Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Rafi]

Congress minister stokes row, give "Azadi" to Kashmir
PTI, Dec 6, 2010, 08.00pm IST

JAMMU: A Jammu and Kashmir minister belonging to Congress has stoked a controversy by suggesting that Kashmir be granted "Azadi", remarks that embarassed his party which termed them as his personal view.

Addressing a rally at Bani in Kathua district on Sunday, Congress Minister for Health and Horticulture Sham Lal Sharma had raised the demand for making Jammu a separate state, giving union territory status to Ladakh and granting "Azadi" to Kashmir.

"Give freedom to Kashmir, that's more beneficial. Give separate statehood status to Jammu and make Ladakh a union territory. If this state has to be developed, this is the only solution", Sharma said in the presence of PCC chief Saifuddin Soz.

His remarks drew a sharp attack from state BJP which alleged they "tantamount to treason" and demanded his dismissal from the government and arrest.

In damage-control mode, Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi described Sharma's remarks as his "personal view" and said the party's stand "is very clear--autonomy within the framework of the Indian Constitution".

The remarks by Sham Lal Sharma had made Soz and his senior party leaders uneasy at the rally. In fact, Soz had tried to initiate damage control and expressed his party's resolve to keep all the three regions of the state united to ensure equal and balanced development in all the regions.

"We are all answerable to AICC President Sonia Gandhi and what we say here be considered as the Congress word and we must speak along the party's line", Soz said.

Seeking to downplay Sharma's view, Singhvi told reporters in Delhi that "I can only describe it as a personal opinion (of Sharma). He was having a discussion at rally in his own home state and certainly this is his personal view".

"Some of the words which I have heard, I can either describe it as a metaphorical speak and should not be taken literally", he said adding "in any case, we do not accept any such allegations".

BJP National Executive Member and former Pradesh President Nirmal Singh told reporters here that "Sharma has taken oath under the Constitution and his statement tantamounts to treason and therefore an FIR should be registered against him and he should be arrested forthwith".

After making such a statement Sharma has no locus standi to be in the ministry and he should be dismissed Singh said.
Congress minister stokes row, give "Azadi" to Kashmir - The Times of India

When a senior indian minister says in a public speech mind, that Kashmir should be given Azadi, then my friend the situation is indeed grave for the fascist forces of the occupier.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

“India” is as much a country as the Equator: Sir Winston Churchill

Imperialist to the rescue ,eh?
I'm sure you also agree with what he had to say about Islam.

It is a total fallacy that India is a nation, it is not culturally, linguistically, or ethnically homogeneous, NUFF SAID.

Just substitute India with Pakistan, even Pakistan is linguistically,ethnically,culturally diverse.

Though not as diverse as India.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

“India” is as much a country as the Equator: Sir Winston Churchill

It is a total fallacy that india is a nation, it is not culturally, linguistically, or ethnically homogeneous, NUFF SAID.

Why do pakistanis keep quoting winston churchill to prove that India was not a nation ?

Who is winston churchill ?

hai kaun ?

Mere ta*te ka baal hai winston churchill.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

False - people were not told to leave their lands and properties, they made a choice to do so after the pal for dividing the British Colony of India was accepted by the British, Muslim League and Congress, and the peoples of the territories that comprised Pakistan voted for the ML and supported its platform for Pakistan.

In the case of Kashmir, India, Pakistan and the international community have already accepted a plan for resolving the status of the region, which is to allow the people of Kashmir to determine their future status as part of India or Pakistan.

Therefore the correct comparison with the partition of British India would be the partition of J&K based on the wishes of the people i.e. we can do a district by district plebiscite and have geographically contiguous districts become a part of the nation its people choose.

A plebiscite, dear AM, is not possible anymore for the following reasons:

1. The simla agreement supercedes the 1947 UN resolutions.

2. The UN resolutions do not offer any option of 'independence' or 'Azadi' to the kashmiris. The only options offered are India or Pakistan.

3. The UN secretary general is on record saying that the implementation of these plebiscites is no longer possible.

4. The demographics of the territory have altered way too much for any plebiscite to be conducted. The kashmiri Pandits have moved out in large numbers. Pakistan has allowed people from outside to settle in Gilhit-Baltistan.

5. A part of J&K, namely Aksai Chin, is now under the control of the PRC.

6. The resolutions are not binding upon any party be it India or Pakistan.

7. The people of Jammu and Ladakh are strictly against joining Pakistan (as is the only option other than joining India) and even so-called independence (hypothetically speaking).

In view of the above, the only possible solution left is that LoC be converted into IB and that free movement of people be allowed across this LoC. And in such a scenario, anyone who is willing to move to the other side is welcome to pack their belongings and move just like it happened in 1947.

Mind you, these are not emotional brownie points I'm making. This is a hardened legal standpoint on which any demand for any plebiscite whatsoever can be summarily rejected.

 

[Rafi]

Winston being a great man recognized the fallacy of india as a state,

JAMMU: A Jammu and Kashmir minister belonging to Congress has stoked a controversy by suggesting that Kashmir be granted "Azadi"

This is what a senior indian minister thinks

 

[Rafi]

A plebiscite, dear AM, is not possible anymore for the following reasons:

1. The simla agreement supercedes the 1947 UN resolutions.

2. The UN resolutions do not offer any option of 'independence' or 'Azadi' to the kashmiris. The only options offered are India or Pakistan.

3. The UN secretary general is on record saying that the implementation of these plebiscites is no longer possible.

4. The demographics of the territory have altered way too much for any plebiscite to be conducted. The kashmiri Pandits have moved out in large numbers. Pakistan has allowed people from outside to settle in Gilhit-Baltistan.

5. A part of J&K, namely Aksai Chin, is now under the control of the PRC.

6. The resolutions are not binding upon any party be it India or Pakistan.

7. The people of Jammu and Ladakh are strictly against joining Pakistan (as is the only option other than joining India) and even so-called independence (hypothetically speaking).

In view of the above, the only possible solution left is that LoC be converted into IB and that free movement of people be allowed across this LoC. And in such a scenario, anyone who is willing to move to the other side is welcome to pack their belongings and move just like it happened in 1947.

Mind you, these are not emotional brownie points I'm making. This is a hardened legal standpoint on which any demand for any plebiscite whatsoever can be summarily rejected.

We're not the ones you have to convince it is the people of Kashmir who want you out.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A plebiscite, dear AM, is not possible anymore for the following reasons:

1. The simla agreement supercedes the 1947 UN resolutions.

No it does not, this argument has been shown wrong dozens of times on this forum. Read the text of the Shimla Agreement and show me where it supercedes the 1947 UN resolutions, and if it does so, then why are the IWT and Sir Creek disputes still handled through international mediation?

2. The UN resolutions do not offer any option of 'independence' or 'Azadi' to the kashmiris. The only options offered are India or Pakistan.

Which has what to do with my comment?

3. The UN secretary general is on record saying that the implementation of these plebiscites is no longer possible.

His opinion, which carries no weight other than that of being an opinion - it does not do anything with respect to the UNSC resolutions.

4. The demographics of the territory have altered way too much for any plebiscite to be conducted. The kashmiri Pandits have moved out in large numbers. Pakistan has allowed people from outside to settle in Gilhit-Baltistan.

The Kashmir pundits can be contacted, verified and registered by the UN in order to obtain their vote in the plebiscite, and there remains no evidence, other than anecdotal, that the demographics in G-B have been altered beyond a few hundred families moving in here and there.

5. A part of J&K, namely Aksai Chin, is now under the control of the PRC.

A part that was barren and uninhabited when China took over administration. Pakistan's agreement with China on handing over administration does indicate that the status of the territories under Chines control will not be final until the UNSC resolutions are implemented.

6. The resolutions are not binding upon any party be it India or Pakistan.

Which does not change the fact that India committed to the UN, Pakistan and the Kashmir people repeatedly that it would implement the resolutions and that the people of J&K would determine their status through a plebiscite.

7. The people of Jammu and Ladakh are strictly against joining Pakistan (as is the only option other than joining India) and even so-called independence (hypothetically speaking).

That is something only a UN held plebiscite can determine conclusively.

In view of the above, the only possible solution left is that LoC be converted into IB and that free movement of people be allowed across this LoC. And in such a scenario, anyone who is willing to move to the other side is welcome to pack their belongings and move just like it happened in 1947.

In view of the above, your 'cut and paste' talking points have been refuted and exposed for the ludicrous excuses for continuing Indian occupation and subjugation of the people and lands of J&K.

Mind you, these are not emotional brownie points I'm making. This is a hardened legal standpoint on which any demand for any plebiscite whatsoever can be summarily rejected.

These are easily refutable 'cut and paste talking points and excuses'.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

False - people were not told to leave their lands and properties, they made a choice to do so after the pal for dividing the British Colony of India was accepted by the British, Muslim League and Congress, and the peoples of the territories that comprised Pakistan voted for the ML and supported its platform for Pakistan.

Really? So what was all the riots all about if it was not one community, in majority, telling the other, in minority, to eff off.

In the case of Kashmir, India, Pakistan and the international community have already accepted a plan for resolving the status of the region, which is to allow the people of Kashmir to determine their future status as part of India or Pakistan.

Actually, India and international community have already abandoned the option of plebiscite for Kashmir. If news reports are to be believed, so has a section of Pakistani leadership.

Therefore the correct comparison with the partition of British India would be the partition of J&K based on the wishes of the people i.e. we can do a district by district plebiscite and have geographically contiguous districts become a part of the nation its people choose.

The decision to partition British India was not taken on the basis of any referendum. Once the decision of partition was already taken, referendums were held to decide which part shall remain with which dominion. Even then, it was not available uniformly to all the people, particularly those who were to be directly effected by partition.

 

[Rafi]

So loose an argument - you cut and run.

Congress minister stokes row, give "Azadi" to Kashmir


"Give freedom to Kashmir, that's more beneficial. Give separate statehood status to Jammu and make Ladakh a union territory. If this state has to be developed, this is the only solution", Sharma said in the presence of PCC chief Saifuddin Soz.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Really? So what was all the riots all about if it was not one community, in majority, telling the other, in minority, to eff off.

Extremists, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim, attacking the other community - you know, like happened in India during the Babri Masji demolition, Gujarat riots, Christian-Hindu riots etc.

Actually, India and international community have already abandoned the option of plebiscite for Kashmir. If news reports are to be believed, so has a section of Pakistani leadership.

That does not negated that validity of the argument I made, nor does it negate the validity of a plebiscite to resolve the dispute.

The decision to partition British India was not taken on the basis of any referendum. Once the decision of partition was already taken, referendums were held to decide which part shall remain with which dominion. Even then, it was not available uniformly to all the people, particularly those who were to be directly effected by partition.

There is another thread on the two nation theory where this was discussed in detail - please read through that.

And while there was no referendum in every territory that became part of Pakistan, there was some sort of representative process in the form of elections or Jirga's where the platform of the Muslim League was supported.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

No it does not, this argument has been shown wrong dozens of times on this forum. Read the text of the Shimla Agreement and show me where it supercedes the 1947 UN resolutions, and if it does so, then why are the IWT and Sir Creek disputes still handled through international mediation?

According to Shimla agreement;

...the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.
​

The key term is 'mutually agreed upon between them'. India doesn't agree to UN resolutions, and given that these resolutions have no legal validity, effectively, they stand nullified.

As with IWT and Sir Creek agreements, these have conflict resolution mechanism within the agreements itself. Besides, both the parties 'mutually agree between them' to adhere to those agreement.

 

[Rafi]

According to Shimla agreement;

...the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.
​

The key term is 'mutually agreed upon between them'. India doesn't agree to UN resolutions, and given that these resolutions have no legal validity, effectively, they stand nullified.

As with IWT and Sir Creek agreements, these have conflict resolution mechanism within the agreements itself. Besides, both the parties 'mutually agree between them' to adhere to those agreement.

your PM nehru effectively internationalised this issue by going to the UN - you don't except the resolutions - but the first prime minister of independent india opened pandora's box - and you can't close it now, because of that the people of Kashmir feel cheated.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

Extremists, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim, attacking the other community - you know, like happened in India during the Babri Masji demolition, Gujarat riots, Christian-Hindu riots etc.

No I don't know. Neighbours attacking and killing neighbours, ordinary respectable citizens usurping another's wealth are now extrimists - well may be I don't know after all.

That does not negated that validity of the argument I made, nor does it negate the validity of a plebiscite to resolve the dispute.

That actually completely negats the validity of your argument.

And while there was no referendum in every territory that became part of Pakistan, there was some sort of representative process in the form of elections or Jirga's where the platform of the Muslim League was supported.

ML and Congress definitely had their followers. But, once again, the decision to partition India was never made to go through the rigors of public opinion.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

According to Shimla agreement;

...the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.
​

The key term is 'mutually agreed upon between them'. India doesn't agree to UN resolutions, and given that these resolutions have no legal validity, effectively, they stand nullified.

The resolutions do not stand nullified, they only stand unimplemented since India refuses to do so, despite committing to them earlier.

The only thing that language of Simla does is state the obvious, that any resolution of a dispute will have to be 'mutually agreed upon between them' - that potentially includes the UNSC resolutions at a future date, they are not nullified.

As with IWT and Sir Creek agreements, these have conflict resolution mechanism within the agreements itself. Besides, both the parties 'mutually agree between them' to adhere to those agreement.

Exactly, and both parties can 'mutually agree between them' to implement the UNSC resolutions in some form as well, either as they stand currently, or with some changes/amendments.

Nothing in Simla nullifies the UNSC resolutions, it only emphasizes the obvious that any dispute resolution mechanism should be 'mutually agreed between the two countries'.

 

[Rafi]

The indian ministers sentiment is showing the tide is turning