Truth About Indian-Occupied Kashmir: What do the Kashmiris Want?

[Emmie]

how u claim the resources when u do not hold them.. and by the way when did we steal ur water?? india has never violated indus water treaty at any time in the history be it 65, 71, kargil or at the time of mumbai...

i simply tried to tell u the strategic importance of kashmir for india

Please do not tamper my reply, where did I say India steals our water? Its a different issue... Kashmir is also strategically important for Pakistan.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

the people of Kashmir valley (muslims) want indipendence , neither india nor pakistan .
The minorities of the valley though want to stay with india ( hindus, sikhs , buddhists)

The people of jammu and ladakh hindus , buddhists , sikhs and muslims almost all want to remain with india .

The poeple of the kashmir valley want to establish an indipendent islamic state which the minorities will never agree to and a country as small the valley will not be able to sustain itself since Jammu and Ladakh are happy with India .

So the best thing is Pakistanis should stay out , Kashmris dont want to be a part of Pak anymore and the Jammuites and Ladakhis never did .
The issue is now between Kashmiri muslims and India. Let us handle it. What is the point of Pakistan in this problem now ?

 

[American Pakistani]

Thats a very sticky example you chose ...because all these states peoples wanted to join India. Pakistan invaded Kashmir , going by history.

Ok so people of Kashmir also want to be either part of Pakistan or get freedom.

 

[desioptimist]

Even we thought nothing would happen to Pakistan if we continue to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan back in 70s..
Anyways I wish you all the very best for a prosperous India.

Thanks emmie.
I just want to point out that all state govt in India rule themselves. Govt of India does not hold any power that deals with its own citizen.
If GoI was so powerful, Narendra Modi wont be ruling Gujrat.

So in a sense, kashmiris already have self rule. But due to militancy and army presence, the state govt power got diluted.
Now that militancy is down, state govt should take back its power and try to rule its people properly.
The independence will just be symbolic, nothing different from the powers they have now.

 

[relativiti]

the brown-bordered part is the one that creates all the trouble. the rest part has no problem in staying with india, infact they consider themselves as an integral part of india. but the valley with large population is talking something about power and its representation etc etc. possible solutions:
1. carve a new state out of J&K and create it a union territory or a special administrative region.

 

[crankthatskunk]

I think the Shia's, Ahmadi's, Christians of Pakistan, and Salman Taseer's family would like to challenge that statement and throw their hat into the ring.

Look, let's not move away from the point of the thread, but look how weak your argument stacks up when you say such things as a Pakistani. Are you oblivious to the crimes being committed against minorities? Yes India isn't perfect, but my God we're far from perfect.

Another relevant point to this is this: Who are the Kashmiri's? Sufi muslims in the main I'd say. So please go ahead an let them know that ziarats, and other Sufi places of worship are being blown up left right and centre by 'tolerant' Pakistani's in Pakistan.

I'm sure they'd be lining up to do all they can to secede to Pakistan. A little perspective and humility wouldn't go amiss in this debate.

The word "ahmadis" gives a lot away. Apart from that one dread word, If you want to discuss that, I have my forum dedicated to it, let's talk about others. Against Christians the violence in Pakistan is very limited. Occasional incidents yes, but not on the level and intensity of India. Plus in Pakistan people condemn it.
Shia, Suni problem is not of Pakistanis making, lots of money and help comes from Iran and Saudia for their own truf war. I off course oppose it, like many people.

But in India it is a very systematic persecution of all the minorities, most of the Indian political parties have their armed gangs working against the minorities.

You forgot one big problem, Indian say we are secular when they are not. Thats what I am writing to prove.

On the other hand Pakistanis say, Pakistan means "La ilaha Illallah." Pakistan was made on the name of the religion Islam. They don't try to use the garb of secularism. But still tolerance level is far higher, and targeted violence is far far less, compare to India.

By the way why are you using Pakistani flags? Any particular reason?

 

[crankthatskunk]

Absolutely, it was a win-win situation. Sadly the Chief Justice bakwaas kicked in and Musharraf was left weak and isolated.

But let's remember the wider point: Musharraf was able to push this through as a military man, with the Corps Commanders on board - including one certain Gen Kayani. So if the military can demonstrate they can agree on such a solution once, then I'm sure they can do it again.

That augurs well for any future settlement.

Now you wouldn't find anyone supporting it, including Kiyani. Musharaf is not only history, but he is a declared absconder. I surely want to see the Traitor charge for treason. I am right to ask you, why are you using Pakistani flags, any particular reasons?

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

The word "ahmadis" gives a lot away. Apart from that one dread word, If you want to discuss that, I have my forum dedicated to it, let's talk about others. Against Christians the violence in Pakistan is very limited. Occasional incidents yes, but not on the level and intensity of India. Plus in Pakistan people condemn it.
Shia, Suni problem is not of Pakistanis making, lots of money and help comes from Iran and Saudia for their own truf war. I off course oppose it, like many people.

But in India it is a very systematic persecution of all the minorities, most of the Indian political parties have their armed gangs working against the minorities.

You forgot one big problem, Indian say we are secular when they are not. Thats what I am writing to prove.

On the other hand Pakistanis say, Pakistan means "La ilaha Illallah." Pakistan was made on the name of the religion Islam. They don't try to use the garb of secularism. But still tolerance level is far higher, and targeted violence is far far less, compare to India.

By the way why are you using Pakistani flags? Any particular reason?

YEAAAAAAAAAAHHHH RIGHT !!!

 

[desioptimist]

The word "ahmadis" gives a lot away. Apart from that one dread word, If you want to discuss that, I have my forum dedicated to it, let's talk about others. Against Christians the violence in Pakistan is very limited. Occasional incidents yes, but not on the level and intensity of India. Plus in Pakistan people condemn it.
Shia, Suni problem is not of Pakistanis making, lots of money and help comes from Iran and Saudia for their own truf war. I off course oppose it, like many people.

But in India it is a very systematic persecution of all the minorities, most of the Indian political parties have their armed gangs working against the minorities.

You forgot one big problem, Indian say we are secular when they are not. Thats what I am writing to prove.

On the other hand Pakistanis say, Pakistan means "La ilaha Illallah." Pakistan was made on the name of the religion Islam. They don't try to use the garb of secularism. But still tolerance level is far higher, and targeted violence is far far less, compare to India.

By the way why are you using Pakistani flags? Any particular reason?

I dont want to compare the situation, but in India, the communalism has grown recently due to various reasons.
There is constant tussle between secular and communal forces, and I dont think communal forces stand a chance.

We tried to be secular, and failed, you did not even try.
If that is good reason to badmouth us, you may. I wont blame you.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

I dont want to compare the situation, but in India, the communalism has grown recently due to various reasons.
There is constant tussle between secular and communal forces, and I dont think communal forces stand a chance.

We tried to be secular, and failed, you did not even try.
If that is good reason to badmouth us, you may. I wont blame you.

We have not failed . The struggle is still ongoing and the secular side due to the major gains in the last 10 years is the stronger side today .

 

[nForce]

So what about those states who joined Pakistan but were occupied by India because there were more Hindus or they were far away from Pakistan? example Junagadh & Manavadar state & state of Hyderabad Deccan.

If India want Kashmir because it's ruler joined India without asking peoples than Pakistan wants those J&M state & Hyderabad Deccan state which joined Pakistan.

Junagadh : Plebiscite was held here and almost 99 % people chose India over Pakistan.The very obvious and next question is of course,why no plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir.No plebiscite could be held in Jammu and Kashmir because before that could have been done,Pakistan invaded the Princely state and tried to take all of it by force.And since that time a part of Kashmir has been under Pakistani control.It doesnt make any sense to hold plebiscite over region.
It was one of the pre-requisites that Pakistan vacate the occupied territory of Kashmir for plebiscite to be held.Pakistan never did that,hence there was no plebiscite.

Go through the highlights of resolution 47 passed in U.N.,that provides instructions for plebiscite. :

The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavors:

To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;

To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or party, to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the State, and that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.

Hyderabad: Well Hyderabad did not accede to India,but not to Pakistan either.Now ,this region has been historically a part of India.So Indian government decided to bring it under the Indian banner.This is somewhat similar to what Pakistan had done with the state of Kalat in Baluchistan.

 

[Major Ram]

Ok so people of Kashmir also want to be either part of Pakistan or get freedom.

As far as Kashmiri wanting to join Pakistan, they are free to go to Pakistan occupied Kashmir. And as far as freedom for Kashmir, then leave your illegal occupied territory in Kashmir and then we'll talk about freedom.

 

[johnny boy]

Wait, the time is approaching, like I wrote before, if Two Super powers could be defeated, what is India in comparison? Think about it instead of asking senseless questions. Kashmir problem is only put on the back burner due to Afghan's problems. It is not forgotten or dead, it had been kept alive by brave Kashmiris.

At the end of the day, a population who hates you and do not want to be with you at any costs, will set itself free sooner or later, you should not forget this fact, ever.
And please do not give that standard foolish answer "Kashmir is integral part of India". Everyone including you know the reality of the letter of the Raja of Kashmir. You dare not produce that letter to the world.

hmmmmm. ...interesting youve been trying that since when ???????????????i guess 1948 ...best of luck for the next millenium

 

[RezRoll]

It has been demonstrated with the Arab uprising that this statement has some merit.

But whatever anger there is, it is concentrated within the Valley. So this doesn't apply to Kashmir in the broadest sense - just a small area within that area.

Drill down further and you have differing demands (independence, secession with Pakistan, etc.) within the Valley itself.

Then you need to define the word free, or 'Azaadi', something that was never clearly translated even during the height of the protests and unrest last summer.

Push further and Kashmir will never achieve statehood for the reasons mentioned above, and the geographical area in question. And if statehood was to be taken to the UN, India's clout will ensure it gets quashed without delay. Secession to Pakistan is a no-goer as India will never allow it, and I'm not seeing Kashmiris screaming for that on a daily basis.

Two options remain:

1) The status quo - an unresolved dispute with no real change going forward lingers on

2) Acceptance of the only logical solution - LoC as the border, greater movement over both sides, with a focus on trade and people-to-people contact​

The second option is the only realistic one. If Kayani and the military softens its stance, MMS doesn't dither or drag his heels like he did in 2007, then we can achieve that and open a new chapter in relations between both countries.

This, my friend is the closest thing to a realistic solution of Kashmir

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

Ok so people of Kashmir also want to be either part of Pakistan or get freedom.

I think this has been discussed multiple times on the forums. An independent valley is neither viable, nor permitted under the UN resolutions.