What's new

India: Let Kashmir go

Why do Indians always insist on 'leaving matters as they are'. A million troops policing and killing Kashmiris as a hobby. Mass graves found every couple of years. Is this what its like to be an 'integrable part of India'?
Kashmiris have made it very clear they want Azadi. I dont know how you could have missed that. Let them have the plebiscite they were promised and stop making excuses aimed at prolonging this conflict forever.

Kashmir has been disputed from day one since independence. You should know better than to tell us to ignore all the Kashmiri suffering and ignore Kashmir. It sounds like a desperate bid to hold on to a piece of land for purposes of greed.

Because I think there is no solution otherwise given the pro-pak sentiments in some areas the GOP should have handed over its parts of kashmir and China its part of Kashmir to the UN for a plebicite.

India would have been shamed into action.

However if the plebicite had gone for total independance than Pakistan will suffer a backlash in its own country.

Gen M has said that complete independance is not on the table.

Basically three countries are in the wrong.

India will not surrender its part of Kashmir as it needs the waters and basically Jammu, Leh, Kargil and Ladahak donot like Kashmiris or side with the minority who are pro pakistani. Most Kashmiris on both side of borders prefer total independance.

China needs its part to get access to the Middle East.

Pakistan needs it to keep the public opinion away from its crumbling economy.

Status Quo is the best option.

Regards
 
Because I think there is no solution otherwise given the pro-pak sentiments in some areas the GOP should have handed over its parts of kashmir and China its part of Kashmir to the UN for a plebicite.

India would have been shamed into action.

However if the plebicite had gone for total independance than Pakistan will suffer a backlash in its own country.

Gen M has said that complete independance is not on the table.

Basically three countries are in the wrong.

India will not surrender its part of Kashmir as it needs the waters and basically Jammu, Leh, Kargil and Ladahak donot like Kashmiris or side with the minority who are pro pakistani. Most Kashmiris on both side of borders prefer total independance.

China needs its part to get access to the Middle East.

Pakistan needs it to keep the public opinion away from its crumbling economy.

Status Quo is the best option.

Regards

There is in fact a solution which would involve the Kashmir valley and AK having a referendum with the remaining areas remaining parts of India and Pakistan respectively. Even joint control has been suggested over such a territory.

The only issue here is Indian greed and a deliberate refusal to follow her obligations under the UN charter, as has been explained in the UN resolutions thread, and validated by Nehru's own words.

Your reasoning for Pakistan claiming Kashmir is ludicrous. You seem to imply that in 1947 Pakistan devised this grand scheme, with the certainty of foresight that her economy would be 'perpetually crumbling', to claim Kashmir as a means of deflecting attention away from said 'crumbling economy'.

The only thing that has been crumbling for a while now is your facade of 'neutrality' and this absurd reasoning.
 
There is in fact a solution which would involve the Kashmir valley and AK having a referendum with the remaining areas remaining parts of India and Pakistan respectively. Even joint control has been suggested over such a territory.

The only issue here is Indian greed and a deliberate refusal to follow her obligations under the UN charter, as has been explained in the UN resolutions thread, and validated by Nehru's own words.

Your reasoning for Pakistan claiming Kashmir is ludicrous. You seem to imply that in 1947 Pakistan devised this grand scheme, with the certainty of foresight that her economy would be 'perpetually crumbling', to claim Kashmir as a means of deflecting attention away from said 'crumbling economy'.

The only thing that has been crumbling for a while now is your facade of 'neutrality' and this absurd reasoning.

Okay you are right and UK, EU and US say that there is no solution other than status quo are fools.

Pakistan intentions were so good that they bartered 33,000 sq. kms
to China for the betterment of the Kashmiris. Cry me a river.

Its a well known fact the demographics of population have changed so what plebicite.

Gen M has loudly stated that there is no third choice of independence ? Why has this option been removed.

So why such crocodile tears for the rights of the Kashmiris ?

Your response to maintaining this facade has to have some reason other than genuine care for the Kashmiris.

Regards

Ps : I am all for the UN resolution to be implemented but it will cause more problems than solve them and they will fail as all 3 countries care for Kashmir as much I care about Saddam H.
 
Okay you are right and UK, EU and US say that there is no solution other than status quo are fools.

Pakistan intentions were so good that they bartered 33,000 sq. kms
to China for the betterment of the Kashmiris. Cry me a river.

Its a well known fact the demographics of population have changed so what plebicite.

Gen M has loudly stated that there is no third choice of independence ? Why has this option been removed.

So why such crocodile tears for the rights of the Kashmiris ?

Your response to maintaining this facade has to have some reason other than genuine care for the Kashmiris.

Regards

Ps : I am all for the UN resolution to be implemented but it will cause more problems than solve them and they will fail as all 3 countries care for Kashmir as much I care about Saddam H.

Leased out land that was unpopulated and barren to China - says nothing about the 'betterment of Kashmiris'.

What well known fact? How have the demographics changed to the extent that the original inhabitants, and their descendants, of J&K do not form the overwhelming majority of the territory?

Why should the option of independence be placed on the table? The issue is one of a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, that was to have been settled by plebiscite under the rules of partition - a position endorsed by the UNSC resolutions that also called for a referendum, i.e. the people of Kashmir to decide which nation they wish to be a part off.

Pakistan's position is one based on legality and morality - of allowing the people of Kashmir to decide which nation they wish to be a part of under the rules of partition and the UNSC resolutions. The third option is tantamount to allowing every province or state in every country the option to hold a referendum to secede every so often - an absurd proposition.

The only 'facade' here is your sham of 'neutrality' while supporting every violation of international agreements and the UN resolutions where it helps the Israelis and the Indians in continuing illegal occupations. If you support the implementation of the UNSC resolutions, then that should have been the only statement you made. Instead you exposed your lie by justifying the Indian occupation and her refusal to implement the resolutions.

You agree with and support the implementation of the UN resolutions, so does Pakistan. It seems to me your diatribes should be directed at India for not implementing a resolution to the dispute you agree with, instead of disparaging the country for arguing in favor of the very solution you claim to support.
 
Who are the "Most Kashmiris" we are talking about?
and if the elections were rigged, why are Pro-Pakistan and Seperatist parties allowed in the election process in the first place. Election is not a cheap process you know? :what:

'Most Kashmiris' are those who couldn't came out of their houses amid wide spread curfews.
Elections were engineered, lot of drama and happening has been witnessed before and during elections.
Aqusition of Kashmir land by shrine board by BJP and than congress returned it to the rightful, later ecnomic blocade and triggering protests and nabbing popular separist leaders, at occasions even killing them.
In short whole election affair was a sham.
 
Pakistan is not able to hold its 4 states together, how can she expect to get 5th state. Kashmir is India's integrated part and will be at all cost.

Is india able to hold any of its states together?
If Kashmir is india's integral part than who are those who raise Pakistani flag every now and than?
Have u ever seen indian flag being raised by masses in Pakistan?
 
Leased out land that was unpopulated and barren to China - says nothing about the 'betterment of Kashmiris'.


Why should the option of independence be placed on the table? The issue is one of a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, that was to have been settled by plebiscite under the rules of partition - a position endorsed by the UNSC resolutions that also called for a referendum, i.e. the people of Kashmir to decide which nation they wish to be a part off.

.

You say you take the moral high ground ? When you take moral high ground you don't bother what position India take.

BTW on what basis have you

1. Ruled out complete independance for Kashmiris ?
2. Bartered territory to China.

The UN resolution states the below

PART III

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the truce agreement, both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.


You don't barter disputed territory if you genuinely feel for the people living or owning it.

India is wrong but since you too are very wrong its very hard to know which degree each is wrong too.

Regards

Ps : change in demographics is not an Indian report but and EU report.
 
Let us assume that India decides to 'give up' Kashmir,it goes for a plebiscite.

And the people of Kashmir say they want to have their own country and not be with either Pakistan or India.(Both parts of Kashmir)

Would this result be acceptable for both India and Pakistan?

Why not? but I doubt it will ever agreed upon as it will be too complex in the presence of non Kashmiri hindu pandits.

Would a small land locked country squeezed in by all sides by 3 very large countries-China,India and Pakistan ever be successful in running in its own affairs without interference of any kind?
Can it ever become something like the 'Neutral Switzerland of South Asia'?
to be honest; never. Neither is any country around india is able to run its affairs without indian interference.
The problem is in geography, if u put Switzerland in place of Kashmir it will be equally worst.

Sure these are speculative questions but how can India be sure that once it gives up Kashmir Pakistan wont act to 'grab it'.There is a complete lack of trust in this regard.More like distrust.

I don't think this is a reason of mistrust.
Problem is in the mindset, we believe it is not possible to grab a country of living beings by some big tyrant state. We have result in front of us.

And finally the question would be-
Would this be enough for all the 'hardliners' in Pakistan?
Would this satisfy them?Would they demand territories like Hyderabad next?
Would they demand from India something in return for what they lost in 1971?
By the rules of partition Kashmir should be part of Pakistan but as per latter indian admissions it offered plebicite which Pakistan accepted respecting UN.
Where do u see hard line?
Hyderababd can be next! :undecided: Do u really think Hyderabadies will demand their freedom next?
Well than this is realy a issue to ponder by indians themself and has nothing to do with Kashmir being part of Pakistan or being independent.

Would a solution to Kashmir problem be the solution for all problems?
No never. What do u think are the problems of with China? Bangladesh? Srilanka? Nepal?
But solution to Kashmir issue will take away the opportunity from indians to blame jihadis for all problems of Kashmir. Indian would never like to give up this leverage.

Many questions like this often stop even the 'most liberal' minded Indians on thinking about 'giving' Kashmir away.
Once can just forget about what the majority of Indians think who are largely 'nationalistic' as they should be.
Even after Mumbai attacks majority of Indians still want India to 'hold' on to Kashmir.
The problem is in the very basic thinking. Why does liberal indians consider 'right of self determination' as giving it away?

A party like BJP and its supporters would rather die than accept this.
That is indian way of democracy and their own headache!

For any resolution trust needs to be built.
No, to build the trust, first india need to dismantel its terrorists camps in Afghanistan.
Do u know when Afghanistan was out of indian approach, they used to throw toy bombs in Pakistani side of Kashmir? Which lead to deaths of many Kashmiri children.
I personally think building trust is wasting precious time as we did in past.
I think it is not possible to prevent an imminent Pak India war, as they say all it takes is one happy trigger guy.
 
How hard would it be to have a full referendum on this, UN watchers to ensure fair play by all. Prior to the referendum both sides should agree to take action (who gets what) whatever the outcome. Maybe have sub-regional sections, if for example one town wanted to be Indian and another nearby wanted to be Pakistani that could happen, that way everybody is happy and you offer those that don't want to be in the country that the area has chosen to be part of they are offered passage over to the other country.
 
Resolving the disputed territory would benefit all.

By Bennett Ramberg

from the December 29, 2008 edition

Los Angeles - It now appears unlikely that India will respond to last month's attacks on Mumbai (Bombay) – its "9/11" – with a military strike on Pakistan, the terrorists' haven. With three major wars behind them, neither rival wants a repeat.

Unfortunately, the possibility of war may intensify in years to come if India ramps up its "Cold Start" military doctrine.

Cold Start transforms New Delhi's traditional focus on defense and lumbering mobilization of hundreds of thousands of troops to one that prizes nimble strikes against its neighbor within hours of crisis onset. The strategy assumes that occupation of limited Pakistani territory would be the bargaining chip to force Islamabad to heel. It also assumes that it could do this without crossing the nuclear threshold – not an easy feat where rivalries run deep.

India has war-gamed this strategy since 2004. Adoption still must overcome equipment and personnel deficiencies and interservice rivalries, but work continues.

Rather than intimidate Pakistan to constrain militants or suffer the consequences, Cold Start may do just the opposite by inadvertently putting militants in the driver's seat. Previously, terrorist provocations would be met with action only after deliberation and delay. Under Cold Start, response would be much more immediate, effectively empowering radicals to hold the subcontinent hostage to their crisis-initiating whims.

To avoid that outcome, the time has come for India to short circuit the most critical incendiary, the disputed area of Kashmir. Despite some recent Islamic militant clamor to dominate the entire subcontinent, Kashmir remains the eye of the Indo-Pakistani vortex.

Removing its centrality will help pull the rug from under terrorist groups that have used the dispute to target both the region and the heart of India. Failure will only heighten the probability that Cold Start might someday precipitate a nuclear conflict.

Recent history shows that it's not a far-fetched specter. On Dec. 13, 2001, five Pakistani gunmen dressed in commando fatigues and driving a diplomatic car entered the VIP gate of India's Parliament's compound armed with AK-47 rifles, grenades, and other explosives. Their audacious objective: decapitate the Indian government.

An alert guard foiled their plans, and the ensuing shoot-out left 13 people dead, including the assassins.

India demanded that Pakistan ban the responsible terrorist groups and arrest their leaders. To press Islamabad, it mobilized half a million men. But the intended impact stumbled as India's Army took three weeks to get to the border. This allowed Pakistan sufficient time to ratchet up defenses.

Tension then bounced down and up. They relaxed with President Musharraf's Jan. 12, 2002, televised address to the nation declaring his intention to crack down on the militants. But the May 2002 attack on an Indian base in Jammu that killed the wives and children of Indian servicemen renewed the drumbeat for war.

By July 2002, intense American diplomatic pressure, coupled with subtle Pakistan nuclear threats, caused the belligerents to stand their armies down, leaving a sour taste for many Indians: Pakistan remained unpunished.

For some defense planners, Cold Start offered the answer in future crisis. Now Mumbai gives the strategy renewed stimulus. But resolution of Kashmir is where momentum should be building.

In recent years, India has sought to relax tensions by promoting confidence-building measures – a bus line and commercial truck service between Srinagar and Muzzafarrabad, regular meetings between Indian and Pakistani local commanders, a crisis hot line, dialogue with moderate Kashmiri separatists, and improvement in the region's economic and human rights. These steps have tempered conflict but not Kashmiri objection to Indian rule.

New Delhi's reluctance to let Kashmiris define their future – options include independence, division along communal lines, comanagement by both India and Pakistan, a UN trusteeship – ***** against recent history demonstrating that "letting go" more than holding on benefits politically divided states. Witness the pacific and beneficial demise of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Serbia/Montenegro.

India's future rests not on maturing Cold Start but becoming a 21st century economic power house. Hanging on to Kashmir does nothing to promote that goal. Letting go not only will benefit New Delhi's modernization by reducing the heavy military burden bad relations with Pakistan engenders, it also will allow Islamabad to redirect its military resources to the tribal areas benefiting Washington's position in Afghanistan.

By rattling South Asian relations, Mumbai's tragedy can give momentum to resolving one of the 20th century's most confounding impasses. A fast diplomatic start, not Cold Start, would benefit all.

• Bennett Ramberg served in the State Department during the George H.W. Bush administration. He is the author of three books and editor of three others on international politics.

India: Let Kashmir go | csmonitor.com

This articles basic summary is: India needs to let go Kashmire, so the west and Pakistan will benefit, and fight against terrorism becomes easier.

Oh what fools are we to be preach by Christian science monitors. The issue is not only Kashmire, the hatred the runs through these terrorist runs deeper, from religious asperation to the subcontient.
 
This articles basic summary is: India needs to let go Kashmire, so the west and Pakistan will benefit, and fight against terrorism becomes easier.

Oh what fools are we to be preach by Christian science monitors. The issue is not only Kashmire, the hatred the runs through these terrorist runs deeper, from religious asperation to the subcontient.

That is why the territory is not being handed over to 'terrorists', rather the argument is that the people of Kashmir determine which nation they wish to be part of, as demanded by the instrument of partition and the UNSC resolutions.
 
You say you take the moral high ground ? When you take moral high ground you don't bother what position India take.

BTW on what basis have you

1. Ruled out complete independance for Kashmiris ?
2. Bartered territory to China.

The UN resolution states the below

PART III

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the truce agreement, both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.


You don't barter disputed territory if you genuinely feel for the people living or owning it.

India is wrong but since you too are very wrong its very hard to know which degree each is wrong too.

Regards

Ps : change in demographics is not an Indian report but and EU report.

Aksai Chin is barren, uninhabited territory, or at least was at the time of independence. It was occupied by the Dogra's and made part of their Princely State of J&K, and was part of the McMahon Line demarcation disputed by China. Were is the 'ownership' of Kashmiris in here? Where are the Kashmiris supposed to be living in Aksai Chin?

The instrument of partition indicated that the disputed accession of any princely state would be subject to a plebiscite to determine the will of the people in making the final decision. Independence was not an option here, and the dispute as referred to the UN was a territorial dispute between two nations - as such, the 'future status' refers to the status of the territory based on the will of the people as a part of India or Pakistan.

On the demographic question, again, can you show me how the demographic situation has changed to the degree that the original inhabitants and their descendants do not comprise an overwhelming majority in the territory?

Kashmiris from PK have migrated out of Kashmir to all corners of Pakistan. The EU report also refers to the settlers in the Northern Areas. These settlers, even in their small numbers, woudl not be any issue in case of a referendum conducted in AK and the Kashmri valley, since this proposal woudl leave the NA's and Jammu and Laddakh with Pakistan and India respectively.
 
Aksai Chin is barren, uninhabited territory, or at least was at the time of independence. It was occupied by the Dogra's and made part of their Princely State of J&K, and was part of the McMahon Line demarcation disputed by China. Were is the 'ownership' of Kashmiris in here? Where are the Kashmiris supposed to be living in Aksai Chin?

The instrument of partition indicated that the disputed accession of any princely state would be subject to a plebiscite to determine the will of the people in making the final decision. Independence was not an option here, and the dispute as referred to the UN was a territorial dispute between two nations - as such, the 'future status' refers to the status of the territory based on the will of the people as a part of India or Pakistan.

On the demographic question, again, can you show me how the demographic situation has changed to the degree that the original inhabitants and their descendants do not comprise an overwhelming majority in the territory?

Kashmiris from PK have migrated out of Kashmir to all corners of Pakistan. The EU report also refers to the settlers in the Northern Areas. These settlers, even in their small numbers, woudl not be any issue in case of a referendum conducted in AK and the Kashmri valley, since this proposal woudl leave the NA's and Jammu and Laddakh with Pakistan and India respectively.


Dear AM,

When you morally say that you want the best for Kashmiris you must mean it and show it both in letter and in spirit.

U.N.Resolution on J&K August 13, 1948


1. Aksai Chin

Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

I don't think the UN meant China or did it ?


2. Independance

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the truce agreement, both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.


I think the English very clear Independance is included.

Regards
 
us kashmiris deserve to be free from india but india is afraid and knows that once kashmir goes then the whole india will split into pieces
 
Dear AM,

When you morally say that you want the best for Kashmiris you must mean it and show it both in letter and in spirit.

U.N.Resolution on J&K August 13, 1948

Indeed, hence the insistence that the final status of the territory be determined through a plebiscite that allows the people of J&K to decide which nation they wish to be part of.

We also 'want the best' for all Pakistanis, but that doesn't involve giving every province the option to secede every now and then. It does involve giving people the right to decide whether they wanted to be part of Pakistan, as happened in Baluchistan and the NWFP/FATA.
1. Aksai Chin

Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.

I don't think the UN meant China or did it ?
The withdrawal of Pakistani troops was also linked with the Indians withdrawing when a certain threshold had been met, to an agreed upon number. This issue has been discussed in the UN resolutions thread quite extensively, and it has been shown that India backtracked on the numbers agreed upon in the UNSC resolutions, and wanted to leave behind more troops that scuppered the withdrawal process.

2. Independance

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the truce agreement, both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.


I think the English very clear Independance is included.

Regards

From the resolutions:

"...Noting with satisfaction that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite,"...


"...Recommends to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following measures as those which in the opinion of the Council and appropriate to bring about a cessation of the fighting and to create proper conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir is to accede to India or Pakistan."

No third option for independence here. It was and is a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, to be resolved by a resort to the will fo the people of the territory.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom