What's new

A homecoming gone so horribly wrong

What would the people of India say, were their government to come to them and state, "we have decided that this dispute with Pakistan must be settled once and for all, and we have decided to let the people determine their destiny, for it is a principle that we have adhere to, and because we have full confidence that seeing the "freedom and democratic values practiced in this country", they will have no qualms about staying with India!"?

And then the people would ask 'Can the ground situations be changed to meet the 1947 demography? '
And the answer is 'No'.

So the simple solution is those who wants to join Pakistan can leave.
 
.
And then the people would ask 'Can the ground situations be changed to meet the 1947 demography? '
And the answer is 'No'.

So the simple solution is those who wants to join Pakistan can leave.

The simple soultion to what? The dispute is territorial - the Plebiscite allows for a moral solution to the issue, as evidenced by UN resolutions that ruled that the "wishes of the Kashmirirs" would be the the means of "final arbitration", nothing else.

If you were to read the remainder of my post (and I really wish you would start reading the entire thing so I dont have to repeat arguments I made in the post itself) you would realize that I anticipated your argument and attempted to address it.

Outsiders are not allowed to buy land in AK, I have read that it is the same in IK, is that correct? Explain how you think the demographics have shifted unreasonably enough to not be representative of the Muslim Kashmiri Majority that existed in 1947, in Kashmir?
 
.
Plebiscite was not done since Pakistan did not vacate troops from the area.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON 13 AUGUST 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/1100, PARA 75, DATED THE 9TH NOVEMBER, 1948)

The resolution clearly states:

1.The presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation and the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State…

It would be rather naive to believe that India would jump to the dictates of Pakistan and hold a Plebiscite as and when Pakistan desires!

Much water has flowed down the Indus and the Ganges. Simla Agreement has come into existence.

Therefore, what the current govts of India and Pakistan are doing is the best way forward.
 
.
Plebiscite was not done since Pakistan did not vacate troops from the area.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON 13 AUGUST 1948. (DOCUMENT NO. S/1100, PARA 75, DATED THE 9TH NOVEMBER, 1948)

The resolution clearly states:

1.The presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation and the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State…

It would be rather naive to believe that India would jump to the dictates of Pakistan and hold a Plebiscite as and when Pakistan desires!

Much water has flowed down the Indus and the Ganges. Simla Agreement has come into existence.

Therefore, what the current govts of India and Pakistan are doing is the best way forward.

Salim,

I have to agree with RR's argument here. The resolutions also further state:

that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission

The demilitarization was not supposed to occur unilaterally, but in conjunction with a reduction of troops by India as well.

None the less, I fail to see how you can argue that such a self evidently true principle as "self-determination" should not be exercised by the people of the region to resolve the issue.

The people of kashmir still exist, the dispute still exist, a possible solution accepted by the two countries still exists, the 2 countries can go back to the table and work out a means to demilitarize the region and create conditions that would be conducive for a plebiscite.

Complications exist in every dispute, what you are suggesting is that there should be no attempt to even try to address those complications, so that a "solution" can be reached based on bilaterally accepted and internationally endorsed resolutions.

PS:
If you wish to continue discussing, you can cut and paste my post, and reply in thread you mentioned above.
 
.
You are of the new generation and I am of the old.

I have observed the issue practically.

The Indian Army did notionally withdraw, but, there were problems when the Pakistanis did not move.

You and I can debate it till the cows come home, but the status quo can only be changed by the govts.

I am not suggesting anything. I am only replying comments on claims that India is at fault and I am not even resorting to the usual about it requiring two hand to clap!
 
.
I believe the point was that the actions by GoI, right after Partition, sowed the seeds of mistrust between the two nations, and that if anything, it was the GoI that was intent upon "destabilizing Pakistan since independence", as you yourself allude to by pointing out that the leadership of India did not believe Pakistan would survive.

I am sure you also remember the "fast" that Gandhi had to go on in order to get the GoI to release Pakistan's share of the funds it was entitled to.

Well what do u expect? Look it from the perspective of those times...

India is about to get freedom, everything is gung-ho, the British are leaving, and Nehru and Jinnah is dreaming of a united secular India. It was a very bold idea, and many though it would fail.

Then Mr.Jinnah here changes his mind, decided that Hindus and Muslims can't get along by default, and therfore they must separate.

Pakistan was made up of provinces that are ethnically dissimilar, they don't like each other too much, and have nothing in common except islam and british rule.

Both India and Pakistan were doomed from the start, if common sense is to be applied. Even today, parts of Pakistan refuse to accept Constitution of Pakistan.

Naturally, the other Indian leaders (There were muslims also, not just Hindus, who opposed partition) didn't want this to happen, and tried to put as many spanners in the works as possible.

Gandhi finally gave into Jinnah's demands, and he was pretty much hated for this.

But times have changed. People have accepted the fact that Pakistan is an independent country and only some minority fundamentalists dream of a united India.

The "seeds of mistrust" were sowed when Jinnah decided that hindus and muslims will never get along.


It really is time to move on and stop living in history.



That doesn't quite jive with your contention that the good Doctor is all gungho for peace. He is a politician like the rest, surely he too desires his share in the limelight.

Lets not forget the statements by the BJP leadership either.

He is hardly a politician. He was never elected and is quite green by political standards.

Also he never claimed any of that. Its Rahul Gandhi, who's statements aren't worth a penny, said it to get votes. Big Deal. Its got little to do with India's foreign policy.

I won't deny that the separation of Pakistan is being sold as an achievement of India by some politicians. But, one has to look at the speaker, audience and the context before jumping to conclusions.
 
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM View Post
I believe the point was that the actions by GoI, right after Partition, sowed the seeds of mistrust between the two nations, and that if anything, it was the GoI that was intent upon "destabilizing Pakistan since independence", as you yourself allude to by pointing out that the leadership of India did not believe Pakistan would survive.

I am sure you also remember the "fast" that Gandhi had to go on in order to get the GoI to release Pakistan's share of the funds it was entitled to.

Agnostic,

Think this over.

The problem of Pakistan is an identity crisis, in that, though Pakistan was created to give the Moslems of India a homeland for Moslem, Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, in his inaugural address to the Constituent Assembly, desired Pakistan to be a secular nation where all could practise their Faiths without discrimination. There started the dichotomy in identity! Pakistan, a Moslem haven and yet wanting to be secular! Islam and secularism, even as per the Islamic scripture, is as nearbred as chalk to cheese. Dar ul Islam and Dar ul Harb!

While Jinnah may have desired secularism with a mere touch of Islamic supremacy, yet the psychology of the people did not, and rightly so, since they had suffered, as did Indians, huge riots that claimed millions of lives. Obviously, one could not forget their suffering and hence Islam took foundation uber alles, being the raison d’ être for Pakistan being formed! And it was not as per Islamic tenets of Dar ul Islam and Dar ul Harb!

The people of the areas that became Pakistan were basically feudal and illiterate and their livelihood was in agriculture or the Armed Forces. On the other hand, those who migrated (the Mohajirs) were educated, emancipated and were people who were in institutions of a democracy i.e. lawyers, bureaucrats, petty businessmen etc. However, the important aspect was that they were rootless since their identity with “the soil" was left in India! Those who have been refugees can alone understand the heartbreak this is!

It was the Mohajirs who took over the governance and economy of Pakistan. Obviously, it was not appreciated by the original inhabitants of the areas that became Pakistan. The armed forces, composed of the original inhabitants, exerted to resume control of the area, and thus foundationed the psyche of martial law repeatedly afflicting Pakistan! The psyche of the Armed Forces being supreme has become so ingrained and powerful that it is ridiculously interesting that Pakistan is being currently ruled by a Mohajir i.e. Parvez Musharraf!

The Mohajirs, being educated and clever, realised that regionalism would leave them no place in Pakistan politics, which they were controlling (Jinnah was a Mohajir and technically a heretic since he married a non Moslem i.e. a Parsi), pulled out Islam as a all embracing card and as the be all and end all of Pakistan! Obviously, none could challenge that!

Providence came to the rescue of the Mohajirs – the Kashmir Issue wherein a Hindu ruler with Moslem population, acceded to India. It served both the Mohajir as also the Army (of original inhabitants) interests. Thus, Islam was supreme, and yet the Army was required to deliver. Practical application is more important than theory. Hence, the Army became the power behind the throne!

Thus, Pakistan is but a tussle for supremacy between Islam and the military and India is a convenient whipping boy for all ills that besot Pakistan! Even the British came for a beating since Radcliff (the one who worked out the boundaries) failed to give India to Pakistan!

I hope I did not set the cat amongst the pigeons!
 
.
This is the exact type stuff and nonsense that I alluded to that one observes whenever anyone discusses the UN resolution and how the whole issue has been 'pretzeled'!

You see Salim this is where your desire for peace is shown for what it is....nothing but BS.
The true indian in you comes to the forefront wanting to trivialize any issue that pakistan has with india.

Do tell me over what issue pak india wars have been fought over?

If pakistan had taken over a majority hindu state that was pro indian and there had been wars fought over the issue,do you think indian govt would say lets forget about the issue and be buddies?
 
.
You see Salim this is where your desire for peace is shown for what it is....nothing but BS.
The true indian in you comes to the forefront wanting to trivialize any issue that pakistan has with india.

Thank you, Sigmund Freud!

Good to see that Incarnation is a reality!

Wonders never cease!
 
.
Then Mr.Jinnah here changes his mind, decided that Hindus and Muslims can't get along by default, and therfore they must separate.

Pakistan was made up of provinces that are ethnically dissimilar, they don't like each other too much, and have nothing in common except islam and british rule.

Both India and Pakistan were doomed from the start, if common sense is to be applied. Even today, parts of Pakistan refuse to accept Constitution of Pakistan.

Naturally, the other Indian leaders (There were muslims also, not just Hindus, who opposed partition) didn't want this to happen, and tried to put as many spanners in the works as possible.

Gandhi finally gave into Jinnah's demands, and he was pretty much hated for this.

But times have changed. People have accepted the fact that Pakistan is an independent country and only some minority fundamentalists dream of a united India.

The "seeds of mistrust" were sowed when Jinnah decided that hindus and muslims will never get along.


It really is time to move on and stop living in history.

Your points about Jinnah are misleading!
It was Gandhi that brought religion into the independence movement.
 
.
Any port in stormy weather Dabong, right?

Could Jinnah not have rejected religion as the basis?

Must Moslems be followers and not leaders?

What are you suggesting?

There has been a phase in history where Islam was the leader, not in the military sense (which is distasteful and petty), but in the intellectual sense (which is what is all what makes people supreme). Go back to it.
 
.
You see Salim this is where your desire for peace is shown for what it is....nothing but BS.
The true indian in you comes to the forefront wanting to trivialize any issue that pakistan has with india.

Do tell me over what issue pak india wars have been fought over?

If pakistan had taken over a majority hindu state that was pro indian and there had been wars fought over the issue,do you think indian govt would say lets forget about the issue and be buddies?

Sweetheart,

And how many times Pakistan has started wars?

Is your memory that short or have you not seen my post indicating the same?

The issue on which wars have been fought is silly, in my opinion.

Religion is not the be all and end all of existence.

You have been supporting the terrorists in this forum. Will the terrorist be able to change anything apart from devastating Pakistan and ruining all the good that has been done so far by Musharraf?
 
.
Sweetheart,

And how many times Pakistan has started wars?

Is your memory that short or have you not seen my post indicating the same?

The issue on which wars have been fought is silly, in my opinion.

Religion is not the be all and end all of existence.

You have been supporting the terrorists in this forum. Will the terrorist be able to change anything apart from devastating Pakistan and ruining all the good that has been done so far by Musharraf?



As i said before if you desire peace and friendship have a vote in kashmir...after that all problems will be solved.
You want peace dont you?
You want to be friends dont you?

It is really that simple
 
.
Any port in stormy weather Dabong, right?

Could Jinnah not have rejected religion as the basis?

Must Moslems be followers and not leaders?

What are you suggesting?

There has been a phase in history where Islam was the leader, not in the military sense (which is distasteful and petty), but in the intellectual sense (which is what is all what makes people supreme). Go back to it.

Dont go off on one of your silly rants that has nothing to do with the point.
Was it Jinnah or Gandhi that brought religion into the independence movement...simple question.
As far as i am aware it was Gandhi......i might be wrong!
 
.
Salim said:
And how many times Pakistan has started wars?
Did i forgot something, 1965, 1971, 1985 etc, last time i checked they were not started by Pakistan.


Regards
Wilco
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom