What's new

UN : Pak's 'empty rhetoric' useless, Kashmir integral : India

WE also ask UN to resolve Kashmir issue despite all our reservation about it.

The thing is India's rant on UN looks even more nonsensical after recent UN report about IOK.

Why is it nonsensical to protest a report by the UN?

By that standard it is nonsensical for pakistan to ever talk about kashmir in the UN since it won't listen to whatever you are telling them to.
 
Why is it nonsensical to protest a report by the UN?

By that standard it is nonsensical for pakistan to ever talk about kashmir in the UN since it won't listen to whatever you are telling them to.

Because you reject all of its reports and interference calling IOK as internal issue

Pakistan doesn't do that. Simple logic.
 
Ooooh Root Cause Analysis, engineer spotted. Let me have a crack at it then. Mind you I've read the rest of your posts in this thread.

Results of experiment 1 and 2, without option for an independent state, Kashmir will choose Pakistan on religious terms. But why stop the root cause analysis there? Religion or atleast religious extremism entered the conflict in the late 80s and 90s. Why would we allow a referendum in the current climate that favors Pakistan when, say in 50 years we can either change the situation or the demography to favor us.



" If Kashmir issue is resolved then there would hardly be a reason to fight."
As much as I'd like to think this is possible, it's not gonna be that easy.
Exactly, in another post that is what I have suggested for Bharat to do from her POV.

The only way Bharat can "solve" this matter, is by "genocide" which under UN means "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1 ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

But then it would prove that Kashmir is more linked to Pakistan than to Bharat. And not just religion. Culture, blood and geography as well.
It is not just religion....

If I was a Bharati strategist, this is what I would try to do, remove Kashmiris from Kashmir, try and disrupt their ethnic/social life, introduce millions of non Kashmiris into Kashmir with the view to destroying their identity, promote other religions, suppress Islam in Kashmir... but all this would be anti democratic and all this would mean accepting the fact the Kashmir is NOT an integral part of Bharat..for if it were there would be no issue at all today... and deep down Bharat knows that Kashmiris are not an integral part, but of course Bharat is looking after her strategic interests and would prefer to keep Kashmir under her control....
 
Exactly, in another post that is what I have suggested for Bharat to do from her POV.

The only way Bharat can "solve" this matter, is by "genocide" which under UN means "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1 ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

But then it would prove that Kashmir is more linked to Pakistan than to Bharat. And not just religion. Culture, blood and geography as well.
It is not just religion....

If I was a Bharati strategist, this is what I would try to do, remove Kashmiris from Kashmir, try and disrupt their ethnic/social life, introduce millions of non Kashmiris into Kashmir with the view to destroying their identity, promote other religions, suppress Islam in Kashmir... but all this would be anti democratic and all this would mean accepting the fact the Kashmir is NOT an integral part of Bharat..for if it were there would be no issue at all today... and deep down Bharat knows that Kashmiris are not an integral part, but of course Bharat is looking after her strategic interests and would prefer to keep Kashmir under her control....
You must have us confused with China.

We're not going to commit genocide. We don't even have to resort to something barbaric like suppressing religion or destroying their identity. All we have to do is remove the special status of Kashmir and enforce equal rights as another state. Let Kashmir integrate into the country, and let the young generation reap the same benefits as the rest of the young population. Give them more opportunities. Let them cultivate their own culture and identity, like all the other diverse states in the country. It's not gonna be easy, especially with Pakistan trying its best to disrupt normal life for the Kashmiris, but India is prospering and they should share it. All of this, made available to them as fellow Indians. Stability, security and prosperity can be surprisingly effective in calming people down.

Of course this won't solve the Kashmir issue as a whole but it might give the people some respite. And Pakistan and India has to decide whether its priority is to 'save Kashmiris' or to 'get Kashmir from the other guy'. Cause one of these things we can do together.

You can tout Indians as 'evil' and Pakistan as an 'angel' all you want, it's just self gratification. The truth is Kashmir was simply caught between a rock and a hard place at the end of the British Empire. The result of a perverse monarchy playing god with entire populations for profit. After they left both India and Pakistan did more damage trying to pick up the pieces. I don't think Kashmir can ever go back to being an independent country, nor can India or Pakistan reunite it by force. That goes for whatever schemes, plans and promises we made back when the whole mess started. If we want to save the Kashmiris, we need a plan where both India and Pakistan comes out as winners.

Your comments as a 'Bharati strategist' is interesting. It's not something I haven't heard many times before here by people on all sides.
 
Because you reject all of its reports and interference calling IOK as internal issue

Pakistan doesn't do that. Simple logic.

Kashmiri is an internal issue, it's just that at this juncture you don't have the militaristic might or the diplomatic pull to wrestle it out of our hands, which is why you pathological insist on UN interfering.

Pakistan also rejects Balochistan's freedom movement, why should your rejections carry weight and not ours?
Oh wait I know, because any rhetoric that pakistan spews against India should be seriously considered by the UN and India's concerns should just be thrown out of the window.
It is only pakistani logic induced common sense.

I am so sorry, you were just being hypocritical, do carry on.
 
You must have us confused with China.

We're not going to commit genocide. We don't even have to resort to something barbaric like suppressing religion or destroying their identity. All we have to do is remove the special status of Kashmir and enforce equal rights as another state. Let Kashmir integrate into the country, and let the young generation reap the same benefits as the rest of the young population. Give them more opportunities. Let them cultivate their own culture and identity, like all the other diverse states in the country. It's not gonna be easy, especially with Pakistan trying its best to disrupt normal life for the Kashmiris, but India is prospering and they should share it. All of this, made available to them as fellow Indians. Stability, security and prosperity can be surprisingly effective in calming people down.

Of course this won't solve the Kashmir issue as a whole but it might give the people some respite. And Pakistan and India has to decide whether its priority is to 'save Kashmiris' or to 'get Kashmir from the other guy'. Cause one of these things we can do together.

You can tout Indians as 'evil' and Pakistan as an 'angel' all you want, it's just self gratification. The truth is Kashmir was simply caught between a rock and a hard place at the end of the British Empire. The result of a perverse monarchy playing god with entire populations for profit. After they left both India and Pakistan did more damage trying to pick up the pieces. I don't think Kashmir can ever go back to being an independent country, nor can India or Pakistan reunite it by force. That goes for whatever schemes, plans and promises we made back when the whole mess started. If we want to save the Kashmiris, we need a plan where both India and Pakistan comes out as winners.

Your comments as a 'Bharati strategist' is interesting. It's not something I haven't heard many times before here by people on all sides.
It cannot be solved like you say...but you can try....
 
"If Kashmir issue is resolved then there would hardly be a reason to fight."
As much as I'd like to think this is possible, it's not gonna be that easy.
Of course it's not gonna be easy...but other than 1971 the two countries have only fought with Kashmir being the central issue.

At least on Pak's side...Pak has shown that it can coexist with its neighbors.
- Iran: Despite close relations with Arab nations(who vehemently oppose Iran)...Pak has kept a careful balance...there is no dispute with Iran(like Kashmir)...so its more of a live and let live kind of relationship at the very least
- China: Large neighbor(similar to India in terms of large area/population). Peaceful relations. They even worked out Kashmir issue between them...after that neither violated the others Kashmir regions.

The only two countries where there is a problem are India and Afghanistan...
- Afghanistan: this too wouldn't have been any different than the other neighboring countries like Iran/China...but Afghanistan in its own greed/ambitions has been against Pak since Pak's creation. They have laid claim to Pak's KPK/Balochistan area in order to try and get more territory and access to the sea even though Pak as a successor to British India inherits previously made agreements(Durand Line). They tried to create unrest and separatist movements...etc. and yet still Pak gave refuge to a huge number of Afghans.
- India: well we both know why there are tensions...it is a continuing legacy of the horrors and massive killings that occurred during partition...and Kashmir. Though time heals all...and the hatred can be overcome with efforts from both sides. First it requires that no issue of contention(like Kashmir) remains. Worst case scenario is at the very least a Pak/Iran kind of relationship can occur in the absence of disputes like Kashmir.

If anything since Pak/India share similarities in culture/languages/etc. it can be more than a Pak/Iran kind of indifferent relationship.

...but it goes without saying that it would require efforts from both sides.

I know how Pak Army is demonized in Indian media that PA would never let Pak gov try to work towards a lasting peace with India...but that's simply not true. Why is PA not creating any issues with other neighbors like Iran/China? It is merely a speculative baseless "reason"(for not achieving peace) that is often presented by Indians whenever a solution to Kashmir is hypothetically brought up.

I've even heard that "if peace with India was achieved then PA would be out of a job and they wouldn't be able to fill their pockets through kickbacks and what not"...
That above reason is again dumb. There are plenty of countries that maintain standing armies despite not having any major threats. Secondly even if peace with India is achieved...its not gonna be like both countries are gonna be singing and dancing together hand in hand. Peace doesn't automatically mean trust/better relations. So even if peace is achieved today it would take decades before trust is restored and relations get better. So PA would still have a job to defend the country against any potential threats.

In short...yes u r right...it wouldn't be easy but it's certainly possible. The hard part isn't that Kashmir has no solution. It has many potential solutions...it can be solved, peace can be achieved, trust can be built over time, relations could improve...
...all it requires is willingness to solve it from BOTH SIDES

and to be honest IMO India doesn't want to solve it and hold a referendum bcuz of the likelihood of either "Independence" or "siding with Pak" options winning out over "siding with India"...mainly due to being Muslim majority and the long tense history/struggle of Kashmiris railing against IA.
 
All we have to do is remove the special status of Kashmir and enforce equal rights as another state. Let Kashmir integrate into the country, and let the young generation reap the same benefits

India is turning hindutva, you have men like Yogi at the helm, you have innocent muslims being killed for eating beef

How is a muslim majority state who wanted partition supposed to integrate into a increasingly hindutva india
 
Of course it's not gonna be easy...but other than 1971 the two countries have only fought with Kashmir being the central issue.

At least on Pak's side...Pak has shown that it can coexist with its neighbors.
- Iran: Despite close relations with Arab nations(who vehemently oppose Iran)...Pak has kept a careful balance...there is no dispute with Iran(like Kashmir)...so its more of a live and let live kind of relationship at the very least
- China: Large neighbor(similar to India in terms of large area/population). Peaceful relations. They even worked out Kashmir issue between them...after that neither violated the others Kashmir regions.

The only two countries where there is a problem are India and Afghanistan...
- Afghanistan: this too wouldn't have been any different than the other neighboring countries like Iran/China...but Afghanistan in its own greed/ambitions has been against Pak since Pak's creation. They have laid claim to Pak's KPK/Balochistan area in order to try and get more territory and access to the sea even though Pak as a successor to British India inherits previously made agreements(Durand Line). They tried to create unrest and separatist movements...etc. and yet still Pak gave refuge to a huge number of Afghans.
- India: well we both know why there are tensions...it is a continuing legacy of the horrors and massive killings that occurred during partition...and Kashmir. Though time heals all...and the hatred can be overcome with efforts from both sides. First it requires that no issue of contention(like Kashmir) remains. Worst case scenario is at the very least a Pak/Iran kind of relationship can occur in the absence of disputes like Kashmir.

If anything since Pak/India share similarities in culture/languages/etc. it can be more than a Pak/Iran kind of indifferent relationship.

...but it goes without saying that it would require efforts from both sides.

I know how Pak Army is demonized in Indian media that PA would never let Pak gov try to work towards a lasting peace with India...but that's simply not true. Why is PA not creating any issues with other neighbors like Iran/China? It is merely a speculative baseless "reason"(for not achieving peace) that is often presented by Indians whenever a solution to Kashmir is hypothetically brought up.

I've even heard that "if peace with India was achieved then PA would be out of a job and they wouldn't be able to fill their pockets through kickbacks and what not"...
That above reason is again dumb. There are plenty of countries that maintain standing armies despite not having any major threats. Secondly even if peace with India is achieved...its not gonna be like both countries are gonna be singing and dancing together hand in hand. Peace doesn't automatically mean trust/better relations. So even if peace is achieved today it would take decades before trust is restored and relations get better. So PA would still have a job to defend the country against any potential threats.

In short...yes u r right...it wouldn't be easy but it's certainly possible. The hard part isn't that Kashmir has no solution. It has many potential solutions...it can be solved, peace can be achieved, trust can be built over time, relations could improve...
...all it requires is willingness to solve it from BOTH SIDES

and to be honest IMO India doesn't want to solve it and hold a referendum bcuz of the likelihood of either "Independence" or "siding with Pak" options winning out over "siding with India"...mainly due to being Muslim majority and the long tense history/struggle of Kashmiris railing against IA.
I agree with most of what you said, and while solving the Kashmir issue will go a long way to sooth tempers, you can't undo years of systematic hate and fear mongering overnight. It'll take time and effort, but it's not impossible.

Part of the troubles I see in solving India Pakistan hostilities have to do with something you just brought up; I have to disagree with what you said about Pakistan being able to maintain good relations with all it's neighbors. I'm not saying that Pakistan doesn't have good relations with neighbors, but that some of the relations Pakistan enjoys were always based at least partially on convenience and not just out of the goodness in their hearts. China started out as a way to counter India and as a more reliable partner than the US in case of war with India. Even now, part of Pakistan's relation with China is based on their mutual concerns about India. After solving the Kashmir issue and burying the hatchet with India, will Pakistan still be compelled to side with China in any disputes between India and China, I wonder? Will Pakistan risk all the investment China is putting into Pakistan in a dispute between India and China?

I'm not trying to undermine Pakistan's relation with other countries, just saying that factors like these will always come up if we're trying to make amends.

India is turning hindutva, you have men like Yogi at the helm, you have innocent muslims being killed for eating beef

How is a muslim majority state who wanted partition supposed to integrate into a increasingly hindutva india
People like Yogi always appeal to a specific demographic, as with all politicians who tend to use religion as a tool. He is hardly the first of his kind, nor will he be the last, but people like him who tends to play on peoples insecurities exist in every county. They don't represent the country as a whole.
Are you telling me Pakistan never had a politician who didn't vilify other religions or even minorities from the same religion for political gain from his homogeneous voters?
 
No. It isn't. Learn history and don't waste our time.

You are just saying that coz you know you lot don't have the capacity to wrest Kashmir out of India which is why you need your daddy UN to help you.

And yes it is an internal issue, no amount of you crying all over the place is gonna change that.
 
I agree with most of what you said, and while solving the Kashmir issue will go a long way to sooth tempers, you can't undo years of systematic hate and fear mongering overnight. It'll take time and effort, but it's not impossible.

Part of the troubles I see in solving India Pakistan hostilities have to do with something you just brought up; I have to disagree with what you said about Pakistan being able to maintain good relations with all it's neighbors. I'm not saying that Pakistan doesn't have good relations with neighbors, but that some of the relations Pakistan enjoys were always based at least partially on convenience and not just out of the goodness in their hearts.
Yes that applies to any nation and it's relations with others...it usually comes down to interests rather than the "goodness of their hearts"
China started out as a way to counter India and as a more reliable partner than the US in case of war with India.
China did not start out(starting from 1949...when China gained independence) as a counter to India. China/Pak relationship started out as somewhat indifferent and even got tense at times. Had China/Pak been close(like now) to oppose India from the start then 1962 would've been the perfect opportunity for Pakistan to open a second front and India would've had to split its troops/tanks/jets/etc. Needless to say a two front war would've been devastating for India.

However Pakistan/China were indifferent towards each other at first...then slowly some tensions emerged prior to 1962 due to Kashmir issue. Both sides laid claim to territory that conflicted with each other. Below is just an excerpt(taken from Wikipedia...just the facts to eliminate any chances of wrong info)...
- In 1959 the Pakistani government became concerned over Chinese maps that showed areas the Pakistanis considered their own as part of China. In 1961 Ayub Khan sent a formal note to China; there was no reply.
- After Pakistan voted to grant China a seat in the United Nations, the Chinese withdrew the disputed maps in January 1962, agreeing to enter border talks in March. Negotiations between the nations officially began on October 13, 1962 and resulted in an agreement signed on 2 March 1963 by foreign ministers Chen Yi of China and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan.

It was after India/China war of 1962 and India/Pak war of 1965...and in light of Pak/China reaching agreement over Kashmir that they saw India as a common enemy and started growing closer ever since.
Even now, part of Pakistan's relation with China is based on their mutual concerns about India. After solving the Kashmir issue and burying the hatchet with India, will Pakistan still be compelled to side with China in any disputes between India and China, I wonder? Will Pakistan risk all the investment China is putting into Pakistan in a dispute between India and China?
Yes...if Kashmir issue is solved and India/Pak move towards a peaceful existence then there would still be times and circumstances where Pakistan may feel compelled to take sides...
...but historically speaking u can find a great example of a similar situation when it comes to Pak's closeness with Arab states. Pak maintains its close relations with Arab states(especially KSA) while still balancing its relations with Iran...and Iran/GCC are just as bitter enemies as China/India if not more.

The situation can also be reversed and one could ask how India would respond to being egged on/pressurized by the west to take an increasingly opposing role to China(and then by extension Pak)? Like I said...it would require efforts from both sides to try and maintain regional peace and not let geopolitical circumstances ruin it.
I'm not trying to undermine Pakistan's relation with other countries, just saying that factors like these will always come up if we're trying to make amends.
Yes these factors would continue to come up I'm not denying that. My point in highlighting Pak's peaceful existence with China/Iran or Pak's balancing of relations with Arab states/Iran wasn't to get a medal or something. It was to show that Pak is indeed capable of peaceful coexistence with its neighbors as well as capable of putting up a good balancing act to not jeopardize regional peace. This was more targeted as proof for Indians with the mindset that peace can never be achieved...bcuz PA won't let it...or Pak's not capable of it(and other such things constantly peddled by Indian media).

Solving Kashmir...and constant work/willingness from both sides towards peace would go a long way to dispelling hatred and ensuring peace in the region. A fine example of it is Europe. Germany/France...France/Britain...were bitter enemies that fought with each other many wars over hundreds of years...and yet look at them now.
 
So guys, after much efforts by Pakistan and shor sharabba ( cheering and shouting) to take issue to UN, the reality is, no one gives a damn now. And rather, it's Pakistan which got into grey list of FATF for money laundering and terror funding. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom