Govt turning Kashmir into separate state: BJP

[Tiki Tam Tam]

In 1965 we captured "Khem Karan" and "Mona Bao"

yes i do agree that distance doesnt make any difference but you cannot supply arms in such a condition thats what happened.

I could debate with someone who understands battles, strategy.

Chum, do you understand Threat Perception? If you do, then one gears up as per the Threat Perception and not make excuses when the campaign is lost!

 

[Bull]

my dear always your ancestors were not fool rather they were very clever to leave the partition agenda uncomplete keepin in mind the longstanding stretegy reagarding arms sale (now its another matter that US had taken lead and UK is far behind) and using the location of Kashmir in future.

Your querry why we had not succeeded in solving the issue, well you can not solve the issue unless all the parties to the conflict are not sincer. As i told earlier we had even went to the extend to even bring our side Azad Kashmir to plebaside now that is the limite of offering so much.
The Kashmiris want freedom.

Its very unfortuante the the western powers and EU like blocks have taken sides in the past without considering wishes of the Kashmiries.
It is also very intersting as to why EU has become so intrested to solve this issue after 60 years of damage done to the conflict by these very blocks.

Such nice pals Pakistan are, playing all by the books, being the nice guy always preaching India the goodness of recognising kashmir as independant and then the evil india who never budges and continues to occupy and torture kashmiris. So sad.

 

[Bull]

Kashmir was independent ????
than howcome India is occupting it ?.

cheesy:Kashmir was independent ????
than howcome Pakistan is occupting it ?

: yeh it is the problem of India that is why Indian Army is killing Kashmiris daily in fake encounters..

Every hour not daily.

:Secondly as you said Kashmir was Independent than how come it is the problem of India isnt it that India is occupying it..

What?

:And BTW we are saying what the Kashmiris are saying. We are not forcing them to join us..

Yes, dont join us but we shall provide all that you need to free you from the occupiers...well that shud be abt muslim brotherhood isnt it?

:We are ready to apply that solution its you Indians who have no guts to accept their brutalities and reality of the issue..

Yes.

:Yes Kashmir decieded to remain independent NOt Under Thousands of Indian Millitary boots..

Thousands!!! Be precise its 750k.

:there is alot to say againt India beacause daily brutalities are committed against Kashmiris. But lets put that aside for a minute..

No why whud we. We shud remeber that every single moment, every single day , every single year..day n night.

:It is not the point whome they are saying anything against anyone.The point instead of accusing one party they should only work for resolving the issue according to wished of KASHMIRIS ONLY..

Well you have been accusing one party only all these while.

:They should set aside what India or Pakistan want. The point should be what Kashmiris want. If they want to be Independent of influence from India and Pakistan, they should be allowed. That would be nuterality.

How come Pakistan is so sincere in Kashmiri cause?

 

[Flintlock]

Anyways, here are my 2 cents:
Kashmir was ceded to India by erstwhile Maharaja...and those saying that the instrument of accession is fake should do some more research on the subject.

So legally Kashmir is definitely part of India.

Now as far as the insurgency is concerned, I feel that the Kashmiris have been misled, but either jehadis or by extrermist elements in their own society......
What are they rebelling against? Their own democracy? It doesn't make sense to revolt when the government is clearly of your own choice.



The only people in Kashmir who are part of the armed Insurgency (LET) are those who want to establish an Hardline Islamic state....rest are mostly foreigners from LOC and B'desh etc who are full blown terrorists.


For those who feel that the instrument of accession is infact real,but still Kashmir is an occupied territory, I have another question:

What is the legality of Pakistan over Balochistan or NWFP? Did they have a plebescite to join Pakistan? If not....the only reason they are with Pakistan is because the British were occupying the area illegally in the first place!! So legally speakiing these areas shouldn't even be a part of Pakistan!!


So where does this end? It is a useless debate. The Kashmiris are much better off staying with India than becoming another Bangladesh
(no offence to the B'deshis here)


We are not China, that we will crush their local cultures and do forced mass migrations etc etc. They are fully autnomous to develop their state!!! All Indians want to see a peaceful Kashmir with their beautiful culture and Sufism!!

Admin Edit: Keep personal remarks out of the thread. Remarks removed.

 

[Spring Onion]

Maybe Asim,
You cant even tame the NWFP with equal amount of troops!:

when you dont know anything about NWFP than do not act like BShters

Waziristan is not entire NWFP while Indian Held Kashmir is indeed the entire Kashmir behind the Freedom Fighters.
In NWFP rather intribal areas, a handful of miscreants are fighting the army not the Pakistani State.
And they are attacking army beacuase the army is working to eleminate these terrorists.

AND ABOVE ALL
There is no movement in NWFP for separation of Freedom of NWFP from Pakistan.

And you surrender to them with all your arms and ammunition! Haven't heard that yet with the Indiam Army! We rather die than surrender!

Yes Indian soldiers rather die by committing Suicide and killing own mates out of guilt of killing innocent Kashmiris
hates of to Indian army

 

[Bull]

AND ABOVE ALL
There is no movement in NWFP for separation of Freedom of NWFP from Pakistan.

And who were those 59 killed today/yesterday? Blacksmiths?!!

Yes Indian soldiers rather die by committing Suicide and killing own mates out of guilt of killing innocent Kashmiris hates of to Indian army

Guilt? What guilt? You said they were evil. Evil dont have guilt feeling.

 

[Awesome]

HAHA...looks like Bull here is quite Jaded.....Bull for how many months have you been arguing in circles with the Pakistani members here??

Its really strange...but it seems like people are more interested in discussing politics rather than defence technologies here...

Anyways, here are my 2 cents:

Please next time only give your 2 cents not comment upon what should or should not be discussed on this forum.

Kashmir was ceded to India by erstwhile Maharaja...and those saying that the instrument of accession is fake should do some more research on the subject.

Asccession is invalid dude! Your own PM is a signatory to the UN resolutions. So only talk about the UN resolutions.

Now as far as the insurgency is concerned, I feel that the Kashmiris have been misled, but either jehadis or by extrermist elements in their own society......
What are they rebelling against? Their own democracy?

So according to you, Kashmiris are rebelling because they are too stupid? Maybe they rebelling against this very attitude? Maybe they don't want what happened to Indian Muslims in Gujarat or what happened to the Babri Masjid?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That the Kashmiris want to leave the Indian Union is a moot point and it has been made larger than life by the foreign sponsored terrorists. The power of the gun always makes issues larger than life and imagination gripping. Take the Naxalites in India. They were there right from independence. They wanted a land of the workers and peasants. They were hardly known. But now that they are using modern weapons and are wantonly killing people, they have become a talking point and a matter of concern! They too are on the international radar.

I not only recognise the right of Kashmiris to select their destiny, but also that of all peoples, races, ethnicity in the world including those who are desperately seeking independence of their territories in Pakistan. However, if nations make and break at every turn of year or a decade, if you wish, then I am afraid the concept of a nation would become redundant. There are huge problems in Pakistan. Not only are some ethnic group rebelling, but also the common masses are against the govt. Does it mean that these ethnic people are that oppressed and the common man in the street rebelling against Musharaf so oppressed to the extent that their aspirations are not being met? Tell me, who in this world is happy with his lot? Are you? Any human being is charged with ambition and aspirations. Everyone wants things to go his way and should it not, it becomes a point of grouse. So, nothing is 100% perfect and no one is 100% happy.

Pakistan was created to rid Moslems of Hindu dominance. Therefore, having rid Hindu dominance, it should have been picture perfect. Is it? No. Why? Because, there is the indomitable desire of man to be supreme. Therefore, he hunts excuses to feet fat his ego. Thus, the picture perfect land that one had thought Pakistan would be, found new excuses - Sunni dominance over Shia, Punjabi dominance over others, Mohajirs vs the rest and so on. It is not a all Pakistan phenomenon. It afflicts the world. It afflicts India too!

What is all this power struggle going on in Pakistan for? Ego. To be supreme. Musharraf has done great wonders to Pakistan and yet BB, NS, Imran Khan, the fundamentalists are all there to bring him down. why? So that they can be supreme. What all this hullabaloo over Musharaf and his uniform about? To just humiliate him and feed fat the ego that they have humbled the all powerful military! Childish massaging of egos!


Therefore, we should read between the lines of all these problems that besot the nations of the world as is what is happening in India as also in Pakistan.

I asked you straight questions and one could have given straight answers.

My point still remains that if indeed the Kashnmiris want to secede from the Indian Union and there is an indigenous rebellion (as you and other suggests), then there should be a Bangladesh repeat.

It is not so and hence the so called rebellion is merely a figment of imagination catalysed by paid foreign agents and foreign sponsored terrorists, who by demonstrating actively and killing wantonly are appearing larger than life and are merely being projected as the popular sentiment by vested interests to serve their purpose.

Even the issue of the ummah being the bonding factor has been dispelled by Bangladesh splitting from Pakistan, inspite of Pakistan being explicitly created for Moslems of undivided India! Therefore, the argument that Kashmiris are Moslems and thus should be a part of Pakistan is not a truism.

I am of the opinion that 60 years have passed and yet we struggle to find our rightful places in the sun. Our peoples deserve better than what they are receiving. It is time to look beyond these historical logjams and embrace the beckoning future.

A wonderful principle, the right of any peoples to choose their destiny, and yet, as you rightly point out, completely impractical, were to every state, district and neighborhood start demanding this "right". But the application of this general principle, to the Kashmir dispute, as you described it, is itself a tangential argument, that distracts from the tensions in Kashmir, and between two nations, by focusing on the "impracticalities" that would bedevil any universally applied principle. Kashmir is "disputed" between two nations, and the only "legal" means of resolution proscribed for resolving the dispute so far remains the UN resolutions that are based on that truism of self determination. Impractical when applied as a "general rule" universally - but perfectly appropriate in this context.

I have to reiterate that your questions about Bangladesh remain tangential because you cannot conclusively show that the two situations are identical. And if your argument were to be entertained, what of the people of Quebec? No uprising, no violence, no blood shed, yet so many desired separation from Canada and lost by a whisker. That particular situation invalidates your attempt at debunking the presence of a desire for "independence" among the Kashmiris, based on a comparison to the 1971 events.

 

[salman nedian]

(By Bull)And who were those 59 killed today/yesterday? Blacksmiths?!!

How told you that there is a separation moment in NWFP? there is a different problem there you need to understand that.

(By Stealth Assassin)Kashmir was ceded to India by erstwhile Maharaja...and those saying that the instrument of accession is fake should do some more research on the subject

What is the legality of Pakistan over Balochistan or NWFP? Did they have a plebescite to join Pakistan? If not....the only reason they are with Pakistan is because the British were occupying the area illegally in the first place!! So legally speakiing these areas shouldn't even be a part of Pakistan!!

I have always said that by that rule Hyderabad should be a part of Pakistan b/c Nizam had decided to join Pakistan

There was a plebescite in NWFP and Balochistan's jirga decided to join Pakistan.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

I have always said that by that rule Hyderabad should be a part of Pakistan b/c Nizam had decided to join Pakistan

Hyderabad: Hyderabad, the second of the defiant states was the largest and richest in India. Its population was 85 percent Hindu but the ruler (Nizam) was a Muslim. He was reluctant to accede either to India or Pakistan but was dismissed by Mountbatten for adopting this course.

Post Independence Problems

From a Pakistan website.

Please note that the Nizam did not want to be a part of India or Pakistan.

However, there was this huge problem that it would have been landlocked by India.

The others were sensible and heeded Mountbatten's advice:

On July 25, 1947, Lord Louis Mountbatten (the last Viceroy of India) in his address to the Chamber of Princes advised them that in deciding the question of accession, they should take into consideration communal composition and the geographical location of their states. Nearly all the states accepted the reality of the situation and opted either for Pakistan or India accordingly
Post Independence Problems

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) (Urdu: shemaal maghribi sarhadi soobe) is the smallest in size of the four provinces of Pakistan. The NWFP is home to the majority Pashtuns (Pakhtoons) as well as other smaller ethnic groups. It borders Afghanistan to the west and north. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas form a buffer between the NWFP and Baluchistan. The principal language is Pashto and the provincial capital is Peshawar. The province is variously referred to as Pakhtunkhwa, which means "Pashtun Area" in Pashto, or Sarhad (meaning "Frontier") in Urdu.

During the early 20th century the Red Shirts led by Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan agitated through non-violence for the rights of Pakhtun areas. Following independence, the NWFP voted to join Pakistan in a referendum in 1947. However, Afghanistan's loya jirga of 1949 declared the Durand Line invalid, which led to border tensions with Pakistan. During the 1950s, Afghanistan supported a secessionist movement. After President Ayub Khan eliminated Pakistan's provinces, President Yahya Khan, in 1969, abolished this "one unit" scheme and added Swat, Dir, Chitral and Kohistan to the new borders.

The Pashtunistan issue kept Pakistan and Afghanistan at odds for decades until the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Following the invasion over 5 million Afghan refugees poured into Pakistan, most residing in the NWFP (as of 2007 nearly 3 million remain). During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the NWFP served as a major base for supplying the Mujahideen who fought the Soviets during the 1980s.

The NWFP remained heavily influenced by events in Afghanistan and the civil war led to the rise of the Taliban, which had emerged in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan as a formidable political force that nearly took-over all of Afghanistan. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the NWFP became a frontline region again as part of the US-led War on Terror.





Could it be that the Pashtuns think they are one is why there is this transborder problem including the Taliban attacks in NWFP?

Maybe they are unhappy that President Yahya Khan, in 1969, abolished this "one unit" scheme and added Swat, Dir, Chitral and Kohistan to the new borders.

In fact, it surprises me that the Pashtuns who are Moslems and who have voted to join Pakistan should do everything to create problems for Pakistan and instead be obtuse and support the Pashtun rebels in Afghanistan with all sort of unfortunate activities that embarrass and unsettle Pakistan.

I would be indeed surprised that the Pakistani Pashtuns would like to separate. They wont survive because they would be landlocked. I don't think they would like to join Afghanistan either, since Pakistan is surely better off than Afghanistan. Therefore, I am surprised that they should rebel against the Pakistan Federal authorities.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Following independence, the NWFP voted to join Pakistan in a referendum in 1947.

A very important part of the history of the NWFP, one that serves to counter attempts at relating it to the situation in Kashmir, as well as arguments that the Pashtun wish for "unification", after separation from Pakistan - it is they who chose to remain separate and join Pakistan.

Could it be that the Pashtuns think they are one is why there is this transborder problem including the Taliban attacks in NWFP?

Maybe they are unhappy that President Yahya Khan, in 1969, abolished this "one unit" scheme and added Swat, Dir, Chitral and Kohistan to the new borders.

In fact, it surprises me that the Pashtuns who are Moslems and who have voted to join Pakistan should do everything to create problems for Pakistan and instead be obtuse and support the Pashtun rebels in Afghanistan with all sort of unfortunate activities that embarrass and unsettle Pakistan.

I would be indeed surprised that the Pakistani Pashtuns would like to separate. They wont survive because they would be landlocked. I don't think they would like to join Afghanistan either, since Pakistan is surely better off than Afghanistan. Therefore, I am surprised that they should rebel against the Pakistan Federal authorities.

Your argument is fallacious - it is not the Pashtun who are "creating problems" for Pakistan, but the followers of an extremist and violent ideology, whose strength is being projected much farther than their numbers would allow by virtue of intimidation and barbarism at gunpoint.

Using your argument, one would be justified in stating that "the Arabs are causing problems in Iraq" - when it is quite clear that the majority of Iraqis, Sunni or Shia, would want nothing more than peace, but have their lives held hostage at the hands of a few extremists.

Such generalizations serve no purpose other than vitiating the atmosphere, creating and stoking ethnic tensions where none existed, or were minimal.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Maybe this would help.

Osama may be in city: Ex-spy

London, Oct. 9 (Reuters): Osama bin Laden could hide more easily in a city than a remote tribal region, a former Pakistani intelligence chief said today, challenging the notion that the al Qaida leader is probably holed up in a mountain cave.

Lieutenant-General Asad Durrani, former head of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), said news of outsiders’ presence travels fast in the tribal areas and it would be hard to keep it secret for years.

“In the countryside or in tribal areas ... it’s difficult to hide yourself because there people live ... and operate in a manner in which finding out about unusual presence is very important,” Durrani said in an interview in London.

He said: “I am not sure over a period of four, five or six years that it would be possible even for the tribesmen to keep his presence under wraps.”

The Telegraph - Calcutta : International

If he is in a city, then how come he has not been smoked out?

AS far as Pashtuns joining Pakistan, KahnAbdul Gaffar Khan was instrumental to sway the Pashtun as this from a Pak web site has to state:

PAKISTAN CONSTITUTION ASSEMBLY
In February 1948, Khan took the oath of allegiance to the new nation of Pakistan. Though he had opposed partition, he accepted the division and said all should move forward for the good of the country. He hoped ultimately to sway Pakistani opinion in support of the Khudai Khidmatgars so that they could continue as a service organization. Four months later, only six months after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, Khan was sentenced to six years in prison. During his imprisonment many Khudai Khidmatgars were killed, and the organization was banned.

RELEASED FROM PRISON
Abdul Samad-Khan Atsakzai, the leader of the Pathans in Baluchistan, Badshah Khan, and Khan’s brother, Dr. Khan Saheb, were released from prison in January 1954. Pakistan had declared a state of emergency and imposed a government without a vote of the people. Badshah Khan tried to revive the Khudai Khidmatgar movement to fight for representative government. In 1956, he was arrested and imprisoned again and his property was confiscated. In 1957, Amnesty international voted him prisoner of the year, saying, “His example symbolizes the suffering of upward of a million people all over the world who are in prison for their conscience.” Khan had been incarcerated for most of the ten years that India and Pakistan had been free.
Awami National Party - Official Website

June 25:

Badshah Khan announces that he and his followers will boycott the NWFP referendum on joining Pakistan.

June 26:
Sind assembly takes just 15 minutes to vote in favour of joining Pakistan. In NWFP, a thousand tribals hold a demonstration in support of an independent Pathanistan.

July 6:

Voters in NWFP and Sylhet vote in a referendum over joining Pakistan. There is tension in NWFP as followers of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan decided to observe a Pathanistan Day. But Gandhi writes to the Frontier Gandhi saying there should be no demonstrations against the Muslim League. Gandhi foresees an arms race between India and Pakistan as the 'freedom fight is approaching an inglorious end'.

July 20:

The referendum results from NWFP show that the province has decided by a slender margin to join Pakistan.

The 60 days to Aug 15, 1947 (India at 60) - India

It is correct that all Pashtuns are not involved in the insurrection, but to say that they are not there would also be fallacious. It is obvious that in a tight knit society of the Pashtuns, outsiders (non Pashtuns) can survive without the Pashtun people's permission.

Kashmir and NWFP are not of the same genre since normal states had referendum and princely states were allowed the decision of their rulers!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is correct that all Pashtuns are not involved in the insurrection, but to say that they are not there would also be fallacious. It is obvious that in a tight knit society of the Pashtuns, outsiders (non Pashtuns) can survive without the Pashtun people's permission.

That is true to some degree, but it is the manner of the acquiescence that is of greater interest - are they providing willing support to elements fighting against "authority", or is it as you stated:

Wherever terrorists operate, the locals are silenced by fear.

While the govt forces have to operate as per rules and are accountable, the terrorist don't.believe in any law and they are accountable to none.

Hence, the terrorists are feared.

This also gives rise to the feeling that locals are supporting the terrorists. Actually, the locals are with whoever is more powerful at that moment of time, so that they are not harassed!

This is axiomatic wherever terrorism has been fought or is being fought.

Kashmir and NWFP are not of the same genre since normal states had referendum and princely states were allowed the decision of their rulers!

And the manner of accession of princely states cannot be justified on any moral grounds, and has arguably been superseded by UN resolutions, issued on the insistence of the party in whose favor the "accession" went, that recognize that inherent right of a people to not be treated as chattel.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

And the manner of accession of princely states cannot be justified on any moral grounds

The "Doctrine of Lapse" cannot be justified under any moral grounds.

It is like a thief who enters your house with firearms and demands that your family heirlooms are given over to him (taking that thieves are men) and you do that since your life is more important that the jewels.

Are you the type who would suggest that my property, by all legal right and practice, should not be given to who I wish and should be decided by all and sundry?

Do you subscribe to the the view that the Doctrine of Lapse is right?

By that logic, anywhere there is an insurrection, it should be just handed over to those who rebel, be it with foreign support or otherwise. A Flawed justification.

So, let us discuss the morality issue from the roots.