In solidarity with the Hindu/Indian posters here on Defence.PK

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The option to let the Kashmir decide was to solve Indo - Pak issue amicably, not that Indian Independence Act gave any right to any state of erstwhile India to chose by plebiscite. India Pakistan could not utilize the option in mutually agreeable way using good office of UN 70 years back. That option is no more acceptable to India as a tool to resolve Ind-Pak issue today. We can now bilaterally chose any other method.

The option to let the Kashmiris decide via plebiscite is the only just, democratic, morally and ethically correct means of resolving the dispute and ending the conflict. The arguments against plebiscite, such as the ones you've made here, are nothing more than the usual dissembling to avoid a solution that India KNOWS will not go in her favor because the majority of Kashmiris are not in India's favor.

Unnecessary provocation.

You're blaming the victims (the Kashmiris) for retaliating after India shut down the only just & democratic means of resolving the dispute and India's 70 plus years of military occupation - that is the text book definition of victim blaming. Just because you're offended when confronted by the truth doesn't make it an 'unnecessary provocation'.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

That, all Hindus are Sanghis, and hate Muslims, and want to genocide them. That is simply not correct. Hindus aren't this giant monolith in India who all think exactly alike. Some of us hate Narendra Modi more than Kashmiris do.

You kind of prove this point.

You mention clearly that you dont practice Hinduism.

Assuming you mean it AND you are not a troll, this indicates a trend. I can explain, but let's leave it at that.

If you are what you say you are - you don't hope for a Muslim genocide. Because you are not a Hindu at least not in a religious sense. I appreciate that and congratulate you for it though. IF you say who you are.

Peace.

The option to let the Kashmiris decide via plebiscite is the only just, democratic, morally and ethically correct means of resolving the dispute and ending the conflict. The arguments against plebiscite, such as the ones you've made here, are nothing more than the usual dissembling to avoid a solution that India KNOWS will not go in her favor because the majority of Kashmiris are not in India's favor.

You're blaming the victims (the Kashmiris) for retaliating after India shut down the only just & democratic means of resolving the dispute and India's 70 plus years of military occupation - that is the text book definition of victim blaming. Just because you're offended when confronted by the truth doesn't make it an 'unnecessary provocation'.

In my opinion, with the current situation - ideally, this option should be extended to all over India. Not just Kashmir.

 

[xeuss]

In a democracy you are allowed "Peaceful protests". Hurling stones and rocks is not peaceful.

Why was there no insurgency pre-1989? Hint Pakistan started meddling in our internal affairs around that time. first in Punjab then in Kashmir.

I find it a tad bit amusing when the riot act is read for the Kashmiris, but never mind that every other Hindu agitation has been nothing but violence.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I would humbly agree to disagree and leave it that- Nowhere I have said cleanse out anyone- The ones that are confused will be sent to reeducation places-(a la china model). Did I even mention religion/caste etc- All I said was Kashmiri's-(Dont understand how you took that as cleansing a community)- I will follow your direction and say nothing at all on this-you know my stand of this anyway.

It's simple - instead of hiding behind all these excuses of Pakistan withdrawing unilaterally and mumbo jumbo of India's own laws passed to justify it's own occupation (essentially the criminal passing laws to justify his/her crimes), just admit the truth, that Indians know in their hearts the reality that a majority of the residents of J&K WILL NOT choose India in a plebiscite, and that is why India does not want a plebiscite.

That is what I mean by being honest in your engagement with Pakistanis, instead of dancing around in circles trying to argue the minutiae of the UNSC Resolutions on J&K or the Simla Agreement.

@Joe Shearer

I'm going to address this to you as well, not because you fall in the category of @ChennaiDude & @IMARV, but because I think you're already at a point where you are honest with yourself and Pakistanis.

We can all be honest with ourselves and with the other side on what we believe & what we desire. All these circular arguments we have are pointless when we all know the TRUE motivations driving the positions on each side. Pakistanis support the UNSC Resolutions and a UN plebiscite because we believe the majority of residents of J&K will choose Pakistan. Indian's oppose the same because they believe that the majority will likely choose independence or Pakistan before choosing India.

Honesty with oneself and others brings respect, not this dance we do where everyone knows whats what but refuses to acknowledge it (as if such acknowledgement would change the status quo), which in turn only breeds contempt and loathing, especially in the context of something so emotional as the Jammu & Kashmir dispute.

 

[xeuss]

No i disagree , give me time to respond in detail , its a lot more complex them what you have said . may be tomorrow when i am off duty .

Sure take your time. However, I would hope that you would be considerate that our place in society often determines how we view and interpret events.

 

[KhanBaba2]

Absolutely, and to identify who is Indian, Pakistani or Independent Kashmiri, let the UN hold a plebiscite and ask the Kashmiris whether they wish to be a part of Pakistan, India or independent.

Once that is established, the minority (in the plebiscite) can move wherever the hell they want.

There is no Independent Kashmiri. There is Pakistani or Indian. Those are the rules this game started with.

 

[aryadravida]

Nice long speech but still we won't buy your Indian lolz

Hahaha...true

 

[IMARV]

I would humbly agree to disagree and leave it that- Nowhere I have said cleanse out anyone- The ones that are confused will be sent to reeducation places-(a la china model). Did I even mention religion/caste etc- All I said was Kashmiri's-(Dont understand how you took that as cleansing a community)- I will follow your direction and say nothing at all on this-you know my stand of this anyway.

@AgNoStiC MuSliM and other Pakistanis today are perhaps talking at a position of strength and where after decades of effort by them and some bad policies by India have given them some kind of leverage. They are citing a solution proposed 70 year back which they avoided to execute in words then and delay it to consolidate their positions further. We should give them credit for their perseverance.

From a first submission of them to UN of them having no involvement in State of J&K, then to agree to resolutions where Pakistanis were called as material change in J&K, resolutions which call for no consultation with Pak but with Indian forces in setting up plebiscite to a position where they want to maintain some armed forces in state(wondering where they come from after their first submission to UN, Kargill comes to mind), its is clearly evident what they were up to.

I would like to understand the legal status of Pakistan armed forces in state of J&K. There are two mutually agreed resolutions and I am willing to see any part of them allowing presence of Pakistani troops and Pakistanis on J&K soil. I am also willing to learn about any proposal agreed upon by Pakistanis in the spirit of agreed upon resolutions. I am ready to buy that it was perhaps a rethink which might have caused changed in stance of having military presence, a legitimate one, but then good enough reason for India to doubt and stick to her positions.

Its a waste of time now to prove who cause the delay, the ship has sailed and India will not fall for secessionist tactics on religious lines. We are secular nation and such acts are detrimental to our structure. We are open to discussions which can make life of Kashmiris better and welcome Pakistan support in that.

PS: Let me know any citation required for my any of the claim, will happily provide.

 

[ChennaiDude]

It's simple - instead of hiding behind all these excuses of Pakistan withdrawing unilaterally and mumbo jumbo of India's own laws passed to justify it's own occupation (essentially the criminal passing laws to justify his/her crimes), just admit the truth, that Indians know in their hearts the reality that a majority of the residents of J&K WILL NOT choose India in a plebiscite, and that is why India does not want a plebiscite.

That is what I mean by being honest in your engagement with Pakistanis, instead of dancing around in circles trying to argue the minutiae of the UNSC Resolutions on J&K or the Simla Agreement.

@Joe Shearer

I'm going to address this to you as well, not because you fall in the category of @ChennaiDude & @IMARV, but because I think you're already at a point where you are honest with yourself and Pakistanis.

We can all be honest with ourselves and with the other side on what we believe & what we desire. All these circular arguments we have are pointless when we all know the TRUE motivations driving the positions on each side. Pakistanis support the UNSC Resolutions and a UN plebiscite because we believe the majority of residents of J&K will choose Pakistan. Indian's oppose the same because they believe that the majority will likely choose independence or Pakistan before choosing India.

Honesty with oneself and others brings respect, not this dance we do where everyone knows whats what but refuses to acknowledge it (as if such acknowledgement would change the status quo), which in turn only breeds contempt and loathing, especially in the context of something so emotional as the Jammu & Kashmir dispute.

Like I said- My understanding (Deciphering) of the UN resolution and interpretation of it as a whole is different to yours, so just lets agree to disagree. (For example for Plebiscite to be implemented my understanding of the criteria is different to your).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no Independent Kashmiri. There is Pakistani or Indian. Those are the rules this game started with.

The UNSC is not going to object to India and Pakistan asking for a third option to be added.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well I have lived in all three places for a long time , though i am from Bombay , ancestors are from Goa though

So you let him off the hook?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Like I said- My understanding (Deciphering) of the UN resolution and interpretation of it as a whole is different to yours, so just lets agree to disagree. (For example for Plebiscite to be implemented my understanding of the criteria is different to your).

You've completely missed the woods for the trees again.

My post was not about differences in our respective interpretations of the UNSC Resolutions, it was about being honest with yourself and others on why you oppose a UN plebiscite - because you KNOW that a majority will pick Pakistan over India.

 

[ChennaiDude]

@AgNoStiC MuSliM and other Pakistanis today are perhaps talking at a position of strength and where after decades of effort by them and some bad policies by India have given them some kind of leverage. They are citing a solution proposed 70 year back which they avoided to execute in words then and delay it to consolidate their positions further. We should give them credit for their perseverance.

From a first submission of them to UN of them having no involvement in State of J&K, then to agree to resolutions where Pakistanis were called as material change in J&K, resolutions which call for no consultation with Pak but with Indian forces in setting up plebiscite to a position where they want to maintain some armed forces in state(wondering where they come from after their first submission to UN, Kargill comes to mind), its is clearly evident what they were up to.

I would like to understand the legal status of Pakistan armed forces in state of J&K. There are two mutually agreed resolutions and I am willing to see any part of them allowing presence of Pakistani troops and Pakistanis on J&K soil. I am also willing to learn about any proposal agreed upon by Pakistanis in the spirit of agreed upon resolutions. I am ready to buy that it was perhaps a rethink which might have caused changed in stance of having military presence, a legitimate one, but then good enough reason for India to doubt and stick to her positions.

Its a waste of time now to prove who cause the delay, the ship has sailed and India will not fall for secessionist tactics on religious lines. We are secular nation and such acts are detrimental to our structure. We are open to discussions which can make life of Kashmiris better and welcome Pakistan support in that.

PS: Let me know any citation required for my any of the claim, will happily provide.

Couldn't have articulated it better- I am just too lazy to type so many sentences and words when I know both parties are very clear where each other stand on this last blunder that is left from history

 

[IMARV]

You're blaming the victims (the Kashmiris) for retaliating after India shut down the only just & democratic means of resolving the dispute and India's 70 plus years of military occupation - that is the text book definition of victim blaming. Just because you're offended when confronted by the truth doesn't make it an 'unnecessary provocation'.

AM, unfortunately India and Pakistan is mired with so many social evils that finding analogies for some perceived "truth" is easier for either side. Its just about will, so its your call if you still want to use such.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@AgNoStiC MuSliM and other Pakistanis today are perhaps talking at a position of strength and where after decades of effort by them and some bad policies by India have given them some kind of leverage. They are citing a solution proposed 70 year back which they avoided to execute in words then and delay it to consolidate their positions further. We should give them credit for their perseverance.

From a first submission of them to UN of them having no involvement in State of J&K, then to agree to resolutions where Pakistanis were called as material change in J&K, resolutions which call for no consultation with Pak but with Indian forces in setting up plebiscite to a position where they want to maintain some armed forces in state(wondering where they come from after their first submission to UN, Kargill comes to mind), its is clearly evident what they were up to.

I would like to understand the legal status of Pakistan armed forces in state of J&K. There are two mutually agreed resolutions and I am willing to see any part of them allowing presence of Pakistani troops and Pakistanis on J&K soil. I am also willing to learn about any proposal agreed upon by Pakistanis in the spirit of agreed upon resolutions. I am ready to buy that it was perhaps a rethink which might have caused changed in stance of having military presence, a legitimate one, but then good enough reason for India to doubt and stick to her positions.

Its a waste of time now to prove who cause the delay, the ship has sailed and India will not fall for secessionist tactics on religious lines. We are secular nation and such acts are detrimental to our structure. We are open to discussions which can make life of Kashmiris better and welcome Pakistan support in that.

PS: Let me know any citation required for my any of the claim, will happily provide.

If you want to argue the minutiae of the UNSC Resolutions on J&K, there is an existing thread for that - read through that first. My posts were not related to that.
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.7904/