What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
Forget about independence, autonomy will not be granted. It is applicable to any Indian state. If i start a protest tomorrow that i want autonomy in my state, will government grant it? Kashmiri’s can demand of more funds from government, better infrastructure, health, education but not independence. Any demand can be negotiated apart from independence. It is a democracy, anyone can demand anything, doesn’t mean it will be sanctioned. How countries can will survive if they entertain such absurd requests. US or no other country can push anything on Kashmir. It is and will be a part of India.
 
Azad Kashmi is adm by Pakistan as your jummu & kashmir is adm by india so what you trying to say here? don't start tensions here.:tdown: My friend don't let the door hit your head on the way out in reailty both nations show the whole of kashmir as there own so please before saying dumb remarks think about it twice it might help.

That is what I'm saying. So, don't fool world that p0K got its own assembly and PM.
 
Kashmiris are a different race than indians. I don't know why indians want to be so much like kashmiris that they want them to be apart of their country. Infeority complex? indians should get the hint and let the Kashmiris be.

Gujarati, Panjabi, Bengali, South Indian ,north Indian, North east Indian etc all are different race. India is not been made by some race or home of some particular race or religion. Don't give shitty logics.

BTW, the topic is about third party involvement in Kashmir problem(Read Kashmir only NOT Jammu and Kashmir). India never said we will allow third party as 'Dalaal'.
 
Yea - the conditions in Pakistan-occ-Kashmir are deplorable to say the least.
 
“We have seen reports of resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir that have been passed in the National Assembly and the Senate of Pakistan. We reject these resolutions. They have no locus standi on what is purely an internal affair of India,” said Vishnu Prakash, official spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs.

Good. Stand on your stance. Never fall in trap and say that it is disputed region.
BTW, they can't say it even they want to. Indian constitution doesn't permit it.:D
 
Sanjaya Baru: Kashmir endgame

The path shown by Manmohan Singh and Pervez Musharraf is the only way forward

Never was the tension at the prime minister’s house more palpable than that April evening in 2005. The news from Srinagar was most disheartening. Terrorists had attacked the tourist centre from which the new bus service to Muzaffarabad would leave the next day, flagged off by the prime minister. The building was in flames and fear had gripped the city.

Later in the evening, a high-level security briefing, with every relevant functionary from the home minister to national security advisor to chiefs of intelligence and security organisations present, informed the PM that while two terrorists had been killed, two more were at large in Srinagar. An attack on next day’s public meeting was feared. The PM was advised by all to postpone his visit and the event.

The meeting ended at 9 pm. Manmohan Singh remained seated, watching TV, with sound on mute, looking grim, sullen and angry. This was to be the first step in a “journey of peace” that he had personally crafted after weeks of internal consultation with several experts and a quite conversation with President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. The bus service across the “Line of Control” (LoC) was a bridge to a “Naya Kashmir”.

The terrorists knew this and so were intent on sabotaging. How could he succumb? After several minutes of silence, he turned to me and said, “I will go.”

I went out and called in his personal secretary B V R Subrahmanyam. “Tell the NSA and home minister I am going,” he instructed. Next day when we arrived in Srinagar, Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed said to me at the airport, “I am glad he is here.” I told him that it was his personal decision, against all security advice. “Yes, I know,” he said, “people of Kashmir will appreciate that.”

With that bus service in April 2005, Dr Singh launched a new phase in India’s effort to find a final solution to the problem of Jammu and Kashmir. The seeds were undoubtedly planted by his predecessor Atal Behari Vajpayee’s famous initiative of January 2004. However, it was the conversation in September 2004 in New York with President Musharraf that opened new pathways to peace.

The launch of the bus service on April 7, 2005 was a vital part of a new agenda for the final resolution of the Kashmir problem. President Musharraf was due in Delhi 10 days later. The April 6 terror attack was meant to derail a process. Mr Musharraf called the PM and praised him for the courage and determination he showed in going ahead with the bus launch.

The history of India and Pakistan’s attempt to resolve the Kashmir problem has often been a history of missed opportunities bedevilled by a trust and governance deficit and poor timing. This time, the two got it right. By not succumbing to that attack, Dr Singh was able to take the India-Pakistan dialogue on Kashmir to a new level, till it was aborted partly by events in Pakistan, with the political weakening of President Musharraf’s position, and partly at home, with a coming together of hawks in the establishment and an assortment of myopic and self-seeking politicians.

The key to the successful progress of the India-Pakistan dialogue on Kashmir in 2004-2006 was the parallel dialogue at home that Dr Singh launched through his Round Table Conferences, involving all major political parties in the state. Along with this he also re-launched a dialogue with the Hurriyat.

When Hurriyat leaders came to meet him, his only appeal to them was that they should lay out their road map and he would then tell them what India can do and what it cannot and will not. It is a failure of the Hurriyat leadership that short of mouthing the empty slogan of azadi, they have not been able to define a formula that would resolve the situation.

For all the emotive appeal of the slogan of azadi, it is not a doable programme of action. Neither Pakistan nor a majority of the people of Jammu & Kashmir seeks the textbook version of azadi. They all seek a variant of it. And it is such a variant that Prime Minister Singh and President Musharraf had all but agreed upon. The old formulas of the 1950s have been long buried by all concerned, even if a fringe keeps resurrecting outdated buzz words like plebiscite.

The Manmohan-Musharraf formula is the only way forward. Dr Singh put it pithily when he said, “Borders cannot be changed, but can be made irrelevant.” That is what the bus service was all about. President Musharraf told a Pakistan TV channel in October 2006 that the understanding involved, “Self-governance with a joint management system at the top for both sides of the LoC, and you make the LoC irrelevant.”

Whatever the turn of events since then, any final solution cannot go against the logic of history and geopolitics. Nations are not made and remade by every generation. It is the failure of political leadership in India, in Pakistan and in Kashmir itself that has contributed to the current situation. Too many “small men in big chairs”, in Delhi, in Islamabad, in Srinagar.

The task at hand today is for the political leadership in Kashmir, cutting across party political lines, to restore normalcy in the state and calm anger on the streets. They must then come forward with a consensual road map for their future that is practical and realistic. Neither Delhi nor Islamabad can help Kashmir if it is not ready to help itself.

But when normalcy returns, the endgame will be played exactly the way Mr Musharraf and Dr Singh agreed to play it out. Everyone needs a reality check on that.
 
The green flags being waved at every rally, driving out pundits form the valley and targeting minorities speaks otherwise.

This comment exposes what is clearly a deeply held bias... since when have green flags been associated with fanaticism? The flag of the All India Muslim League was green.

Following this logic, should we take symbols associated with hinduism as evidence of fanaticism? Or if someone wears a cross, is he a fanatic christian?

Differing principles. A nation born on the basis of religion vs a nation carved remaining secular.
Anyway, Kashmir was free, so to speak, before the Mughals. After that it was always a part of India, again except for a very short period of 73 days in 1947, before being acceded to India again. So why do "they" - the Kashmiris, demand special privileges?

They don't demand special privileges. They simply ask for their fundamental rights. They simply ask that they be allowed to determine their fate. That was the principle of partition. Why else were hindu majority states made part of India? There were muslim rulers ruling such states who publicly expressed their desire to be part of Pakistan. But they were in stead invaded and colonised by India. And the principle was then flipped for Kashmir. Basically, the rule du jour was whatever suited India on a particular day. This is no way to conduct your affairs. That such mistreatment and unfair handling has led to a gaping wound which refuses to close even after the passage of 63 years should come as no surprise.
 
Forget about independence, autonomy will not be granted. It is applicable to any Indian state. If i start a protest .

Kashmir is not like "any Indian state". Not even in your own constitution. It is also an internationally recognized disputed territory. Are you suggesting that every state in India meets this definition?

I understand you were just spewing rhetoric in your post, but keep that to yourself. It doesn't add any value in the discussion.
 
They don't demand special privileges. They simply ask for their fundamental rights. They simply ask that they be allowed to determine their fate. That was the principle of partition. Why else were hindu majority states made part of India? There were muslim rulers ruling such states who publicly expressed their desire to be part of Pakistan. But they were in stead invaded and colonised by India. And the principle was then flipped for Kashmir. Basically, the rule du jour was whatever suited India on a particular day. This is no way to conduct your affairs. That such mistreatment and unfair handling has led to a gaping wound which refuses to close even after the passage of 63 years should come as no surprise.

If I'm not wrong then you are talking/comparing about invasion of Junagadh and Hydrabad with Kashmir.
Check the history again, Hydrabad and Junagadh were invaded after you attack Kashmir.
 
This comment exposes what is clearly a deeply held bias... since when have green flags been associated with fanaticism? The flag of the All India Muslim League was green.

Following this logic, should we take symbols associated with hinduism as evidence of fanaticism? Or if someone wears a cross, is he a fanatic christian?

The original logic was green flags+driving out hindus+minorities being targeted, these combined do point towards fanaticism; lying by omission?





They don't demand special privileges. They simply ask for their fundamental rights..

They ask for freedom, are you prepared to give them that? I don't think so.

They simply ask that they be allowed to determine their fate. That was the principle of partition. Why else were hindu majority states made part of India? There were muslim rulers ruling such states who publicly expressed their desire to be part of Pakistan. But they were in stead invaded and colonised by India. And the principle was then flipped for Kashmir. Basically, the rule du jour was whatever suited India on a particular day. This is no way to conduct your affairs. That such mistreatment and unfair handling has led to a gaping wound which refuses to close even after the passage of 63 years should come as no surprise

Principle of partition?? What are you talking about...majority rule applied in the contigous areas...not in the princely states dude...try to read up some more.
 

NEW YORK — Pakistan on Tuesday urged the United States to pressure India over Kashmir, saying recent unrest showed that New Delhi and not Islamabad was to blame for trouble in the Himalayan territory.

On a visit to New York for a UN session on Pakistan's devastating floods, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi insisted his government wanted peace with India but tore into its rule of Kashmir which he called "oppression."

"The occupation cannot continue. The rights of the Kashmiri people cannot continue to be denied," Qureshi said at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank.

"We call upon the United States particularly, which is pressing so responsibly for peace in the Middle East, to also invest its political capital in trying to help seek an accommodation on Kashmir," he said.

"Such an accommodation would not only be just for the people of Kashmir but would be critical for peace in the region," he said, warning that "terrorism... has fueled and thrived on blatant examples of social and political injustice."

President Barack Obama's administration is seeking a broader relationship with India but also friendlier ties with Pakistan, a key battleground in the fight against Islamic extremism.

India considers Kashmir a domestic issue and rejects any foreign involvement. The Obama administration has steered clear of Kashmir after early statements triggered a backlash in India.

Kashmir, a Himalayan territory with a Muslim majority but a sizeable Hindu minority, has been disputed between India and Pakistan since independence and triggered two full-fledged wars between them.

An insurgency erupted on the Indian side in 1989 but had subsided in recent years. Indian authorities, along with some outside experts, say that Pakistan actively supported Islamic guerrillas who sneaked across the frontier.

But in recent weeks, waves of protesters have turned to the streets to rally against Indian rule in Kashmir. Security forces have shot dead more than 100 demonstrators.

"At times it's easy for the Indians to look toward Pakistan and blame Pakistan for everything that's going wrong in Indian-occupied Kashmir," Qureshi said.

But he said "no one any longer can seriously believe this."

"Can Pakistan orchestrate thousands of people? Can Pakistan plan, sitting in Islamabad, a shutdown all over Kashmir?" he said

Oke ... i have a simple question.. is Pakistan struggling for the Kashmir land or Kashmir people??...
 
It is ridiculous that people keep on portraying that they have active US support when they dont. America has zero policy on Kashmir. Most of us dont know what Kashmir is and what can be done about it. Get it popularized here first before claiming our support. No point being delusional about the state of affairs. Everyone knows about Tibetan independence movement and no one knows about Kashmir movement. Organize and show these images to American folks and then you'll be getting somewhere, instead of pushing your agenda on an Internet forum.

I am agreeing with you 100%.. US will have zero interest on Kashmir.. Infact US will try to keep the issues boiling around the world so that they get good business...

If countries has to grow then this is the only way out... If no issues then there wont be any growth.. i mean growth will reach saturation point
 
What u r doing is called twisting of facts. In violent situation collateral deaths happen. Those who take their kids to such protest are more responsible. The security force always try to avoid such casualties so not their fault. Tell me one single incidence where there was normal situation and something like this happened. Why nothing happened before 1989? If we were bad why something like this was abscent before? Simple there was no militancy.

You are right... Security forces dont go to every house and kill the people like in mass genocide which has happened in some parts of the world.. In fact kashmir should be seen as a war.... where a weaker party is trying to attack a stronger party.. so the result is seen every day.... Infact i pity them because the people still havent actually realized that violence is not a solution but peaceful demonstration like telagana will suffocate government .. as a matter of fact they are brain washed like talibans.. what a intelligent leader should have done is they should have ask for a separate state with there own people governing it and move towards the path of development...
 
Have you ever heard or witness any procession in azad kashmir against pakistan untill now?FYI they have their own elected assembly and prime minister...The main problem lies on your side of kashmir!....And a peaceful south asia will remain a dream unless its settled

If RAW brain wash people such incidents are bound to happen there also... World very well knows Pakistan has a special interest on Kashmir land ....
 
Over the years religious fanaticism has seeped into kashmiri struggle.One should acknowledge this fact first before moving on.Even today the call for 'azadi' is from kashmir,jammu and ladakh have no problem in being a part of india.
As Jaswant Singh said "If we ever want peace India will have to quit playing 'big boss' of the region and Pakistan will have to give up the notion of Islam being a separate country.A nation can exist without having a religious identity attached to it."
 
Back
Top Bottom