Why pakistan and india are fighting over kashmir?

[Spring Onion]

Its not mandatory

China too occupies parts of J&K

.

Oh yes it is mandatory because

the article 6 of the agreement between Pakistan and China said viz a viz the part possessed by China

"The two parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People's Republic of China on the boundary"

 

[damiendehorn]

No

On 15 February 1954 the assembly cast a unanimous vote ratifying the state's accession to India. Constitution was drafted which came into force on 26 January 1957. Part II, section (3) of the constitution states 'The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India'.In 1956 the Constituent Assembly finalised its constitution, which declared the whole of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir to be 'an integral part of the Union of India'. Elections were held the next year for a Legislative Assembly.

This section cannot be legally amended as per provisions of Part XII of the constitution.

So on the one hand your saying the sepratists should use democracy and the political path to achieve their goals and if the people vote for them then they can get their independence.

Now here is the flaw in your arguement, even if the sepratist were allowed to stand, and even if they got 100% vote they still could not achieve their goals via demcratic means, because your constitution does not allow them to leave the union.

So there are no demcratic path for those that advocate independence, hence what are the kasmiris to do?

 

[third eye]

Oh yes it is mandatory because

the article 6 of the agreement between Pakistan and China said viz a viz the part possessed by China

"The two parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People's Republic of China on the boundary"

You are referring to a one on one agreement between Pak & China . It has no relevance to the UN resloution on J&K.

UN Resloution no 47 relates to J&K.

The resolution was passed by United Nations 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 theresolutions passed under Chapter VII

To illustrate the point, resoloution 678 was passed in 1990 against Iraq seeking it to withdraw from Kuwait.

Since this was passed under Chapter VII, Desert Storm was resorted to to enforce the UN mandate.

No such thing applies to resolution no 47

So on the one hand your saying the sepratists should use democracy and the political path to achieve their goals and if the people vote for them then they can get their independence.

Now here is the flaw in your arguement, even if the sepratist were allowed to stand, and even if they got 100% vote they still could not achieve their goals via demcratic means, because your constitution does not allow them to leave the union.

So there are no demcratic path for those that advocate independence, hence what are the kasmiris to do?

Friend

Kashmir as stated by you is one of the 3 principal regions of J&K state. Even if they get all the votes in the valley as PDP now has , it does not amount to a majority.

Now to answer what the Kashmiris can do.

They have autonomy - granted & protected by the constitution. This can be strengthened further like the Gorkhas have in North bengal - Gorkha Hill council.

Answers exist , but talks cannot take place over the sound of gunfire.

As they & their Pakistani supporters have realised India has the patience, resources, funds to handle such situations.. Meanwhile, what is needed is education & integration with the nation - that too is happening alongside.

 

[nForce]

So on the one hand your saying the sepratists should use democracy and the political path to achieve their goals and if the people vote for them then they can get their independence.

Now here is the flaw in your arguement, even if the sepratist were allowed to stand, and even if they got 100% vote they still could not achieve their goals via demcratic means, because your constitution does not allow them to leave the union.

So there are no demcratic path for those that advocate independence, hence what are the kasmiris to do?

As clarified by @third eye already. The constitution does not allow breaking away of any part of India. So, that is not an option.

 

[damiendehorn]

Friend

Kashmir as stated by you is one of the 3 principal regions of J&K state. Even if they get all the votes in the valley as PDP now has , it does not amount to a majority.

Now to answer what the Kashmiris can do.

They have autonomy - granted & protected by the constitution. This can be strengthened further like the Gorkhas have in North bengal - Gorkha Hill council.

Answers exist , but talks cannot take place over the sound of gunfire.

As they & their Pakistani supporters have realised India has the patience, resources, funds to handle such situations.. Meanwhile, what is needed is education & integration with the nation - that too is happening alongside.

You originally said the sepratists should use democratic means to achieve their goals, I am just showing you that it is not possible to use democracy for kashmiris as the indian constitution does not allow for states to leave the union.

So for the muslim kashmiris what options are available as deocratic avenues are denied to them?

1. Accept being a part of india.
2. Fight for what they want, independese or what ever that may be.

 

[ito]

So on the one hand your saying the sepratists should use democracy and the political path to achieve their goals and if the people vote for them then they can get their independence.

Now here is the flaw in your arguement, even if the sepratist were allowed to stand, and even if they got 100% vote they still could not achieve their goals via demcratic means, because your constitution does not allow them to leave the union.

So there are no demcratic path for those that advocate independence, hence what are the kasmiris to do?

Democracy doesn't mean referendum. Democracy is not defined that way.

Yes..Kashmiri separatists can participate in elections

 

[third eye]

You originally said the sepratists should use democratic means to achieve their goals, I am just showing you that it is not possible to use democracy for kashmiris as the indian constitution does not allow for states to leave the union.

So for the muslim kashmiris what options are available as deocratic avenues are denied to them?

1. Accept being a part of india.
2. Fight for what they want.

I do not know of any nation that allows its states to leave at will.

The goal of any organisation is assumed to be the well being of the people it represents. The separatists can fight for the well being of their people - sure. Let the nation know who / how many support them. This can come only from an election.

Next, can these unknown number of men override what the duly elected state assembly then led by Sheikh Abdullah agreed upon ? If yes then the answer is a ballot alone as thats the only medium of change this nation recognises.

If they win, answers will be found within the constitution. Provisions have been kept.

For the record , J&K even today has its own penal code which remains different form that of India.

 

[damiendehorn]

Democracy doesn't mean referendum. Democracy is not defined that way.

Yes..Kashmiri separatists can participate in elections

Kashmiri separatists can only participate in election as long as they swear alliagence to the india state! The indian constitution has been drafted in such a way that does not allow states to leave the union.

Therefore why should a separatist then use the demcratic route when, he knows that even if he get a majority the state will not allow the state to leave the union?

 

[ito]

Kashmiri separatists can only participate in election as long as they swear alliagence to the india state! The indian constitution has been drafted in such a way that does not allow states to leave the union.

Therefore why should a separatist then use the demcratic route when, he knows that even if he get a majority the state will not allow the state to leave the union?

As explained by the third eye..no nation would allow its states or provinces to live the union. That is why separatists are not fighting the elections. But it their problem not the nation's.

 

[nForce]

Kashmiri separatists can only participate in election as long as they swear alliagence to the india state! The indian constitution has been drafted in such a way that does not allow states to leave the union.

Therefore why should a separatist then use the demcratic route when, he knows that even if he get a majority the state will not allow the state to leave the union?

Does your nation allow its states to leave at will ?

Answer this first and then we will take it further.

 

[damiendehorn]

I do not know of any nation that allows its states to leave at will.

The goal of any organisation is assumed to be the well being of the people it represents. The separatists can fight for the well being of their people - sure. Let the nation know who / how many support them. This can come only from an election.

Next, can these unknown number of men override what the duly elected state assembly then led by Sheikh Abdullah agreed upon ? If yes then the answer is a ballot alone as thats the only medium of change this nation recognises.

If they win, answers will be found within the constitution. Provisions have been kept.

For the record , J&K even today has its own penal code which remains different form that of India.

You are still avoiding the question, can separatists use democracy to leave the union? Yes or no, its as simple as that, if the answer is no then the separatists have no incentive to use the demcratic path.

We had a similar situation here with scotland, we held a referendum and the people choose to remain in the union, end of story. If they wanted to leave, they were free to, thats the way it works.

Does your nation allow its states to leave at will ?

Answer this first and then we will take it further.

Yes, i live in the UK. We just held a referendum, in scotland about independence.

As explained by the third eye..no nation would allow its states or provinces to live the union. That is why separatists are not fighting the elections. But it their problem not the nation's.

So you accept that the separatists have no option then to fight for their freedom.

 

[nForce]

Yes, i live in the UK. We just held a referendum, in scotland about independence.

Are you a British National or Bangladeshi ?
Regarding the instance that you talk about, well, India is not UK and we have our own rules. those separatists from Kashmir can go to UK and get a piece of land there if they want. In India, that option is not present.

 

[third eye]

You are still avoiding the question, can separatists use democracy to leave the union? Yes or no, its as simple as that, if the answer is no then the separatists have no incentive to use the demcratic path.

We had a similar situation here with scotland, we held a referendum and the people choose to remain in the union, end of story. If they wanted to leave, they were free to, thats the way it works.

The answer is No

Constitutions are ground rules & frame work to run a nation. They are drafted to keep people in not out.

Only when the constitution gets violated or twisted do states break.I would like to draw your attention to Pak elections in 1970. The AL won a majority & was denied the right to form Govt & it led to your nation being born.

Right or wrong ( is a matter of opinion & often circumstantial) the law of the land has to be upheld.

No incentives are needed to follow a democratic process. Thats how nations are run.

 

[ito]

You are still avoiding the question, can separatists use democracy to leave the union? Yes or no, its as simple as that, if the answer is no then the separatists have no incentive to use the demcratic path.

We had a similar situation here with scotland, we held a referendum and the people choose to remain in the union, end of story. If they wanted to leave, they were free to, thats the way it works.



Yes, i live in the UK. We just held a referendum, in scotland about independence.



So you accept that the separatists have no option then to fight for their freedom.

They have options...all disputes have options...you have to compromise to arrive at a negotiated settlement. However if separatists are rigid in their position, then they free to fight for their 'freedom'.

 

[damiendehorn]

Are you a British National or Bangladeshi ?
Regarding the instance that you talk about, well, India is not UK and we have our own rules. those separatists from Kashmir can go to UK and get a piece of land there if they want. In India, that option is not present.

I am a British national, my father is Anglo Dutch and my mother is Bangaldeshi. Kashmiris have every right to fight for their freedom as much as Bangladeshis did fighting for theirs.