Can india let go of kashmir?

[Nilgiri]

It would be better to convert Kashmir into type Hong Kong

Indian Kashmir already effectively is like that. Its pretty much a special administrative region under Article 370

 

[HAIDER]

Indian Kashmir already effectively is like that. Its pretty much a special administrative region under Article 370

Hong Kong mean approachable for both Pakistani and Indian citizen. Neither India nor Pakistan should allowed to enter any military or armed parties in that region .

 

[Max Pain]

There will be lasting peace between the two countries and if Pakistan tries to ask for more then no one would take Pakistan's side because Kashmir is pretty much the last thorn in our relations.

I know it wont happen anytime soon but I firmly believe india wont lose anything and it will be better for both the countries in the long run.

 

[IndoUS]

There will be lasting peace between the two countries and if Pakistan tries to ask for more then no one would take Pakistan's side because Kashmir is pretty much the last thorn in our relations.

I know it wont happen anytime soon but I firmly believe india wont lose anything and it will be better for both the countries in the long run.

Nope, it would just embolden the other side

 

[Indika]

If a small minority of Islamic militants were to be successful in wrestling Kashmir, it would embolden them to carry out the same strategy in every part of the country starting with Assam, West Bengal, UP, Kerala, Telangana etc.

Silent majority would never speak under the threat of gun. It is the responsibility of the state to confront the terrorists and ensure that the silent majority regain their voice.

small concentrated minority of Islamic militants , after some time they will melt away like ISIS or consumed by some thing larger than themselves. Its just like mafia gangs nothing lasts forever thats built on violence.

 

[ito]

Certainly the people deserve to Get their Freedom to Choose (Democratic means)

• UK allowed Scotland chance to decide their future
• UK voted democratically to find their freedom from European Union no blood shed
• Canada gave Qubeec chance to decide if they want free state or remain in Canada
• UK , gave back Hong Kong to china in return for peaceful ties
  
• France allowed Algeria their freedom now they enjoy reasonably decent ties many Algerians in France
• USA after ww2 did not rule over Japan , they let the people go free and build new bridges of friendship and cooperation
• Germany and Germans brought down the wall between their nation becasue they realized it is the will of people now (realization of the obvious)

India - Pakistan both enjoy freedom day (15th august and 14th august) so why the same fruit is denied to Kashmiri people to be able to choose their own path by vote ?

For 70 Years same struggle for Kashmiri people a democratic solution, demanding that right from a nation who claims to honor democracy

Democracy means - vote and majority rules , so why they should be slaves by action of 1 prince's vote

Indians could still visit Kashmir as tourist it is not like they live there anyways they visit like once in blue moon

Today we love UK for what they eventually did (freed the people peacefully) which is why many have homes in UK why? It is simple becasue UK knew when to let it go!!!

• Example a lot of Indian-Pakistani-Sikh call UK their home second home

Would you do to that Baluchistan? If no, India will not that too.

As on freedom, none of the 500 odd princely states at the time of independence got the right for referendum. All acceded to either India or Pakistan based on the ruler's instrument of accession. Why should Kashmir be different?

 

[Max Pain]

Nope, it would just embolden the other side

I dont think so,
Then again we both are talking about something that may or maynot happen in near future

 

[IndoUS]

I dont think so,
Then again we both are talking about something that may or maynot happen in near future

Let's look at it this way, can giving away Kashmir simply wash away and solve the overlying issue of hatred between two countries which caused three wars and so many deaths? Kashmir is just the tip, the rivalry between the two for superiority would not end until the other one is completely done for.

 

[Dem!god]

Letting go kashmir, lol, never gonna happen.
Whatever the consequences, kashmir is always going to be part of india.

 

[Jai.Singh]

Consequences??? lol

Never ever think about this in your dreams..whole J&K including P OK belongs to citizens of India wether it's Muslim, Hindu or others..

Very soon article 370 removed under article 368.then the real beauty shows....

 

[Hellfire]

@LadyFinger

Couldn't tag you as was senior's cafe and an old post. I deleted subsequent as I was planning to leave the forum a few days ago.

But look at these questions pragmatically and try and answer them. Ignore any and all who try to distract you. Just try sequentially answering, something like I asked you earlier, to try and analyse something as a military commander (on the other topic of another thread). Engage for sometime. If you are into research, you will enjoy extended engagement with more people I will point out subsequently.




The questions are as under mentioned:

1. The formation of Dominions of India & Pakistan are governed by Indian Independence Act of 1947. The accession of the Princely States is specified by Para 3 sub-clause (a). Do you accept the validity of the act and the provisions it contains as being a legal basis wherein the Dominions are legalized as Nation States?

2. What, as per you, constituted a Sovereign authority in a Princely State in the period preceding August 1947.?

3. If, as per you, the British recognized the Maharaja of J&K as the sovereign for the state, then under what clause or act of the aforementioned act as mentioned in 1. above was the Maharaja NOT the legal sovereign of the State?

4. If, as per you, the Maharaja was not a legal sovereign, then under which clause was any other ruler of any other state a legal sovereign?

5. Why, in your opinion, was a standstill agreement signed by Pakistan when India did not, with Maharaja of Kashmir, if he was not a legal sovereign if you contend to it?

6. Assuming you consider the aforementioned Maharaja as the legal sovereign, then was it not a fact that as of 15 August 1947 Jammu and Kashmir was an independent State in addition to the two Dominions formed, the sovereign of which was the said Maharaja, and being a legal nation, it was an independent state which derived it's legitimacy from the very Act wherein Pakistan derived it's own legitimacy?

For now, I will be grateful if you could give precise and concise answers to the aforementioned questions, any relevant information which you may wish to include, may be highlighted devoid of the streaks of nationalism, patriotism and religious/ethnic fidelity, if any, you may suffer from.

I confess, my professional base tends to make me guilty of the first two and atheism potentiates a distaste and abhorrence for the latter.

I like the fact that you have asked me to be logical. Let's be that. Sequentially, logically and to the point. Only small segments at a time, so that we are clear about our respective understandings and mutual views in a phased manner. I must, however, seek your indulgence in my irregular responses till 30 September. I prefer to troll newbies now, as a means of break from my other task.

Thanks

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-dispute—the-faultlines-by-dr-m-k-teng.440732/page-3#ixzz4IJPVPiV0

 

[LadyFinger]

@hellfire I will sure look into your points. I must tell you that I may not share the vision of most people. And not even yours may be. The things that matter to me are more about the solutions and not about creating problems.

Thank you for your response! We will have these conversations for sure, I appreciate your response.

 

[Hellfire]

@hellfire I will sure look into your points. I must tell you that I do not share the vision most people here. And not even yours may be. My thing is much bigger than this. The things that matter to me are more about the solutions, and not creating the problems.

Thank you for your response! We will have these conversations for sure, I appreciate your response.

I dont have a vision here nor a view. I am here to listen to views of others. Instead, I get rants. And lies.

People in valley suffer, it is sad. But reasons are neither azadi nor accession to Pakistan, it is purely to do with the politics of using a mix of religion and poverty to deprive the dignity to a human being.

These questions are not to prove or disprove any point. Just to drive that the matter can be settled logically and without emotions.
Take your time. Will wait for an answer if you care to give one.

Thanks

Regards

 

[livingdead]

it will only give hope to other separatists like ULFA and other NE ones... a deal needs to be done with kashmiris like we are doing with nagas...

 

[Indrajit]

There will be lasting peace between the two countries and if Pakistan tries to ask for more then no one would take Pakistan's side because Kashmir is pretty much the last thorn in our relations.

The same "lasting peace" can conceivably be achieved if Pakistan simply lets go of Kashmir.....would you not agree? However for both Pakistan & India, national vision of how we see ourselves are connected to the issue. No such absolute movement is possible, for either side.