify your misplaced beliefs. Allow me to show you the entire picture:

[A clarification given in writing by the Commission on 3rd September 1948, that “the evacuated territory refers to those territories in the State of Jammu and Kashmir which are at present under the effective control of Pakistan High Command, it being understood that the population of these territories will have freedom to legitimate political activities.

In view of above , the authority to govern these territories is basically vested in the government of Pakistan. This governance has to be regulated and guaranteed through the constitution of Pakistan, in a manner that it satisfies the parameters set up by the international standards of human rights, accepted and recognized by the United Nations.

Being under the effective control of Pakistan high command, the territories fall under clause 2 (d) of Art. 1 of Constitution of Pakistan which states that the territories of Pakistan shall comprise;

(d) Such States and territories as are or may be included in Pakistan either by accession or otherwise”.

This clause is comprehendible by two independent connotations to be categorized as:

(i) such States and territories which are otherwise included in Pakistan; and

(ii) such States and territories which acceded to Pakistan.

The territories of the State of Jammu and Kashmir i.e. Gilgit, Baltistan and Azad Kashmir fall in the first category of clause (d) of Article 1(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as these are “otherwise included in Pakistan”. It derives its legitimacy from the the UNCIP resolutions and clarifications given by it in writing and orally, the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan. It has received the judicial assent as reported in PLJ 1999 AJK-1, PLD 2006 AJK-1; PLD 2006 Lah-465 and PLJ 1991 AJK-60.]


Moreover, if you didnt know The government of Pakistan is empowered to regulate these territories (the territories resulting) out of the war of liberation of the people of the State under UNCIP resolutions.

And guess what, (with reference to the highlighted part - which you deliberately missed, in this post) the Gilgit-Baltistan Self Governance Order 2009 is another step towards this realization, so as i have said earlier at number of places it is only india that is required to shut their forces in Kashmir as all other requirements has been met by Pakistan. To further clarify this and the "evacuation of territories by Pakistani troops," we need to understand the following:

the AJK Constitution of 1974 gives Islamabad significant legal authority in the affairs of AJK but only through the Kashmir Council. The AJK Constitution also restricts the AJK Assembly and the Kashmir Council from making any laws regarding the following areas, which fall under the purview of the Federal Government of Pakistan:

· The responsibilities of the Government of Pakistan under the UNCIP Resolutions;

· The defense and security of AJK;

· The issue of any bills, notes or other paper currency; and

· The external affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, including foreign trade and foreign aid.


We know now who have been 'inventing facts' around here!

 

[toxic_pus]

I don’t see any real refutation of points raised by me. Only a feeble attempt to sound intelligent. Anyway.

Lolz...why dont you do me a favor and mark all the 'extreme' points and let us know what exactly constitutes of Kashmir?

i am waiting, let's see who is better at map-reading a soldier or ranter.

Soldier boy, I did post a map from Imperial Gazetteer of India. May be you can do the hard work of reading it up before shooting your mouth.

You know what, you posts puts me in a delima - should i laugh or should i bang my head at your stupidity.

Just because the great maharaja was given the 'entire' Kashmir so we ALL should take that point as the reference and forget what went before that. Voila!

You can do both if that makes you feel superior but soldier boy, law is a bit more complicated than you would like to accept. When power was transferred it was transferred on as is basis. And it was on this basis Pakistan was carved out of India and not, for example, on the basis of Buddhist empire of pre Mughal era.

Why dont you tell us all from which point of time in the history should we start accepting our history?

Depends upon what history you wish to ‘accept’. For example, if its Pakistani history you are talking about then its 14th August, 1947.

And it is therefore that your intellect tells us that anything past/before this era is insignificant and useful.

As far as law is concerned, what matters is what is codified at the time of application of that law. True, this codification depends on past and present. But once codified, nothing else matters. Had it not been the case, all completed sale or transfer of properties, for example, could be challenged simply on the basis of past possession. Past possession does matter though, but only in case current ownership can’t be identified with reasonable certainty.

The decision was ex parte because the area was ours and ours alone, we consulted those who had a stake in the 'Saksam' valley and obviously not those who were merely irritants and nothing more!

And it continues to be ex parte, in spite of that empty bravado.

Well that's what you sounded like, dont blame me, question your intellect.

Since that’s what I sounded like in your mind, may be I should question your intellect instead.

 

[toxic_pus]

As i have already observed that you are in the bad habit of cherry-picking sentences, dates and events to your on suitability, this time again you did the same thing. You just copy pasted what suited your agenda from the letter to justify your misplaced beliefs. Allow me to show you the entire picture:

[A clarification given in writing by the Commission on 3rd September 1948, that “the evacuated territory refers to those territories in the State of Jammu and Kashmir which are at present under the effective control of Pakistan High Command, it being understood that the population of these territories will have freedom to legitimate political activities.

In view of above , the authority to govern these territories is basically vested in the government of Pakistan. This governance has to be regulated and guaranteed through the constitution of Pakistan, in a manner that it satisfies the parameters set up by the international standards of human rights, accepted and recognized by the United Nations.

Being under the effective control of Pakistan high command, the territories fall under clause 2 (d) of Art. 1 of Constitution of Pakistan which states that the territories of Pakistan shall comprise;

(d) Such States and territories as are or may be included in Pakistan either by accession or otherwise”.

This clause is comprehendible by two independent connotations to be categorized as:

(i) such States and territories which are otherwise included in Pakistan; and

(ii) such States and territories which acceded to Pakistan.

The territories of the State of Jammu and Kashmir i.e. Gilgit, Baltistan and Azad Kashmir fall in the first category of clause (d) of Article 1(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as these are “otherwise included in Pakistan”. It derives its legitimacy from the the UNCIP resolutions and clarifications given by it in writing and orally, the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan. It has received the judicial assent as reported in PLJ 1999 AJK-1, PLD 2006 AJK-1; PLD 2006 Lah-465 and PLJ 1991 AJK-60.]


Moreover, if you didnt know The government of Pakistan is empowered to regulate these territories (the territories resulting) out of the war of liberation of the people of the State under UNCIP resolutions.

And guess what, (with reference to the highlighted part - which you deliberately missed, in this post) the Gilgit-Baltistan Self Governance Order 2009 is another step towards this realization, so as i have said earlier at number of places it is only india that is required to shut their forces in Kashmir as all other requirements has been met by Pakistan. To further clarify this and the "evacuation of territories by Pakistani troops," we need to understand the following:

the AJK Constitution of 1974 gives Islamabad significant legal authority in the affairs of AJK but only through the Kashmir Council. The AJK Constitution also restricts the AJK Assembly and the Kashmir Council from making any laws regarding the following areas, which fall under the purview of the Federal Government of Pakistan:

· The responsibilities of the Government of Pakistan under the UNCIP Resolutions;

· The defense and security of AJK;

· The issue of any bills, notes or other paper currency; and

· The external affairs of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, including foreign trade and foreign aid.


We know now who have been 'inventing facts' around here!

Your claim, or part of it:

...as per the UN demand, Pakistan has already pulled back its 'men and material' support (if any) from Kashmir since long, there are no tribals there now and no more are going in...

If we forget for the time being that my response was precisely to prove that Pakistan hasn’t ‘already pulled back its men and material support’, you yourself have successfully managed to prove your own claim wrong. Read your post again. Now you are arguing that Pakistan is entitled to stay in GB and AJK, if not for anything at least for the ‘defense and security of AJK’. If what you say is true, then it stands to reason that Pakistan hasn’t ‘already pulled back its men and material support’, which as you have claimed was ‘as per the UN demand’.

Ergo you have proved your earlier claim to be wrong.

Also your source unambiguously acknowledges that ‘the territories of the State of Jammu and Kashmir’ includes Gilgit-Baltistan region a.k.a. NA, along with AJK. May be you should now give your NA-is-not-a-part-of-Kashmir canard a rest and save yourself some more embarrassment.

It is however another matter that, all that gibberish, that is passed off as a legal argument in prove that UNCIP legitimises Pakistan's role in Kashmir, is just bunkum. More of it in an appropriate thread.

One clarification though. I have quoted a letter dated 25th August, 1948, not any letter dated 3rd Sept, 1948. Maybe you should pay attention to what you are responding to before accusing someone of cherry picking.

 

[RollingStones]

Your claim, or part of it:

If we forget for the time being that my response was precisely to prove that Pakistan hasn’t ‘already pulled back its men and material support’, you yourself have successfully managed to prove your own claim wrong. Read your post again. Now you are arguing that Pakistan is entitled to stay in GB and AJK, if not for anything at least for the ‘defense and security of AJK’. If what you say is true, then it stands to reason that Pakistan hasn’t ‘already pulled back its men and material support’, which as you have claimed was ‘as per the UN demand’.

Ergo you have proved your earlier claim to be wrong.

Also your source unambiguously acknowledges that ‘the territories of the State of Jammu and Kashmir’ includes Gilgit-Baltistan region a.k.a. NA, along with AJK. May be you should now give your NA-is-not-a-part-of-Kashmir canard a rest and save yourself some more embarrassment.

It is however another matter that, all that gibberish, that is passed off as a legal argument in prove that UNCIP legitimises Pakistan's role in Kashmir, is just bunkum. More of it in an appropriate thread.

One clarification though. I have quoted a letter dated 25th August, 1948, not any letter dated 3rd Sept, 1948. Maybe you should pay attention to what you are responding to before accusing someone of cherry picking.

If I were Pakistan, I wouldnt rely on forcing India's hands by quoting UN resolutions. This would mean that countries like the US, Israel, Russia and others would be on notice to honor some of the UN resolutions passed against them that would embarrass them. Why do you think there arent many takers in the UN for Pakistan's proposal to hold India accountable to UN resolutions? It would set a precedent that 60 year old resolutions can be held to be active now and by extension 10 or 20 year old resolutions against countries such as Israel would become active again. No member country will support that. That is why UN resolutions are dead. If you dont act upon a UN resolution within 1 or 2 year of passing it, I can bet 100% that you wont find any support from UN member countries to force the implementation later.

 

[toxic_pus]

Why do you think there arent many takers in the UN for Pakistan's proposal to hold India accountable to UN resolutions?

Could it be because all these resolutions, both regarding Kashmir and Palestine, are Chapter VI resolutions which implies that these are merely recommendatory in legal sense and not enforceable like Chapter VII resolutions?

Regarding being a Pakistani, well, most of them are convinced that UN resolutions put India in a bad place. Unfortunately, today, if UN resolution is to be enforced en toto, then it is Pakistan which will have to make the biggest effort. Imagine dismantling the entire military set up spread all over the part of Kashmir that they currently hold, pack their bags and leave. On the other hand India just needs to reduce its force level.

 

[Old School]

To be practical , Kashmir will not dictate Pakistani foreign policy in the long term. It has rather become a liability for the greater interest of Pakistan as a whole. It is only a matter of time that the GoP will fully distance itself from the Kashmir issue. This is already happening. Kashmiris will have to sort out them selves what they want for the future such as devolution ( within the Indian Union) but the redrawing of the international border is out of question. Only a fool or naive will believe that Kashmir will redraw the international border once again. The sooner both Pakistan and India move forward leaving the Kashmir issue behind the better.

 

[Xeric]

^^ TP, you are just beating about the bush now as you have nothing much to say.

You'll not find bone where it doesnt exists.

i will rest my case on this; Pakistan has no stake whatsoever when it comes to the freedom fighter in (india occupied) Kashmir except that we do support their cause and also support them morally, as is the situation at present. Moreover, when it comes to defence of Pakistani areas, well NA and AK are to be held by REGULAR force of the Pakistan military as is the situation at present.

You may now jump like whoever and even hang upside down.

 

[Jade]

Here are my reasons why UN resolutions are not relevant

First, before any UN resolution to happen, all the parts of Kashmir under the control of India (43%), Pakistan (37%), and China (20%) have to be brought together. But the official positions of all the governments make it impossible to bring all the parts together: India's official position is that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Pakistan's official position is that Kashmir is a disputed territory and China's official position is that Aksai Chin is a part of Tibet; Moreover, Pakistan has unilaterally ceded a part of Kashmir to China ignoring the ‘disputed’ nature of territory and in the process making it more complicated

Second, the resolution was passed by UN Security Council under chapter VI of UN charter. Any resolution passed under chapter VI are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability.

Third, the execution of the UN resolution might create more serious difficulties than were foreseen at the time the parties agreed to. National identities are much stronger in both India and Pakistan than compared to National identities in 1947. Moreover, India and Pakistan have invested lot of blood and money in the last 60 years. The question of Kashmir has become the question of national identities and prestige.

Fourth, Kashmir is not a homogeneous region; it has Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh, Aksai Chin and PAK. The question is how UN resolution is going to take care of aspirations of each of the regions; moreover there is another question of the aspiration of Kashmiri Pundits.

Last, India is a secular country and hugely diverse. Accepting UN resolutions on Kashmir (Muslim-majority state) mean reject the very foundation of India that is secularity. Moreover this could be a Pandora Box (other demands for states on ethnicity, religion and caste could arise)

 

[Old School]

Moreover this could be a Pandora Box (other demands for states on ethnicity, religion and caste could arise)

Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu might follow suit demanding referendum on independence as far chain reaction goes , for instance. We also have such history and current issue around the Pakistani Republic. Entertaining any separatist movement is a very dangerous game which often haunts the entertainer as history shows. We need to focus on the stability of the whole region by keeping the territorial status quo.

 

[RollingStones]

Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu might follow suit demanding referendum on independence as far chain reaction goes , for instance. We also have such history and current issue around the Pakistani Republic. Entertaining any separatist movement is a very dangerous game which often haunts the entertainer as history shows. We need to focus on the stability of the whole region by keeping the territorial status quo.

South Asia is a mystery. India and Pakistan need to sit down and define if their future will be shaped by historical factors such as religion or future factors such as economy and control of resources. If Pakistan decides that economy is what is important, then Kashmir is irrelevant, and the focus should be on improving the administration in both countries to draw up treaties that strongly encourage economic platforms such as FTA, MFN etc. and a relatively free movement of goods and people across territories. A good indicator is India's FTA/Visa regime with Sri Lanka and Nepal. Pakistan needs to get an FTA done with India.

 

[Xeric]

If I were Pakistan, I wouldnt rely on forcing India's hands by quoting UN resolutions. This would mean that countries like the US, Israel, Russia and others would be on notice to honor some of the UN resolutions passed against them that would embarrass them. Why do you think there arent many takers in the UN for Pakistan's proposal to hold India accountable to UN resolutions? It would set a precedent that 60 year old resolutions can be held to be active now and by extension 10 or 20 year old resolutions against countries such as Israel would become active again. No member country will support that. That is why UN resolutions are dead. If you dont act upon a UN resolution within 1 or 2 year of passing it, I can bet 100% that you wont find any support from UN member countries to force the implementation later.

So you correct a wrong, by doing two more wrongs.

Seriously, i am not surprised, you are from the US.

Could it be because all these resolutions, both regarding Kashmir and Palestine, are Chapter VI resolutions which implies that these are merely recommendatory in legal sense and not enforceable like Chapter VII resolutions?

Regarding being a Pakistani, well, most of them are convinced that UN resolutions put India in a bad place. Unfortunately, today, if UN resolution is to be enforced en toto, then it is Pakistan which will have to make the biggest effort. Imagine dismantling the entire military set up spread all over the part of Kashmir that they currently hold, pack their bags and leave. On the other hand India just needs to reduce its force level.

You need to prove your yaps. Again you are just propagating your misplaced beliefs basing on which so run in circles.

Pakistani forces are and would remain present anywhere deemed necessary and this includes areas of GB (our fifth province) and AK whose defence is sanction by the UNCIP to which i have provided ample proof. Which you term 'gibberish' probably because you dont have anything to counter it and also that your toxicity has rendered your eyesight weak.

Your problem was the freedom fighters being supported by Pakistan, well you need to bring up something to support your claim or else it goes down that toxic drain or yours. Contemporary proofs with solid kills would be appreciated, please.