The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[Valiant_Soul]

We can do plenty, and that is the only reason why your Generals don't have their evening tea at the Lahore gym-khana. I think that's all I need to say about your superiority complex. As for civilian deaths, you'd do well to research the number of civilians killed by militants over the last year versus those killed by your soldiers, or for that matter, read up on the casualties since 1990 and you'll come crashing off your high horse.

I am not interested in any research on casualties because I know that cannot be documented properly by anyone. The thing that is most significant is the intention to have a united and prosperous India. And we do not need to learn from you what the intentions of our chosen governments are, unlike the intentions of the actual source of power in Pakistan.

"Once they get to it" is laughable, because once they get to it, we'll get to them. They've been "getting to it" since 1947, but all the poor blokes have managed to do is sit around talking about how they will do it. "Dus qadam aur Pakistan khatam" is quite a wet-dream for many. "We'll take back East Bengal, then we'll take back West Punjab" is what Ms. Gandhi claimed after the humiliation at the hands of the Chinese, and we know how well that's been going. But I don't want to get into a boasting match, I have sufficient knowledge of the capabilities of both our Armed Forces to sleep peacefully right beside the Wagah Border. Any keen student of the Armed Forces on either side will let you know that if they are sitting around talking about "the time it will take for them to complete their task", they are wasting your hard earned money. What your soldiers should be doing is working to overturn their image as the laughing-stock of professional Armed Forces.

Again you are mistaking intentions with capabilities. It has never been the intention of India to destroy Pakistan, but as far as defending our boundaries is concerned you know how hardly you have been hit on that front.

You claim that land as if it belongs to you. It's a shame that you have absolutely no respect for the indigenous population nor their hardships at the hands of your armed forces, all you see is your ego.

Of course it legally belongs to us. You must be aware of the Instrument of Accession. That is legality as far as land is concerned.

It is an occupation by its very definition, and no occupation lasts forever. It is unsustainable.

Likewise we can say the same things about Balochistan etc, why do you make yourself a party to this dispute when you do not have the guts to yell for freedom Chinese occupied Kashmir? Hypocrisy!

If you can't be bothered to research even the most basic facts about the current affairs regarding Kashmir, then I feel extremely disappointed at the fact that I've spent many minutes debating with you. It's like you don't even want to learn about Kashmir's issues, you'd just rather spew the same garbage that you've been force fed by your governments for over six decades.

The protests started after a 14-year-old boy died after he was struck in the head by a police tear gas shell as an anti-Indian protest ended last Sunday. The police officer who fired the shell was suspended and police called it "a callous and irresponsible action."

Then on Friday, witnesses said paramilitary soldiers charged at a group of people gathered on a playground and began firing as they fled, killing a 17 year old. Hemant Lohia, a top police officer, confirmed that the boy died from a bullet wound but said details about his death were still under investigation.
Source: washingtonpost.com

From what you have quoted from the article, that should tell you why I asked from the source from your side. Does the article classifies it state-sponsored terrorism or mistake committed by an officer? Read the bold part as well. In the heat of things, these kind of mishaps occur everywhere in India and Kashmir is not exclusive, and you so callous to describe it oppression?

Now that you've made it perfectly clear that you are not interested in conducting even basic research on the subject, I don't see much point in continuing our discussion. You can live in your self-made paradise, while I whole-heartedly support the people being put through your hell.

I so agree that it is no point in discussing this. Let us look to the future because in the next 5-10 years it will be quite apparent to you what blunder you have done and you are doing by poking your nose in issues that should not be of your bother at all. But since you choose to classify people on the basis of religion, I think that is the fate you deserve.

India has no right to willfully alter the demographics of the region because it has no right over the region at all, it is a disputed territory with a majority population that wants nothing to do with India. Also, EjazR didn't answer "why" the government did what it did (because he knows very well why they did it) but spent his time explaining "how". I'm not interested in "how", I'm interested in their objectives. I am glad that the people of Kashmir brought the tyrants to their knees with the uprising, but I'm sad that it cost them at least four innocent lives while doing so (not including the two women found dead weeks before).

He did mentioned both how and why.

 

[toxic_pus]

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.

The fact remains that Pak trained and armed the insurgents. That was being referred here.

 

[karan.1970]

It is an occupation by its very definition, and no occupation lasts forever. It is unsustainable.

Not true.. If I go by your definition the Mughal rule in India was occupation and lasted more than the rule of any other empire in India including British. I think your definition of occupation is biased and is a good example of force fitting a term to a situation. Occupation is always of a foreign force and Indian forces are not foreign. Even if I agree to all your arguements about promises made by Nehru, UN resolution etc, its still a dispute and not a conquest by Indian forces. As a matter of fact, the only legal document (accession agreement) in this tamasha (understand that the UN resolution is not a legal document) actually shows Pakistan as an Illegal squatter in the Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

India has no right to willfully alter the demographics of the region because it has no right over the region at all, it is a disputed territory with a majority population that wants nothing to do with India.

Rubbish . The govt in INdia has all the rights to do what they want to do in Kashmir within the constitution of India which in this case accords greater rights to the State govt in terms of land allocation etc.

Also, EjazR didn't answer "why" the government did what it did (because he knows very well why they did it) but spent his time explaining "how". I'm not interested in "how", I'm interested in their objectives. I am glad that the people of Kashmir brought the tyrants to their knees with the uprising, but I'm sad that it cost them at least four innocent lives while doing so (not including the two women found dead weeks before).

Extremely ill researched comment. The Why is as follows..

The land in question was 0.40 km2 of forest land to the Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB) to set up temporary shelters and facilities for the Hindu pilgrims on their way to Amarnath temple..

After protests (first in Kashmir then counter protests in Jammu) the land is now given as a lease and not transfer to fulfill the same purpose of creating temporary shelters during the period of pilgrimage.

Please make up your minds, you guys are so damn confused. In any case, there are three parties involved in this issue, and all three will have to compromise. If, for some reason, India does not want Kashmir to join as a party,then Pakistan should (and does) represent the will of the majority of Kashmiris. It's really very simple. Stop indulging in petty arguments and lets get to solving the issue.

Rubbish again

Ghalat fehmi.

The largest Tamil and Sikh communities outside of South Asia are found in Canada. Separatist Tamils here claim Northern Sri Lanka and the Southern portion of the state of Tamil Nadu as sovereign territory, hence Tamil Eelam definitely applied to India as well (though it isn't a major concern).

During the massacre of Sikhs involved in the Khalistan movement, there was mass refugee-immigration from India to Canada, and hence many seriously anti-Indian sentiments can be found amongst a small portion of Sikhs in Canada (particularly in British Columbia). Human Rights Watch and other Sikh organizations certainly wants India to probe the massacre, but the Indian government is reluctant to do so (understandably).

Telangana is definitely a struggle for a separate state, but to say that there is no nationalist movement is foolish. This situation, however, is still very much manageable (though Mr. Chidambaram has done everything in his power to screw it up).

Lastly, Assam is very much alive, despite the crackdown and the Bangladeshi government selling out. The biggest concern for you is the fact that the leader of ULFA has asked for a plebiscite to be conducted in Assam, which is a clear Red Flag for any observer about public opinion in the region. If I were you, I'd try to get control of that situation using diplomacy and tactics, not a heavy hand. It has every potential to turn into another Kashmir (though I don't expect the Bangladeshis to ever support that movement as Pakistanis support Kashmir).

If you are clutching at straws to prove a point, go look up Balawaristan, Waziristan, Sindhu desh movements apart from Balochistan. The examples given by you are as dead as the one I mentioned, but then it looks you do want to go there...

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

. Even if I agree to all your arguements about promises made by Nehru, UN resolution etc, its still a dispute and not a conquest by Indian forces. As a matter of fact, the only legal document (accession agreement) in this tamasha (understand that the UN resolution is not a legal document) actually shows Pakistan as an Illegal squatter in the Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

And if shows india as an oppressed country where kashmiris have taken half a million indian army hostage?

Rubbish . The govt in INdia has all the rights to do what they want to do in Kashmir within the constitution of India which in this case accords greater rights to the State govt in terms of land allocation etc.

GOI can kill people 90000 dead several thousand rapes,hell u failed in Kashmir even after 52 years.Kashmiris still call themselves KASHMIRI not india?

The land in question was 0.40 km2 of forest land to the Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board (SASB) to set up temporary shelters and facilities for the Hindu pilgrims on their way to Amarnath temple..

It was the hindu head of indian occupied kashmir that told them to move.

If you are clutching at straws to prove a point, go look up Balawaristan, Waziristan, Sindhu desh movements apart from Balochistan. The examples given by you are as dead as the one I mentioned, but then it looks you do want to go there..

Where is balwaristan?waziristan do they want seperation?
Sindhu desh movement died decades ago with u tried to play the sindh card failed like heck.
Im from balouchistan and let me tel u something an ordinary balouchi youths want nothin except jobs and the truth is that due to tribal factor most of them are illiterate and unskilled.
And the terrorist group bla is nothing but a dead horse given a life injection by india and revived in 2000s and most of them are gun for hires blowing small gass pipe?and nothin else.
Also WHOLE WORLD CALLS THEM TERRORISTS even indian govt. that calls them terrorists will arms and trains them from afghanistan.
I feel funny that a country with 17 insurgencies wanting FREEDOM is talking about other countries.
Heck chandimbiram said in a press conference that Khalistani terrorists from sikh community are raising there heads once again in rajhistan and punjab.Should worry about one more insurgency.THANKS

 

[karan.1970]

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.

I respect the sentiment. The problem doesnt change. See the difficulty is not in drawing a line on the map. Its the stance and stakes for the 2 parties involved i.e. Pakistan and India. Yes, I am not forgetting Kashmiris, but believe it or not they are just pawns in this great game between India and Pakistan. 99% of them wont care either way as long as life is peaceful.. But coming back to my original points.. India will never climb down from its stand of not loosing territory and Pakistan will stick to its stand of rights of Kashmiris which is basically a guise for annexing territory. I personally believe that we are destined to live with this for all foreseeable future. The intensity will go up or down depending on the political and economical ground realities in Pakistan (as we can see for last couple of year).

From an Indian point of view, the best thing would be to remove article 370 from Kashmir and let the natural flow of industrialization and growth take care of the situation. Tata's and Ambanis will take care of their facilities them selves and Kashmir will get the commercial growth it deserves.

 

[karan.1970]

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.

What is Pakistan giving up from what is in its control according to your solution?

 

[karan.1970]

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 true.. have you read this article

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/44215-monkey-trap.html

 

[karan.1970]

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.

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).

Guess how did Pakistan's problems with Talibs begin. It started when you began growing Terrorist legions for battles in Kashmir and Afg without sending your regular Army forgetting that a double edged sword cuts both ways..

Any way, I believe a picture speaks a million words, so here goes


Look at the slope from 1990 onwards (when Pakistan really started cranking up the proxy war strategy)

If this is a premature pride, I guess I am fine with it.

Kashmiris werent bleeding at all before you guys stepped in in late 1980s after getting kicked out of Punjab adventure. So yes, it is because of Pakistan. Incidently if I count right, there has been less incidents and more growth in J&K in last 2 years than Pakistan... So yes, Pakistan is bleeding and majorly as a result of your own policies

 

[karan.1970]

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.

Sir.. The violence in J&K is not because of Kashmiris' dislike for India, but because of Pakistanis' dislike for India. And no Indian thinks that a chance to get Pakistan to like us is worth giving up a part of our country for..

 

[karan.1970]

And if shows india as an oppressed country where kashmiris have taken half a million indian army hostage?

You mean India as an oppressing country.. right?? OK...

GOI can kill people 90000 dead several thousand rapes,hell u failed in Kashmir even after 52 years.Kashmiris still call themselves KASHMIRI not india?

Ok. Its still a part of India

It was the hindu head of indian occupied kashmir that told them to move.

My friend, Internet is a vast source of information. Enrich your knowledge a bit by reading history instead of posting rubbish

Where is balwaristan?waziristan do they want seperation?
Sindhu desh movement died decades ago with u tried to play the sindh card failed like heck.
Im from balouchistan and let me tel u something an ordinary balouchi youths want nothin except jobs and the truth is that due to tribal factor most of them are illiterate and unskilled.
And the terrorist group bla is nothing but a dead horse given a life injection by india and revived in 2000s and most of them are gun for hires blowing small gass pipe?and nothin else.
Also WHOLE WORLD CALLS THEM TERRORISTS even indian govt. that calls them terrorists will arms and trains them from afghanistan.

Read carefully.. I said that the points raised by PAFACE are as irrelevent as the examples of balwaristan, waziristan and Sindhu desh.

I feel funny

Try Haajmola..

============================
Didn't realize.. Just made Lt Col..

 

[brahmastra]

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.

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.

still you didn't answer the second part.
here is the question.

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'.

 

[All-Green]

Sir.. The violence in J&K is not because of Kashmiris' dislike for India, but because of Pakistanis' dislike for India. And no Indian thinks that a chance to get Pakistan to like us is worth giving up a part of our country for..

Karan, no doubt Kashmir is something over which Pakistan and India have become enemies more than anything else.
I am not ignoring the fact that 90% of all our issues are tied to Kashmir.

Let me assure you that humans are sentimental beings, sometimes it is not enough that you have economic growth etc.
If economics are the only motivation then our forefathers would not have gained support when they rallied together to become independent of the British Empire.
Same is the case with many of the Kashmiris who just do not want to be a part of India and over time many have become frustrated over the state of affairs.
It does not mean that India is evil and Pakistan is good, just as it does not hold the other way around as well.

The fact that Pakistan is also a stakeholder means that Kashmir is something to which all three are tied and will all be frustrated one way or another...till we think out of the box which seems the only option.

However, if small adjustments are made and entire Kashmir is declared as a zone in which Kashmiris can roam easily...i think the enmity will subside...

The reason why i say it is simple...all of you no matter how much you hate each other's country just picture that Kashmir was no longer an issue...do you see any other major reason why we need to be hostile all the time?
Will it not bring about a huge change for the positive?
If you see all of this then it makes sense to resolve it and not let our past enmity, hate and mistrust stand in the way.

I think all parties have learnt their lessons by now, it has been 6 decades and this issue has held ransom the prosperity and fate of billions in the region...clearly it has significance, enough to resolve it.

 

[Xeric]

Which Instrument of Accession? This one:

Pakistan Times | Op-Ed: Kashmir-historic facts can't be Altered

......This fraudulent document has been the subject of controversy for the past 50 years because its validity was in doubt right from its execution. That is why the then British governor general Lord Mountbatten, is on record having accepted the accession with the provision that the final disposition of the state would be decided by a reference to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

It was due to this controversy that the Indian government had kept the so-called accession document as a closely-guarded secret. The New Delhi press reports quoted an English weekly of Jammu, The Sahayogi Times as saying that '.the missing of the historic treaty is reported to have come to light when it was required for compiling the case to rebut the 'charge' of Pakistan and the doubts raised in the United States of America and some Arab and Western countries about the validity of the so-called Instrument of Accession....


Dr Alistair Lamb explains why the Instrument of Accession is nothing more than an Indian lie

Excerpts from 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU AND KASHMIR ––A REAPPRAISAL'

by Alistair Lamb

THE INDIAN CLAIM TO JAMMU AND KASHMIR - A REAPPRAISAL:

The formal overt Indian intervention in the internal affairs of the State of Jammu and Kashmir began on about 9.00 a.m. on 27 October 1947, when Indian troops started landing at Srinagar airfield. India has officially dated the commencement of its claim that the State was part of Indian sovereign territory to a few hours earlier, at some point in the afternoon or evening of 26 October. From their arrival on 27 October 1947 to the present day, Indian troops have continued to occupy a large proportion of the State of Jammu and Kashmir despite the increasingly manifest opposition of a majority of the population to their presence. To critics of India’s position and actions in the State of Jammu and Kashmir the Government of New Delhi has consistently declared that the State of Jammu and Kashmir lies entirely within the sphere of internal Indian policy. Do the facts support the Indian contention in this respect?

The State of Jammu and Kashmir was a Princely State within the British Indian Empire. By the rules of the British transfer of power in Indian subcontinent in 1947 the Ruler of the State, Maharajah Sir Hari Singh, with the departure of the British and the lapsing of Paramountcy (as the relationship between State and British Crown was termed), could opt to join either India or Pakistan or, by doing nothing, become from 15 August 1947 the Ruler of an independent polity. The choice was the Ruler’s and his alone: there was no provision for popular consultation in the Indian Princely States during the final days of the British Raj. On 15th August 1947, by default, the State of Jammu and Kashmir became independent.

India maintains that this period of independence, the existence of which it has never challenged effectively, came to an end on 26/27 October as the result of two pairs of closely related transactions, which we must now examine. They are:

(a) an Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India which the Maharajah is alleged to have signed on 26 October 1947, and;

(b) the acceptance of this Instrument by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten, on 27 October 1947; plus

(c) a letter from the Maharajah to Lord Mountbatten, dated 26 October 1947, in which Indian military aid is sought in return for accession to India (on terms stated in an allegedly enclosed Instrument) and the appointment of Sheikh Abdullah to head an Interim Government of the State; and

(d) a letter from Lord Mountbatten to the Maharajah, dated 27 October 1947, acknowledging the above and noting that, once the affairs of the State have been settled and law and order is restored, “the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.”

In both pairs of documents it will be noted that the date of the communication from the Maharajah, be it the alleged Instrument of Accession or the letter to Lord Mountbatten, is given as 26 October 1947, that is to say before the Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947. It has been said that Lord Mountbatten insisted on the Maharajah’s signature as a precondition for his approval of Indian intervention in the affairs of what would otherwise be an independent State.

The date, 26 October 1947, has hitherto been accepted as true by virtually all observers, be they sympathetic or hostile to the Indian case. It is to be found in an official communication by Lord Mountbatten, as Governor General of Pakistan, on 1 November 1947; and it is repeated in the White paper on Jammu and Kashmir which the Government of India laid before the Indian Parliament in March 1948. Pakistani diplomats have never challenged it. Recent research, however, has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the date is false. This fact emerges from the archives, and it is also quite clear from such sources as the memoirs of the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir at the time, Mehr Chand Mahajan, and the recently published correspondence of Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister. Circumstantial accounts of the events of 26 October 1947, notably that of V.P Menon (in his The Integration of the Indian States, London 1965), who said he was actually present when the Maharajah signed, are simply not true.

It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. His Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the traveling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October, and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day.

The key point, of course, a has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. It was, one presumes, to escape just such a charge that the false date 26 October 1947 was assigned to these two documents. The deliberately distorted account of that very senior Indian official, V.P. Menon, to which reference has already been made, was no doubt executed for the same end. Falsification of such a fundamental element as date of signature, however, once established, can only cast grave doubt over the validity of the document as a whole .

An examination of the transactions behind these four documents in the light of the new evidence produces a number of other serious doubts. It is clear, for example, that in the case of (c) and (d), the exchange of letters between the Maharajah and Lord Mountbatten, Lord Mountbatten’s reply must antedate the letter to which it is an answer unless, as seems more than probable, both were drafted by the Government of India before being taken up to Jammu on 27 October 1947 (by V.P. Menon and Jammu and Kashmir Prime Minister M.C. Mahajan, whose movements, incidentally, are correctly reported in the London Times of 28 October 1947) after the arrival of the Indian troops at Srinagar airfield. The case is very strong, therefore, that document (c), the Maharajah’s letter to Lord Mountbatten, was dictated to the Maharajah.

Documents (c) and (d) were published by the Government of India on 28 October 1947. The far more important document (a), the alleged Instrument of Accession, was not published until many years later, if at all. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned from of Accession such as, it is imposed, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah ever did sign an Instrument of Accession. There are, indeed, grounds for suspecting that he did no such thing. The Instrument of Accession referred to in document (c); a letter which as we have seen was probably drafted by Indian officials prior to being shown to the Maharajah, may never have existed, and can hardly have existed when the letter was being prepared.

Even if there had been an Instrument of Accession, then if it followed the form indicated in the unsigned example of such an Instrument published in the Indian 1948 White Paper it would have been extremely restrictive in the rights conferred upon the Government of India. All that were in fact transferred from the State to the Government of India by such an Instrument were the powers over Defence, Foreign Relations and certain aspects of Communications. Virtually all else was left with the State Government. Thanks to Article 370 of the Indian Constitution of January 1950 (which, unlike much else relating to the former Princely States, has survived to some significant degree in current Indian constitution theory, if not in practice), the State of Jammu and Kashmir was accorded a degree of autonomy which does not sit at all comfortably with the current authoritarian Indian administration of those parts of the State which it holds.

Not only would such an Instrument have been restrictive, but also by virtue of the provisions, of (d), Lord Mountbatten’s letter to the Maharajah dated 27 October 1947, it would have been conditional. Lord Mountbatten, as Governor-General of India, made it clear that the State of Jammu and Kashmir would only be incorporated permanently within the Indian fold after approval as a result of some form of reference to the people, a procedure which soon (with United Nations participation) became defined as a fair and free plebiscite . India has never permitted such a reference to the people to be made.

Why would the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir not have signed an Instrument of Accession? The answer lies in the complex course of events of August, September and October 1947 emerged. The Maharajah, confronted with growing internal disorder (including a full scale rebellion in the Poonch region of the State), sought Indian military help without, it at all possible, surrendering his own independence. The Government of India delayed assisting him in the hope that in despair he would accede to India before any Indian actions had to be taken. In the event, India had to move first. Having secured what he wanted, Indian military assistance, the Maharajah would naturally have wished to avoid paying the price of the surrender of his independence by signing any instrument which he could possibly avoid signing. From the Afternoon of 27 October 1947 onwards a smoke screen conceals both the details and the immediate outcome of this struggle of wills between the Government of India and the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. To judge from the 1948 White Paper an Instrument of accession may not have been signed by March 1948, by which time the Indian case for sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir was already being argued before the United Nations.

The patently false dates of documents (a) and (c) alter fundamentally the nature of the overt Indian intervention in Jammu and Kashmir on 27 October 1947. India was not defending its own but intervening in a foreign State. There can be no reasonable doubt that had Pakistan been aware of this falsification of the record it would have argued very differently in international for from the outset of the dispute; and had the United Nations understood the true chronology it would have listened with for less sympathy to arguments presented to it by successive Indian representatives. Given the facts as they are now known, it may well be that an impartial international tribunal would decided that India had no right at all to be in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

[All-Green]

The fact remains that Pak trained and armed the insurgents. That was being referred here.

It is not a fact and certainly was not raised as an issue with any solid evidence, it was seen as a possibility because it was a great opportunity for Pakistan to give India a Bangladesh of its own.

Even Gen Kuldip Singh (officer in charge of operation bluestar)as i recall in his interviews also hinted at a possibility (not proven fact) of Pakistani help and highlighted a fear of Pakistan stepping in and recognizing Khalistan just as India did in Bangladesh ( i vividly recall him mentioning Bangladesh and equating the two in case Pakistan Army stepped in, which it did not).
Now the possibility (which was not availed by Pakistan) has become a fact 2 decades down the line?

Sikhs have been one of the most fierce warriors of subcontinent...they needed training from Pakistan to fight?
All that funding of Sikh community all over the world towards the cause should not be ignored.
It was a pretty popular cause on its own, why taint it with Pakistani influence and support?

Anyways, it is now buried in the past but stop painting it in any other tone than what it was primarily...a rebellion of the Sikhs in Indian Punjab with many members of Sikh community all over the world funding and helping their people, now that is a fact which cannot be denied.

Once again it is not that Pakistan and India are evil, however there have been many things in their history which are not desirable and nobody wants to own up to them despite making mistakes

Let us get back to topic at hand now, otherwise mods will have to ban me.

 

[karan.1970]

Which Instrument of Accession? This one:

Pakistan Times | Op-Ed: Kashmir-historic facts can't be Altered

......This fraudulent document has been the subject of controversy for the past 50 years because its validity was in doubt right from its execution. That is why the then British governor general Lord Mountbatten, is on record having accepted the accession with the provision that the final disposition of the state would be decided by a reference to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Dr Alistair Lamb explains why the Instrument of Accession is nothing more than an Indian lie

Excerpts from 'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU AND KASHMIR ––A REAPPRAISAL'

by Alistair Lamb

THE INDIAN CLAIM TO JAMMU AND KASHMIR - A REAPPRAISAL:

The formal overt Indian intervention in the internal affairs of the State of Jammu and Kashmir began on about 9.00 a.m. on 27 October 1947, when Indian troops started landing at Srinagar airfield. India ----

.

An article from a Pakistani Newspaper and a conspiracy theory of an acknowledged India baiter.. hmm.. ..