VIEW : Siachen: a costly war for Pakistan and India

[Secur]

Pakistan administers 25% and China does 20%. India still holds the major part of the valley.

IF it belongs to the Kashmiris, and India has occupied it, then why is Pakistan even involved? Pakistanis share nothing with Kashmiris, and since you quite clearly stated that you guys don't even want Kashmir, then why not leave it to India and the Kashmiris and UN?

Google it ... Or even a simple percentage of the area administered by each country and then dividing it from the total area of the former princely state will do the trick ...

Yes , it belongs to the Kashmiris who ever since the creation of Pakistan wanted to accede to it , do you now understand why is Pakistan involved ? ... For the record , the local Kashmiris liberated the Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan for us long before the PA arrived , the delay caused by the reluctance of Gracy to send troops into Kashmir ... Why exactly do we see almost daily demonstrations in the valley against Indian rule and Pakistani flag flying in Lal Chowk , Srinagar if we do not share nothing with them ... Do not twist , kid ... I said " we want the people to decide " and their choice takes preferences over ours ... Something which your Govt doesn't want because it knows the results of the plebiscite already ...

 

[Peshwa]

Yes , because we believe that it belongs to Kashmiris and only they can decide whom to join or remain independent ... How exactly does this proves your point of view of " unbreakable part " when currently Pakistan administers 37% of Kashmir and China - 20 % ?

Only a plebiscite will be the way to determine ... Till then we do not claim it as ours ...

Lets be honest and stop BSing with each other....

Jiski Lathi Uski Bhains....thats always been the rule for settling territorial disputes....
You can equate the Lathi as military firepower, Economic stronghold, political clout...whatver...

The point is no country will give up its claim from a position of power...
And rarely does the people's voice come into the picture...unless its a civil war...which this isnt...because unless all Indians decide we want Kashmir to be free...Kashmiris themselves cannot do much....

So Pakistan has its game plan written out....build yourself to a position where you can beat India or equate with us in all circles...only then can one "claim" Kashmir..

Oscar's words may not be music to Pakistani ears, but do ring of truth...

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Yes , it belongs to the Kashmiris who ever since the creation of Pakistan wanted to accede to it , do you now understand why is Pakistan involved ?

For the record, the Kashmiris wanted complete independence. Show me one proper source confirming that Kashmiris wanted Pakistan (aside from those Photoshopped pics I mean)

For the record , the local Kashmiris liberated the Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan for us long before the PA arrived , the delay caused by the reluctance of Gracy to send troops into Kashmir ... Why exactly do we see almost daily demonstrations in the valley against Indian rule and Pakistani flag flying in Lal Chowk , Srinagar if we do not share nothing with them ... Do not twist , kid ... I said " we want the people to decide " and their choice takes preferences over ours ... Something which your Govt doesn't want because it knows the results of the plebiscite already ...

People of Kashmir did not "liberate" anything. They were failing to beat the Maharajas forces, and as per our little agreement, both India and Pakistan were supposed to ignore it. Pakistan sent guerillas into "Azad" Kashmir and liberated it, and this can be confirmed with any neutral source you want.

An unofficial plebiscite has shown that 43% of Kashmiris want independence from both, and most of the rest want to stay with India. There must be one tiny misguided bunch of people who want to join Pakistan, but they are a minority.

The official plebiscite was to be held when Pakistan left Azad Kashmir, after which India would have vacated J&K, and then UN would have held a plebiscite back in 1947. Pakistan refused, and failed to "liberate" Kashmir, so stop crying over spilt milk. Plebiscite will happen when there is no army presence in Kashmir, something that is impossible now due to the ISI sponsored "freedom fighters".

 

[Secur]

For the record, the Kashmiris wanted complete independence. Show me one proper source confirming that Kashmiris wanted Pakistan (aside from those Photoshopped pics I mean)

People of Kashmir did not "liberate" anything. They were failing to beat the Maharajas forces, and as per our little agreement, both India and Pakistan were supposed to ignore it. Pakistan sent guerillas into "Azad" Kashmir and liberated it, and this can be confirmed with any neutral source you want.

An unofficial plebiscite has shown that 43% of Kashmiris want independence from both, and most of the rest want to stay with India. There must be one tiny misguided bunch of people who want to join Pakistan, but they are a minority.

The official plebiscite was to be held when Pakistan left Azad Kashmir, after which India would have vacated J&K, and then UN would have held a plebiscite back in 1947. Pakistan refused, and failed to "liberate" Kashmir, so stop crying over spilt milk. Plebiscite will happen when there is no army presence in Kashmir, something that is impossible now due to the ISI sponsored "freedom fighters".

" Facts " are against you ... That is what Maharaja wanted but at that time it wasn't something possible because princely states had to join either dominion ! ... Kashmiris thought Maharaja would accede to Pakistan owing to the wishes of the people as envisioned in the partition plan ...

No , you need to research more ... You agree that there was uprising against Maharaja rule then why is it so hard to believe that they were the ones who liberated the AK and GB ? The irregulars arrived much longer to find certain areas under Siege by state forces and later by IA ... The local Kashmiri populace was already done with Muzaffarabad , Bagh , Bhimber and Deva-Vatala and in the north almost the whole of Gilgit district by then ... Pakistan sent " guerillas " because of the tyranny of the state forces against Muslims who wanted to join Pakistan ... Need I remind you that Muslims were the overwhelming majority of the state then and now ?

Which unofficial plebiscite would that be ? And what are you afraid of , if you are so confident of the results ? ... Pakistan has always showed its willingness to hold a plebiscite and leave it to the Kashmiris to chose their future - even now ... In the recent UN spat - Islamabad again talked about it very clearly ...

Why didn't you vacate it then ? ... UN was ready , Pakistan was ready but both countries just couldn't agree to the procedure due to the obvious mistrust - in my opinion UN should have taken care of it holding it under its own administration ... Nah , plebiscite will happen when India stops shouting " an integral part " when certainly its a disputed area , your own constitution is a solid testimony to that !

 

[AbuMuslim]

Lets be honest and stop BSing with each other....

Jiski Lathi Uski Bhains....thats always been the rule for settling territorial disputes....
You can equate the Lathi as military firepower, Economic stronghold, political clout...whatver...

The point is no country will give up its claim from a position of power...
And rarely does the people's voice come into the picture...unless its a civil war...which this isnt...because unless all Indians decide we want Kashmir to be free...Kashmiris themselves cannot do much....

So Pakistan has its game plan written out....build yourself to a position where you can beat India or equate with us in all circles...only then can one "claim" Kashmir..

Oscar's words may not be music to Pakistani ears, but do ring of truth...

Might is right. That works while you have overwhelming firepower but you suffer the consequences once your neighbors believe that's the rule you practise.

For the record, the Kashmiris wanted complete independence. Show me one proper source confirming that Kashmiris wanted Pakistan (aside from those Photoshopped pics I mean)



People of Kashmir did not "liberate" anything. They were failing to beat the Maharajas forces, and as per our little agreement, both India and Pakistan were supposed to ignore it. Pakistan sent guerillas into "Azad" Kashmir and liberated it, and this can be confirmed with any neutral source you want.

An unofficial plebiscite has shown that 43% of Kashmiris want independence from both, and most of the rest want to stay with India. There must be one tiny misguided bunch of people who want to join Pakistan, but they are a minority.

The official plebiscite was to be held when Pakistan left Azad Kashmir, after which India would have vacated J&K, and then UN would have held a plebiscite back in 1947. Pakistan refused, and failed to "liberate" Kashmir, so stop crying over spilt milk. Plebiscite will happen when there is no army presence in Kashmir, something that is impossible now due to the ISI sponsored "freedom fighters".

No, those brave 'genrail' of the pakistani army weren't up to the job and they asked pathans/pashtuns to do the fighting for them.

 

[Secur]

No, those brave 'genrail' of the pakistani army weren't up to the job and they asked pathans/pashtuns to do the fighting for them.

Sorry , kid ... PA would have been in Kashmir much earlier if the General Gracy hadn't disobeyed a direct order from Jinnah ... So , irregulars were mobilized and then later PA marched beyond Skardu and Nehru had to run to UN to save his *** ...

 

[AbuMuslim]

Sorry , kid ... PA would have been in Kashmir much earlier if the General Gracy hadn't disobeyed a direct order from Jinnah ... So , irregulars were mobilized and then later PA marched beyond Skardu and Nehru had to run to UN to save his *** ...

It's irrelevant. The fact is Jinnah badly miscalculated, and his first response wasn't to ask muhajirs and others to fight in kashmir; no, he used the pathans/pashtuns to do the dying.

Please don't hide who actually did the fighting and dying in Kashmir by the use of the term 'irregulars' because I'd like one bit of evidence that the 'irregulars' were a mixed group of industani shia, lahori barelvis, and sindhi syeds rather than pashtun/pathan deobandis, the perennial victims of the pakistani army and the feudal lords of sindh.

The fact that a group of ordinary pashtuns/pathans did a much better job against the indian army than the pakistani army has done since, stands either as testament to their abilities or as condemnation of how useful the pakistani army with all its generals has been in defending pakistan.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

" Facts " are against you ... That is what Maharaja wanted but at that time it wasn't something possible because princely states had to join either dominion ! ... Kashmiris thought Maharaja would accede to Pakistan owing to the wishes of the people as envisioned in the partition plan ...

No, princely states had to choose their own fate. Hyderabad stayed separate right (for a while), so why shouldn't Kashmir stay the same way?

No , you need to research more ... You agree that there was uprising against Maharaja rule then why is it so hard to believe that they were the ones who liberated the AK and GB ?

'Coz the Maharaja was killing them all. Get real man. We all know how much power a civilian had back then. The only kind of revolution that works, is when someone influential supports them. USA had French help, In France all the businessmen had joined their revolution, in the Bloodless Revolution, the Dutch King had "invaded" England. Civilians can't do much on their own.

The irregulars arrived much longer to find certain areas under Siege by state forces and later by IA ... The local Kashmiri populace was already done with Muzaffarabad , Bagh , Bhimber and Deva-Vatala and in the north almost the whole of Gilgit district by then ... Pakistan sent " guerillas " because of the tyranny of the state forces against Muslims who wanted to join Pakistan ... Need I remind you that Muslims were the overwhelming majority of the state then and now ?

They may have liberated pockets, but the only forces that defeated anyone, were the Pakistani guerillas, who beat the Maharaja's provincial army.

Which unofficial plebiscite would that be ? And what are you afraid of , if you are so confident of the results ? ... Pakistan has always showed its willingness to hold a plebiscite and leave it to the Kashmiris to chose their future - even now ... In the recent UN spat - Islamabad again talked about it very clearly ...

Not sure, I read about it on the wiki page about the Kashmir conflict. It is sourced as far as i remember, go and have a read.

We aren't afraid.

Why didn't you vacate it then ? ... UN was ready , Pakistan was ready but both countries just couldn't agree to the procedure due to the obvious mistrust - in my opinion UN should have taken care of it holding it under its own administration ... Nah , plebiscite will happen when India stops shouting " an integral part " when certainly its a disputed area , your own constitution is a solid testimony to that !

This is where the tricky part comes in. Pakistan was the first to violate Kashmir's sovereignty, by sending guerillas. Indian Army was present there legally, because of the instrument of accession. Therefore, India got the benefit of the doubt, and UN had expected Pakistan to vacate first, which they refused. Pakistan did not vacate, it wasn't ready as you said.

India only shouts "integral part", 'coz Pakistan shouts "disputed territory". It's a natural mechanism, built into all humans. When someone calls you a fool, you always shout back "idiot". Quite the same. You might not believe it, but if Pakistan hadn't attacked Kashmir first, the whole dispute wouldn't have started.

Pakistan says that it wants a neutral party to conduct the plebiscite. Why doesn't it listen to the neutral party's demands? UN quite clearly wanted Pakistan to vacate first, Pakistan refused.

India can't be expected to vacate the area, since the insurgency Pakistan created and funded, has given us every reason to maintain our military presence. India can only vacate after a plebiscite now.

Sorry , kid ... PA would have been in Kashmir much earlier if the General Gracy hadn't disobeyed a direct order from Jinnah ... So , irregulars were mobilized and then later PA marched beyond Skardu and Nehru had to run to UN to save his *** ...

I've repeated this a hundred times before, but Pakistanis refuse to accept the fact. The "irregulars" fought and defeated the Maharaja's weak provincial army. They did not defeat the Indian Army, a bunch of untrained Pathans cannot defeat a professionally trained army.

 

[AbuMuslim]

I've repeated this a hundred times before, but Pakistanis refuse to accept the fact. The "irregulars" fought and defeated the Maharaja's weak provincial army. They did not defeat the Indian Army, a bunch of untrained Pathans cannot defeat a professionally trained army.

Simple questions:

1. when did the Pathans/Pashtuns enter?
2. when do you claim the Indian army invaded?
3. when did the fighting end?

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Simple questions:

1. when did the Pathans/Pashtuns enter?
2. when do you claim the Indian army invaded?
3. when did the fighting end?

I don't know the exact dates, but here's a rough estimate:

1. Pashtuns entered first.
2. Indian Army came in later, just before the Pashtuns were about to take Srinagar. They pushed back the PA till Gilgit-Baltistan. Note: since these guys were irregulars, they had no tactical sense, and wasted far too much time pillaging each town after attacking. If they hadn't wasted all this time, they would have taken Srinagar before the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, and thus, could have prevented India from entering the war.
3. Fighting ended when the sides reached a stalemate. India was not able to go further into North-West Kashmir, and the irregulars were unable to keep up with the IA. The only option was a full scale war, which was thankfully prevented.

 

[AbuMuslim]

I don't know the exact dates, but here's a rough estimate:

1. Pashtuns entered first.
2. Indian Army came in later, just before the Pashtuns were about to take Srinagar. They pushed back the PA till Gilgit-Baltistan. Note: since these guys were irregulars, they had no tactical sense, and wasted far too much time pillaging each town after attacking. If they hadn't wasted all this time, they would have taken Srinagar before the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, and thus, could have prevented India from entering the war.
3. Fighting ended when the sides reached a stalemate. India was not able to go further into North-West Kashmir, and the irregulars were unable to keep up with the IA. The only option was a full scale war, which was thankfully prevented.

Despite the fact you didn't provide dates, can you explain your comments in bold? Are you saying that the Pashtuns/Pathans were at the very least able to beat your 'professionally trained army'--your words--to a standstill?

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Despite the fact you didn't provide dates, can you explain your comments in bold? Are you saying that the Pashtuns/Pathans were at the very least able to beat your 'professionally trained army'--your words--to a standstill?

No, I never said that. The army had beaten them back till there, but attacking further, meant risking a full-scale war. Something which India didn't want. If we had continued, the irregulars would have given up, and been replaced by regulars.

If it was an IA regular vs PA regular fight you know what would have happened? I'll tell you what would have happened. Both sides were commanded by British officers. The IA officers had no problem killing tribals. But fighting with the PA regulars, meant brother vs brother. Officers from both sides would have resigned. Then what? An army without command, is a mob. It would be 2 mobs, brutally whipping each other to death.

 

[lkozhi]

The as** basically belonged to those who did not expect india to lift their big guns up to kashmir. Then we brought up the tanks and in kargil the bofors guns. In both cases , the as** had same fate to be at the wrong end of the gun .

 

[Contrarian]

When does Pakistan learn that it is best to cut the losses and move on for a better tomorrow.

India doesnt covet Azad Kashmir Pakistani leaders have also started to accept the fact that the LoC will become the IB in due course of time. What can be done to ease people's problems is allow free movement of goods and people.

Why does the Pakistani public not understand what its leaders have also understood and accepted albeit privately.

 

[SQ8]

When does Pakistan learn that it is best to cut the losses and move on for a better tomorrow.

India doesnt covet Azad Kashmir Pakistani leaders have also started to accept the fact that the LoC will become the IB in due course of time. What can be done to ease people's problems is allow free movement of goods and people.

Why does the Pakistani public not understand what its leaders have also understood and accepted albeit privately.

How long did it take for people to accept that the earth is round and not flat?
If you have been preached a wrong sermon throughout your life.. you dont change overnight.