What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
OK you can put it like that. To reiterate, China controls around 20% of the disputed territory in the Kashmir region. The disputed area under Chinese control is uninhabited.

Aksai Chin was a claim cooked up for Nehru by Indian historians associated with him. It was to serve as a bargaining chip for settlement in the east. No one else believed in it and the Indian army didn't want to occupy it.

It was an uninhabitable, undefendable piece of barren waste that Indians had no interest until they became interested in territory in the east.
 
Aksai Chin was a claim cooked up for Nehru by Indian historians associated with him. It was to serve as a bargaining chip for settlement in the east. No one else believed in it and the Indian army didn't want to occupy it.

It was an uninhabitable, undefendable piece of barren waste that Indians had no interest until they became interested in territory in the east.

Thanks for the info. :tup: Question, why then is it still a disputed territory today? Does it serve simply as a political bargaining chip?
 
OK you can put it like that. To reiterate, China controls around 20% of the disputed territory in the Kashmir region. The disputed area under Chinese control is uninhabited.

I've totally no idea what are you talking about.
As the Indian friends just said, Kashmir is off the UN disputed area list. If Kashmir is off the list, how come an innocent third country's land that shares not a single meter of boundary with Indian controlled Kashmir becomes a 'disputed area' ?
 
I agree with this approach. :tup:

We should turn the current status quo into permanent borders. China gets to keep Aksai chin, India gets to keep J&K, Pakistan gets to keep AK and GB.

Ideally, it ought not to have happened but considering that this is how it has been since 47 / 62 one needs to accept realities and reconcile ourselves to our geography.

We today are at the threshold of great development - something that we have not seen for centuries.For once the Asians are in the driving seat and accelerating. We need to get real and realise our probs are only benefiting the western arms industry and that we are providing jobs in the wrong industries in the west.
 
I've totally no idea what are you talking about.
As the Indian friends just said, Kashmir is off the UN disputed area list. If Kashmir is off the list, how come an innocent third country's land that shares not a single meter of boundary with Indian controlled Kashmir becomes a 'disputed area' ?

Because India still claims Aksai chin. So by that definition, it is a "disputed area".
 
China's position on Kashmir is a low-key support for Pakistan, that is, China does not encourage the use of force to resolve Kashmir, hope that a peaceful solution, but if Pakistan is attacked, it would be a support, which is a low-key support.

"The West Wing" is actually a good description.
 
We should turn the current status quo into permanent borders. China gets to keep Aksai chin, India gets to keep J&K, Pakistan gets to keep AK and GB.
If only the fanatics were convinced by this settlement.... life would be so much better. phew...
Most Indians would agree to this settlement.. but I doubt there are many takers in Pakistan.
 
Thanks for the info. :tup: Question, why then is it still a disputed territory today? Does it serve simply as a political bargaining chip?

I dunno, probably because some people are still complaining and everyone else is in love with the idea China is the big bad wolf.

Most serious scholarship on Sino-Indian relationship tend not to mention Aksai Chin. Which ironically translates as "the white sands of China"
 
If only the fanatics were convinced by this settlement.... life would be so much better. phew...

It would be a lot easier if all of us just agreed to keep the territory we currently control in that region. :tup:
 
At this point in time, the only solution to easily settle down on is maintaining status quo because any change in drawing the borders cannot be done without a war and that is the last thing that the three nations want. There is too much national pride involved in giving away an inch of land.
 
Jammu and Kashmir removed from list of 'disputes' under UN

United Nations: In a significant development, Jammu and Kashmir has been removed from the United Nations(UN) list of unresolved disputes, giving a setback to Pakistan which has been asking the world body to intervene on the issue.

The omission of Jammu and Kashmir from a list of disputes under the observation of the UN Security Council was noticed by Pakistan whose envoy has lodged a protest.

"Jammu and Kashmir dispute was not mentioned in the context of unresolved long-running situations," said Amjad Hussain B Sial, Pakistan' acting envoy to the UN.

"We understand this was an inadvertent omission, as Jammu and Kashmir is one of the oldest disputes on agenda of the Security Council," he added.

Sial was speaking at the UN General Assembly session, which was discussing the functioning and reform of the Security Council. It was organised by the UK that holds the presidency of the Security Council this month.

Pakistan has been asking the UN to intervene to help resolve the issue but India has always maintained that it has to be resolved bilaterally between the two countries.

Speaking earlier at the General Assembly, the UK envoy to the UN, Mark Lyall Grant, said that "some long-running situations, including in the Middle East, Cyprus and Western Sahara remain unresolved, as do issues where the Council has become engaged in recent years, including Nepal and Guinea Bissau."

"Huge challenges remain in Sudan, Somalia and the DRC," he added.

Pakistan repeatedly raises Kashmir as an issue for the UN while India asserts that it is an internal matter.

While expressing concern about the unrest, Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon said that the UN will not intervene until requested by both parties.

"As far as this role of good offices is concerned, the United Nations normally takes that initiative when requested by both parties concerned," Ban said in October.

"India and Pakistan, they are neighbouring countries, important nations in that region - peace and security would have important implications," he added.

At the debate in the General Assembly, the UK also repeated its support to see India on as a permanent member of the Security Council.

"On the Council's structure, we continue to support permanent membership for Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, as well as permanent representation for Africa," said Philip Parham, deputy envoy to UK.

"We look forward to working with many of these countries next year when they join the Security Council," he said, referring to the entry of India and Germany on the Council next year as non-permanent members for a two year term.

While Japan will leave the Council in 2011, Brazil will serve out one more year.

The UK representative also suggested "an intermediate model" of reform, which would create new seats with a longer mandate than the present two year term.

Then, at the end of this period, a review would be done to see whether these seats should be turned into permanent ones.

Pakistan, which objects to India being on the Council, argued that the new council should include a few large states, a number of medium sized States and a majority of smaller States.

"We support the position of the Organization of Islamic Conference demanding adequate representation of Muslim Ummah in the Security Council," said Sial.
 
If only the fanatics were convinced by this settlement.... life would be so much better. phew...
Most Indians would agree to this settlement.. but I doubt there are many takers in Pakistan.

In India too there shall be a major uproar. The opposition shall go for the Govts throat on this.
 
At this point in time, the only solution to easily settle down on is maintaining status quo because any change in drawing the borders cannot be done without a war and that is the last thing that the three nations want. There is too much national pride involved in giving away an inch of land.

True, I don't think anyone will give up an inch of land without a war.

So maintaining the status quo makes the most sense. :tup:
 
Back
Top Bottom