Why Kashmiris need an independent nation

[white_pawn]

I agree, an independent kashmir is not going to happen......it can only be truly free as a part of pakistan.

Ya dabong1, keep saying that good for you and pakistan

 

[Xeric]

Well i think before you all proceed with the debate give a look at the option number 3 in the following post:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/348959-post368.html

# Option 3 - Independent Kashmir Option. It envisages an independent and sovereign state consisting of all parts of Jammu & Kashmir. This option is being very vigorously propagated by Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) and has also found favour in some western countries. Implications of this proposal are:-


a. Implications For Pakistan

> In case this option is coupled with plebiscite option, it will divide the Muslim votes into three choices; accession to Pakistan, accession to India or Independent Kashmir. Whereas non-Muslim Votes are likely to be caste in India’s favour. This may ultimately tilt the result of plebiscite in favour of India thus paving the way for Kashmir’s accession to India.

> It would further accentuate the strategic vulnerabilities of Pakistan both in economic and military terms.

> Pakistan will have to give up not only AJ&K but also Northern Areas.

> Hindu population is likely to start the movement for integration of Hindu majority areas with India.

> Negates the very basic nature of Indian Independence Act.

> May be accepted by India as a “worst case scenario”.

> Pakistan will come under greatest pressure, it wills not only have to loose AJ&K and Northern Areas but also the Mangla Dam (situated in areas of AJ&K) and thus the future of the water of Rivers Jhelum and Chenab (flowing from Kashmir) will become uncertain.



b. Implications for India

> India will have to loose both Jammu and Laddakh.

> It may result into similar demands from other former princely states also.

> The Hindu population in the state will be left without any safeguards.


c. Viability of an Independent Kashmir. It will also be not out of place to analyse the viability of Independent Kashmir:-

> Independent Kashmir without solid economic aid from outside is not feasible.

> Kashmir will be land locked country and it will have to have equal relations with both India and Pakistan. In addition, there is a very strong likelihood of an independent Kashmir becoming a hot bed of International intrigue.

> In its historical background also, it is divorced from and an affront to the history and realities of the problem.

> The demographic realities are also diametrically opposed to the idea of independence especially in the absence of a movement for independence in Jammu, Laddakh, Northern Areas of Pakistan and AJ&K.

 

[Omar1984]

I dont know about people in Indian Occupied Kashmir but people from Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas never held protests against being part of Pakistan. People from Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) are one of the most patriotic Pakistanis (btw their history, culture, language, ethnic origins are different from Kashmiri people).

I know most people in Indian Occupied Kashmir dont want to be part of India. Some rather have an independent country Kashmir (maybe because they have been watching too much Indian media and heard "horror stories" about Pakistan I dont know), and some in Indian Occupied Kashmir want to be part of Pakistan (we cant forget last year when they were singing jeevay Pakistan, Kashmir baneyga Pakistan...)

Well, I guess if most people in Indian Occupied Kashmir want an independent country let them have it. Pakistan's Azad Kashmir and Pakistan's Northern Areas will never leave us, I have more faith in people from Northern Areas (Gilgit-Baltistan) than some people from Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, FATA, and Balochistan.

 

[rubyjackass]

Dont see now uprising for freedom in AJK....pakistani army has not killed hundreds of thousands of people like the indian army.

Consider the fact that almost all deaths in Kashmir were after Pakistan backed insurgency started in Kashmir. The most exaggerated estimate of people who lost their lives is 86,000(more than twice the official number).

Well, I guess if most people in Indian Occupied Kashmir want an independent country let them have it. Pakistan's Azad Kashmir and Pakistan's Northern Areas will never leave us, I have more faith in people from Northern Areas (Gilgit-Baltistan) than some people from Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, FATA, and Balochistan.

You never heard of any revolt in Northern Areas? Really?

 

[RajsParadise]

Generally I don't respond to threads which are of no significance because any efforts in trying to dissuade will be persuaded with constant rhetoric’s of Fan boys and at the end of the day the very effort of persuasion to derive a logical reasoning is instigated with biased influence of regionalism and emotions, but contrary to what I said above the effervescence of thread enticed me in penning down my opinion.
I greatly appreciate the author, who just being an MCA student possesses insight of what and why he believes in a theology of his existence along with his fraternity.
Its imperative to annul the half-a-century old dissuasion of human enthralling episode of bloodshed and utter disappointment on the part of twin countries who are always on the brink and verge of self destruction and sheer disbelief is that the swords have been engrossed with each other’s entailment.

Kashmir, a paradise on earth when seen with poetic eyes, a marvel of nature when evaluated on scale of magnificence has been torn and ripped apart by its very own men needs a breather as it bared enough bullets and bloodshed which already left an embarking engrave in it.
And, neither India nor Pakistan will let go of it because it has become a purview of pride and honor of both these countries to deter an idea of letting it go. As the author rightfully justified, Kashmir needs to be an Independent Nation, I would only believe that the notion of Kashmir being a populous state with Muslamans can’t be factored nor portrayed as the reason for its Independent existence and I believe that may be the very same factor which influences the Indian side of thinking when claims are made to that effect.
We also need to understand what will be the implications of having Kashmir as an Independent state, whether it has significant resources to survive and if yes can they sustain the tenacity of time and what are its most viable options in case of adversity.
Another significant question I propose to raise is what is the sanity level in Kashmir which has already seen enough insurgence of terrorist factors, and would UN opinion would take these factors into consideration because we don’t want a mini Alqueda or talibanisation of Kashmir sitting pretty with borders of India.

So, evidently just to summarize even though it is a pivotal factors for Kashmiris to adulate their own freedom without any unjustified exertion of authority, I would rather say that given the situation and circumstance no world organization nor people’s opnion would bring about the desired wish of the author unless Terrorism in the region STALLS.

 

[Nihat]

Kashmir as an independent state is a decent Idea , from Pak side it should include Pakistani Kashmir but not NA if Pak so desires and from Indians side it should be only the Valley and not Jammu and Laddakh which have never shown any desire for separation unlike Kashmiris.

I don't think Kashmir will be able to sustain itself but than that again is none of India's business (if it's a separate nation)

 

[Omar1984]

You never heard of any revolt in Northern Areas? Really?

I've lived in Gilgit for a few months. I've talked to people there, I made wonderful friends. People there are very patriotic Pakistanis. Maybe there's a few rebels there but every place has that. Do you know even some people of Karachi want Karachi to be an independent country? Karachi, the city of the founder of Pakistan where the founder was born and buried..and was the capital of Pakistan for 20 years.

 

[third eye]

Whenever ppl have nothing better to do or post, this bogey is launched. It is interesting to note that some here wouldn't like to grant independence to the Pak held part while they recommend the same for the Indian side.

For the record there is no state called Kashmir in India. Jammu & Kashmir comprises of Hindu dominated Jammu, Buddhist dominated Laddakh & Muslim dominated Kashmir. All 3 were ruled by Hari Singh who signed off all three three to India in the instrument of accession.

Any amount of Bak- Bak will not change the ground situation. Yet there is no restriction on debate & dreams howsoever futile they may be.

PS : No mention is made on the portions ceeded by Pak to China or those held by China ?

 

[Xeric]

Whenever ppl have nothing better to do or post, this bogey is launched. It is interesting to note that some here wouldn't like to grant independence to the Pak held part while they recommend the same for the Indian side.

For the record there is no state called Kashmir in India. Jammu & Kashmir comprises of Hindu dominated Jammu, Buddhist dominated Laddakh & Muslim dominated Kashmir. All 3 were ruled by Hari Singh who signed off all three three to India in the instrument of accession.

Any amount of Bak- Bak will not change the ground situation. Yet there is no restriction on debate & dreams howsoever futile they may be.

PS : No mention is made on the portions ceeded by Pak to China or those held by China ?

Care to show us the copy of the famous Instrument of Accession.

And if you consider that this done with such simplicity as you claim, then you are Wrong!!

 

[Black Stone]

I remember there was a very long thread about Kashmir...is this a repeat?.

 

[third eye]

Care to show us the copy of the famous Instrument of Accession.

And if you consider that this done with such simplicity as you claim, then you are Wrong!!

We have been flogging this dead horse again & again. There must be umpteen threads in this forum on this subject.

I have no inclination of getting into another slugging match on this subject. It does not matter how simply it was done. The fact that it was done is enough.

Nothing is going to change on the ground.

As rgds the instrument of accession, I saw a copy on this forum posted by someone. A little research will help you get it.

 

[Xeric]

We have been flogging this dead horse again & again. There must be umpteen threads in this forum on this subject.

I have no inclination of getting into another slugging match on this subject. It does not matter how simply it was done. The fact that it was done is enough.

Nothing is going to change on the ground.

As rgds the instrument of accession, I saw a copy on this forum posted by someone. A little research will help you get it.

If you are referring to this IoA, then god bless you!

India's false Instrument of Accession is actually an "Instrument of Aggression" against Kashmir!
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.

 

[third eye]

If you knew where it was , why did you ask for it ?

Relax, I already consider my self blessed.

 

[Xeric]

If you knew where it was , why did you ask for it ?

Relax, I already consider my self blessed.

Well it is polluted all over the internet and you know it, but probably you don't know that it has been the most controversial document.

A document which remained invisible for years makes the bases of your claim over Kashmir, funny indeed.

 

[Sino-PakFriendship]

Also Sikh nation