Why a plebiscite is not possible in Kashmir.

[RKO]

Scotland referendum was not held in UK, only Scotland. Same foe Quebec.



Topic is about India.



Right.
So "democracy" only if/when the demographics have been "adjusted".

yeah maybe.. I never liked democracy though!!!!

 

[ito]

Scotland referendum was not held in UK, only Scotland. Same foe Quebec.
Topic is about India.
Right.
So "democracy" only if/when the demographics have been "adjusted".

You are so fond of talking on Scotland referendum, would you be willing to be positive on, let say, a referendum in Balochistan or Tibet.

 

[knightmare]

Scotland referendum was not held in UK, only Scotland. Same foe Quebec.



Topic is about India.



Right.
So "democracy" only if/when the demographics have been "adjusted".

Topic is certainly not only India but also the Azad Kashmir and as pointed out in the first post itself a plebiscite is not possible because of Pakistani actions in Kashmir.

One fact is clear, plebiscite has to be done, if ever, over whole of pre-1947 J&K and with the original residents only, not with some proxies.
You have changed the demographics to ensure that voting if ever done goes in your favor. You have given away a part of J&K. You have never agreed to the pre-condition of withdrawing your army and proxies from the region. So the point basically is legally it was Pakistan who initially resisted implementation of the pre-conditions and now it has made irreversible changes to J&K which make it impossible to hold any plebiscite. Still it is Pakistan which keeps on crying hoarse about a situation which is created by it.

 

[Joeblow]

Exactly.

You are admitting that India's reluctance to the plebiscite has nothing to do with Pakistan, nothing to do with demographics or history, but is purely for its own reasons.

I don't know about the others but I'm willing to admit history or demographics is secondary. There is no support for joining Pakistan in the Indian side of Kashmir so Pakistan is really a non-issue.
I think one of the biggest problems is that because of its location, there are very few good options. First thing to understand, is that the state of Jammu and Kashmir is really 3 distinct demographic regions. If there was plebiscite today with 3 options, India, Pakistan or independence, Jammu and Ladakh will vote for India and the Kashmir valley will vote for independence. There is little support for joining Pakistan on the Indian side (there's a very thorough poll done by peace polls). If the whole state is considered together, then the valley has the largest population and will probably dominate the results and win independence. However, that would mean 40-45% of the population would be forced to be part of a small, Sunni majority, poor country with no resources. If you were advising the buddhists, hindus, Sikhs and Shias, based on current circumstances everywhere in the world, I don't know if you could, in good faith, tell them to join this union (maybe you could, I don't know if I could). If the 3 areas are asked individually, only the valley would chose independence and you'd end up a 6000 square mile land locked country which has no way of sustaining itself. Kashmir doesn't have any immediate resources it can exploit to stay afloat (Gilgit-Baltistan has natural resources but all indicators point to it voting to stay with Pakistan). Right now India covers all of its costs. So how does this new country stay afloat? If India and Pakistan both give up Kashmir, both armies are going to be in a permanent state of high alert waiting for the other to make a move. If there is a little, independent Kashmir, 2 things are bound to happen. First, it will always be trying to play India and Pakistan against each other for its benefit. Second, it will be perpetually broke so it will always be blackmailing both countries over water or something to get more money out of us, which I believe will eventually lead to war that will destroy the subcontinent. Maybe in a hundred years, when both countries are mature, if the Kashmiris still feel the way they do, we can look at giving them their referendum. But for now, I don't think we should risk the lives for 1.6 billion people of the subcontintent because 7-8 million people wanted a separate country that they have no way of taking care of.

 

[ejaz007]

Why plebiscite in J&K is not possible in current scenario?

As we all have heard about Pakistan's continued demand for plebiscite in J&K, I would like to share my thoughts on the reasons why it is not possible in present scenario.


The resolution was passed by United Nation Security Council under chapter VI of UN Charter. Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non-binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under chapter VII. Any resolution under chapter VI is non-mandatory. It is dependent on the will of the parties to follow it through or not. Hence it is not mandatory for India to conduct plebiscite in J&K. And since it is against India's national interest i do not see any reason why India should do it.


1. Even if a plebiscite was to happen according toUnited Nations Security Council 47, adopted on April 21, 1948, Pakistan was supposed to withdraw all of its forces from the territory which was the 1 condition of the resolution and which Pakistan did not until recently when Pakistan has changed the demography of the region with help of Islamist extremism in its favour. And result of that terrorism is the migration of Kashmiri pundit from valley. Unless these pundits and their successors are relocated in state, the plebiscite is not possible.


2. Pakistan has created a false govt. of so called azad Kashmir which is directly under Pakistan govt. but Pakistan has not done anything to safeguard the rights of Kashmiri in Azad Kashmir. what i mean is that nowadays the Azad Kashmir is full with Punjabi Sunni Muslims form Punjab province of Pakistan who pledge their allegiance to Pakistan and the native Kashmiri in Azad Kashmir are almost migrated to other parts. On the other hand India did everything to safeguard rights of Kashmiri with introduction of article 370. Pakistan now cannot guarantee the originality of the voters from Azad Kashmir in case of plebiscite. I mean IF there are no original voters from Azad Kashmir then what actually voting is worth of?


3. Pakistan has ceded a large area of Karakoram to China, are they going to ask back that area from Chinese, because if the plebiscite has to be done it has to be done in whole region of J&K.


4. Pakistan has created Gilgit-Baltistan as an autonomous region. They have deliberately cut that area from J&K and formed another state in Pakistan. Are they going to conduct the plebiscite there too? Because if plebiscite has to be done it has to be done according to pre 1947 J&K.


5. There lies another problem of Aksai-chin. How does the plebiscite happen there? I do not see “Democratic Republic” of China agreeing to their friend Pakistan in the process.


- Unless these questions are answered and given importance, I do not think any peaceful solution can come out of any kind of bilateral talk.


Are Pakistani really concerned about Kashmiri people?

OR

Is it just about just water of Jammu & Kashmir?

OR

Is it just about the personal vendetta due to 1971?

@Horus
@Imran Khan
@SpArK
@WebMaster
@Jaat Rock
@Abingdonboy
@IPL5
@FreedomforKashmir
@Sidak
@halupridol
@Prometheus
@AsianUnion
@danger007
@Anonymous
@pakdefender
@hinduguy
@JonAsad
@Jaanbaz
@Leader
@osama zafar

First of all article written by a person who is not aware of the situation and has written out of patriotism not brain. Now point wise short reply shall be as:

1. Both India and Pakistan were supposed to withdraw forces not just Pakistan. How do you ensure a plebiscite is fair when one country's armed forces are there.

2. Government in AJK is elected by the people of AJK after elections there and election have been going on ever since 1947. Even when there was martial law in Pakistan AJK had democracy and there governments were not dissolved. This alone proves that they are free to govern themselves unlik IOK where Chief Minister after Chief Minister is removed just to ensure that Delhi line of thinking is followed.

3. A clause in the agreement signed between China and Pakistan clearly states that China shall reopen negotiations which government who shall be in power once the issue of Kashmir has been resolved. Your logic is not correct.

4. Yes plebiscite shall be held in GB also. The region was separated from Kashmir on the demand of people and not to carve away a piece of land from Kashmir. People have not protested against the decision infact have supported the decision so your argument is not reasonable.

5. As I have stated above once the issue of Kashmir shall be resolved then the Chinese government shall reopen the negotiations with the then legal government.

Yes we are concerned about Kashmirir people that is why Musharaf presented some out of box solutions to satisfy Indian ego too but none were agreed upon the the Delhi.

 

[Joeblow]

First of all article written by a person who is not aware of the situation and has written out of patriotism not brain. Now point wise short reply shall be as:

1. Both India and Pakistan were supposed to withdraw forces not just Pakistan. How do you ensure a plebiscite is fair when one country's armed forces are there.

2. Government in AJK is elected by the people of AJK after elections there and election have been going on ever since 1947. Even when there was martial law in Pakistan AJK had democracy and there governments were not dissolved. This alone proves that they are free to govern themselves unlik IOK where Chief Minister after Chief Minister is removed just to ensure that Delhi line of thinking is followed.

3. A clause in the agreement signed between China and Pakistan clearly states that China shall reopen negotiations which government who shall be in power once the issue of Kashmir has been resolved. Your logic is not correct.

4. Yes plebiscite shall be held in GB also. The region was separated from Kashmir on the demand of people and not to carve away a piece of land from Kashmir. People have not protested against the decision infact have supported the decision so your argument is not reasonable.

5. As I have stated above once the issue of Kashmir shall be resolved then the Chinese government shall reopen the negotiations with the then legal government.

Yes we are concerned about Kashmirir people that is why Musharaf presented some out of box solutions to satisfy Indian ego too but none were agreed upon the the Delhi.

Is it your stance that AJK and G-B are in fact, an independent country?

 

[ejaz007]

I don't know about the others but I'm willing to admit history or demographics is secondary. There is no support for joining Pakistan in the Indian side of Kashmir so Pakistan is really a non-issue.
I think one of the biggest problems is that because of its location, there are very few good options. First thing to understand, is that the state of Jammu and Kashmir is really 3 distinct demographic regions. If there was plebiscite today with 3 options, India, Pakistan or independence, Jammu and Ladakh will vote for India and the Kashmir valley will vote for independence. There is little support for joining Pakistan on the Indian side (there's a very thorough poll done by peace polls). If the whole state is considered together, then the valley has the largest population and will probably dominate the results and win independence. However, that would mean 40-45% of the population would be forced to be part of a small, Sunni majority, poor country with no resources. If you were advising the buddhists, hindus, Sikhs and Shias, based on current circumstances everywhere in the world, I don't know if you could, in good faith, tell them to join this union (maybe you could, I don't know if I could). If the 3 areas are asked individually, only the valley would chose independence and you'd end up a 6000 square mile land locked country which has no way of sustaining itself. Kashmir doesn't have any immediate resources it can exploit to stay afloat (Gilgit-Baltistan has natural resources but all indicators point to it voting to stay with Pakistan). Right now India covers all of its costs. So how does this new country stay afloat? If India and Pakistan both give up Kashmir, both armies are going to be in a permanent state of high alert waiting for the other to make a move. If there is a little, independent Kashmir, 2 things are bound to happen. First, it will always be trying to play India and Pakistan against each other for its benefit. Second, it will be perpetually broke so it will always be blackmailing both countries over water or something to get more money out of us, which I believe will eventually lead to war that will destroy the subcontinent. Maybe in a hundred years, when both countries are mature, if the Kashmiris still feel the way they do, we can look at giving them their referendum. But for now, I don't think we should risk the lives for 1.6 billion people of the subcontintent because 7-8 million people wanted a separate country that they have no way of taking care of.

The point is not what happens. The point is or should be to give the people their right to decide for themselves once and for all. What consequences come out of it can be addressed by India and Pakistan with mutual understanding if the will is there.

shall reopen negotiations which government who shall be in power once the issue of Kashmir has been resolved. Your logic is not correct.
4. Yes plebiscite shall be held in GB also. The region was separated from Kashmir on the demand of people and not to carve away a piece of land from Kashmir. People have not protested against the decision infact have supported the decision so your argument is not reasonable.
5. As I have stated above once the issue of Kashmir shall be resolved then the Chinese government shall reopen the negotiations with the then legal government.
Yes we are concerned about Kashmirir people that is why Musharaf presented some out of box solutions to satisfy Indian ego too but none were agreed upon the the Delhi.Click to expand...
Is it your stance

Is it your stance that AJK and G-B are in fact, an independent country?

Yes Ajaz Kashmir is not governed by Pakistan. We only have defence, finance and foreign policy in our hand rest is decided by government of AJK.

They have there own President, Prime Minister and legislative assembly.

 

[Joeblow]

The point is not what happens. The point is or should be to give the people their right to decide for themselves once and for all. What consequences come out of it can be addressed by India and Pakistan with mutual understanding if the will is there.

I think that while that should the ideal we should all strive for, governments are there to protect the interests of their respective countries. Here, there is nothing to gain for either country and everything to lose. That's why neither country has budged from its position. Also, I think one of the reasons why there isn't support in the west for an independent country is that their calculus is the same as mine. They're looking at an area that India is taking care of, that will become their problem since, at least in the immediate future, India wouldn't be interested in forking out the 10 billion dollars it does right now. There is China but it typically doesn't do anything without unless it can make money doing it. That's why I used the word blackmail in original post. The new country will blackmailing Pakistan with the threat of aligning with India and threatening India with China.

 

[toxic_pus]

1. Both India and Pakistan were supposed to withdraw forces not just Pakistan. How do you ensure a plebiscite is fair when one country's armed forces are there.

Only Pakistan was to _completely_ withdraw her forces and citizens and hand over the administration to the 'local authority' who would then administer the evacuated land under direct supervision of UN. India was to only _reduce_ her troop strength. A plebiscite administrator will then be appointed by UN, whose responsibility it would be to conduct the 'plebiscite'.

However, in order to maintain law and order in evacuated land, India agreed that instead of deploying foreign UN Peace Keeping force, a tiny portion of PA will be allowed to operate as UN Peace Keepers who will be lightly armed and of course under direct control of UN.

Ensuring fairness was the responsibility was of UN. Not of Pakistan.

3. A clause in the agreement signed between China and Pakistan clearly states that China shall reopen negotiations which government who shall be in power once the issue of Kashmir has been resolved. Your logic is not correct.

That agreement is void ab initio because it is an ex-parte agreement. The contents of the agreement are therefore irrelevant.

Right.
So "democracy" only if/when the demographics have been "adjusted".

Or _restored_.

 

[vayuu1]

The point is not what happens. The point is or should be to give the people their right to decide for themselves once and for all. What consequences come out of it can be addressed by India and Pakistan with mutual understanding if the will is there.





Yes Ajaz Kashmir is not governed by Pakistan. We only have defence, finance and foreign policy in our hand rest is decided by government of AJK.

They have there own President, Prime Minister and legislative assembly.

Abey to bacha kya, jab defence tumhare hath main, finance tumhare haath main, yaha tak ki uski foreign policy tumhare hath main to unke hath main kya, baba ji ka thullu.

 

[Neemo neemo]

Plebiscite or no plebiscite, Kashmir will be free.

Free from who?
Punjabi sunni?

Your points are relevant to the 1948 Resolution, but not to the fundamental question of self-determination.

Never mind what Pakistan does, the question is: is India confident enough to allow Indian held Kashmir to decide its own fate?

Can India act like mature democracies in Canada and UK, or is Indian "democracy" just a sham?

If you find my points relevant to 1948, then let me tell you a secret, " Referendum was also coined in 1948" my friend.
How do you propose one can allow refrendum with these problem unsolved?

 

[l'ingénieur]

haters gonna hate, potatoes gonna potate. all of jammu and kashmir belongs to pakistan

the truth might hurt your feelings

 

[SrNair]

Your points are relevant to the 1948 Resolution, but not to the fundamental question of self-determination.

Never mind what Pakistan does, the question is: is India confident enough to allow Indian held Kashmir to decide its own fate?

Can India act like mature democracies in Canada and UK, or is Indian "democracy" just a sham?

Sir those points are absolutely relevant.
Kashmir means entire Kashmir region including GB and Azad Kashmir and also Aksai Chin.

Until those are cleared a plebiscite is a waste.Means except Kashmiris all others be it Pak Punjabis ,outside Indians and Chinese should stay away from J&K.Then we can think about a plebiscite.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

Never mind what Pakistan does, the question is: is India confident enough to allow Indian held Kashmir to decide its own fate?

They are already doing it by participating in Indian elections and resting their trust on Indian dominion.

 

[Neemo neemo]

First of all article written by a person who is not aware of the situation and has written out of patriotism not brain. Now point wise short reply shall be as:

1. Both India and Pakistan were supposed to withdraw forces not just Pakistan. How do you ensure a plebiscite is fair when one country's armed forces are there.

2. Government in AJK is elected by the people of AJK after elections there and election have been going on ever since 1947. Even when there was martial law in Pakistan AJK had democracy and there governments were not dissolved. This alone proves that they are free to govern themselves unlik IOK where Chief Minister after Chief Minister is removed just to ensure that Delhi line of thinking is followed.

3. A clause in the agreement signed between China and Pakistan clearly states that China shall reopen negotiations which government who shall be in power once the issue of Kashmir has been resolved. Your logic is not correct.

4. Yes plebiscite shall be held in GB also. The region was separated from Kashmir on the demand of people and not to carve away a piece of land from Kashmir. People have not protested against the decision infact have supported the decision so your argument is not reasonable.

5. As I have stated above once the issue of Kashmir shall be resolved then the Chinese government shall reopen the negotiations with the then legal government.

Yes we are concerned about Kashmirir people that is why Musharaf presented some out of box solutions to satisfy Indian ego too but none were agreed upon the the Delhi.

My dear friend,
Downplaying my knowledge and questioning my reason-ability is not gonna help you tackle the questions. Now i would like to ask you something out of your own points.

1. Only Pakistan was supposed to withdraw it's troop and non-state assets from J&K, India was supposed to minimize it's force just enough to maintain civil administration and law & order, not completely withdraw. If you do not believe me, Please refer to UNSC reolution on Wikipedia or any other credible source other than Pakistani source. And hence Pakistan did not follow that resolution that time and waited to change the demographic in it's favor, It has no right to ask of it now.
And after that a comission was to be formed to overlook the fairness of plebiscite which would have contained members from internation community as well as Indian and Pakistani. So your objection to fairness of plebiscite in presence of minimized Indian force is not credible.

2. Let me tell you how free the government of so called AJK is.
The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council is a supreme body consisting of 11 members, six from the government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and five from the government of Pakistan. Its chairman/chief executive is the president of Pakistan. Other members of the council are the president and the prime minister of Azad Kashmir. You see that, out of 11 members, 5 are pakistani and 1 is Pakistan's president. As far as others are concerned, only those people are allowed to contest in election there who are pro-Pakistani. election candidates are prescreened to ensure that only those who support Kashmir?s union with Pakistan can contest elections. Anyone who wants to take part in public life in Azad Kashmir has to sign a pledge of loyalty to Pakistan, while anyone who publicly supports or peacefully works for an independent Kashmir faces persecution. There is a façade of an elected local government, but the federal government in Islamabad, the army and the intelligence agencies control all aspects of political life in Azad Kashmir.The military shows no tolerance for dissent and practically runs the region as a fiefdom. See how free the govt in Azad Kashmir is?

3. Please explain me how this works? After when Kashmir issue is solved, Pakistan govt will talk with china about ceded territory? What does it mean? When will Pakistan talk with China? Before or After Plebiscite? IF before, Then why did they ceded that area in the first place? IF after, then what about people of that area? will they take part in plebiscite or not? I do not think so. China is not going to give you back what you have gifted them.
BTW what was your right to give it to them in the first place? You say Kashmir is of Kashmiris, and still you gift wrap a part of territory to China, ithout asking anybody? It is such a hypocrisy.

4. Point 4 was a question, not argument

5. How would that happen? when did Chinese say that? Is that their official stand? last i checked they claim it their integral territory as part of Xinjiang province ( or whatever that place is called).

6. Most Importantly you have not answered the most important question which is point no. 2. in my discussion. How do you guarantee the originality of native Kashmiri in Azad Kashmir.

haters gonna hate, potatoes gonna potate. all of jammu and kashmir belongs to Pakistan

the truth might hurt your feelings

Did you even read the article i posted, as why it is not possible?
Do you have any reason or logical explanation to support your statement?
I think just having "K" word in name Pakistan which was supposed to be "K" of Kashmir, gives an identity crisis to Pakistani people. They know that whole of J&K is not in Pakistan, so they are confused whether to continue with word K in Pakistan or drop it. That is the reason behind identity crisis in Pakistan. Tell me what happens if Kashmir gets independent in plebiscite, will Pakistan drop "K" out of Pakistan , because i think that was the idea behind naming Pakistan in 1930's