What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
In the portal circles we know the stinking language BR monkeys use for Pakistan and Pakistanis so we dont care what some worthless people say about us.

The main point is the freedom of Kashmiri people. And we wish and assure them we are with them.

I have been to a lot of Pakistani forums, and the language used for Indians and Hindus in particular isnt printable either.

Regarding Pakistan's support to Kashmiris, well that's best saved for another thread. All I can say, is that if that is so, Bangladesh and now Baluchistan shouldnt cause any heart burn for you.
 
Last edited:
If Indians accept that Pakistan can be a separate country because of Islam the same holds true for Kashmir. You cannot have double standards. Either you accept the partition of INDIA based on religion or you don't. Kashmirs claim for freedom is as much legitimate as call for Pakistan in 1947.
 
If Indians accept that Pakistan can be a separate country because of Islam the same holds true for Kashmir. You cannot have double standards. Either you accept the partition of INDIA based on religion or you don't. Kashmirs claim for freedom is as much legitimate as call for Pakistan in 1947.

A Pakistani Troll Disguised as an Indian......
 
Not trying to digress here, and I have no problems with Pakistan's creation. But Pakistan's creation was rejected by millions of Muslims who refused to leave their homes and neighbors. They stayed put in India and refused to join the so called promised land. When your own brethren couldnt be convinced, isn't it a little too much to expect 'Indians' to accept partition?
 
And you have shown who's behind this UN mask. Namaste ssheppard. ap ka PDF pe sawagat hai.

Wrong....:no:

5bd07a7ad37a0c29797d09c1476ff79d.jpg
 
A Pakistani Troll Disguised as an Indian......

Only if he is a Pakistani and sitting somewhere in Tamil Nadu and posting on PDF.

Don't think of everyone from the same basket.
 
If Indians accept that Pakistan can be a separate country because of Islam the same holds true for Kashmir. You cannot have double standards. Either you accept the partition of INDIA based on religion or you don't. Kashmirs claim for freedom is as much legitimate as call for Pakistan in 1947.

The partition was a political decision. Get over religion in everything. Are you suggesting Tibet should be in India on the basis of what you just vomitted.:devil: (No offences to Chinese friends. Just wanted to tell him how not to rant.)

If what you say is true then we should have only equal number of
countries as the number of religions.:undecided:

You should be more careful of article posted.
Lastly if you tell us your original country it will be great!!.:cheesy:
 
Pagans, you make me feel proud of my country. Indeed, in various threads on this forum I have constantly said that the fact that inspite of 4 wars & decades of insurgency by a beligerent neighbour we have still managed to hold on to our part of J&K for 62 years is truly an achievement!

I must confess that I'm not too happy of the way muslims have been treated in this country. But you must understand... people like you are the main reason why muslims will always get ill-treated in this country (and elsewhere). I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
 
You forgot to mention that the article is written by the fake and (in)famous Dr.Abdul Ruff Colachal who was apparently teaching at JNU but no one knows who he is. This just debunks it as a propaganda piece

More details about him here
Details about Dr. Ruff
 
Last edited:
A Pakistani Troll Disguised as an Indian......
I am an INDIAN. I am just saying that Indians should stop being hypocrites . If Pakistan can be allowed on the basis of ISLAM then why can't the same apply for Kashmir ?
 
Not trying to digress here, and I have no problems with Pakistan's creation. But Pakistan's creation was rejected by millions of Muslims who refused to leave their homes and neighbors. They stayed put in India and refused to join the so called promised land. When your own brethren couldnt be convinced, isn't it a little too much to expect 'Indians' to accept partition?

Creation of Pakistan cannot be rejected by Muslims in INDIA. Muslim in Pakistan in 1947 accepted the partition.
 
I am an INDIAN. I am just saying that Indians should stop being hypocrites . If Pakistan can be allowed on the basis of ISLAM then why can't the same apply for Kashmir ?

According to your logic......Every time Muslim Population in any of the India state....becomes a majority.....it should be handed over to Pakistan.
 
One sentence from the UNSC resolutions is enough to debunk all that mumbo jumbo you posted for obfuscating the issue:

"Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission."

A. (l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.
etc. etc. ....

Note the underlined portion and that all of the recommendations were contingent on tripartite negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN representatives - the agreements worked out in those discussions would have then led to a presumably bilateral withdrawal.

This position is validated by subsequent UNSC resolutions:

UNSC Resolution 80 on Kashmir:


... Calls upon the Governments of India and Pakistan to make immediate arrangements, without prejudice to their rights or claims and with due regard to the requirements of law and order, to prepare and execute within a period of five months from the date of this resolution a program of demilitarization on the basis of the principles of paragraph 2 of General McNaughton proposal or of such modifications of those principles as may be mutually agreed;

And what was the McNaughton proposal?

The McNaughton Proposal:


DEMILITARISATION PREPARATORY TO THE PLEBISCITE

... There should be an agreed program of progressive demilitarization, the basic principle of which should be the reduction of armed forces on either side of the Cease-Fire Line by withdrawal, disbandment and disarmament in such stages as not to cause fear at any point of time to the people on either side of the Cease-Fire Line. The aim should be to reduce the armed personnel in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on each side of the Cease-Fire Line to the minimum compatible with the maintenance of security and of local law and order, and to a level sufficiently low and with the forces so disposed that they will not constitute a restriction on the free expression of opinion for the purposes of the plebiscite.

1. The program of demilitarization should include the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of the regular forces of Pakistan; and the withdrawal of the regular forces of India not required for purposes of security or for the maintenance of local law and order on the Indian side of the Cease-Fire Line: also the reduction, by disbanding and disarming, of local forces, including on the one side the Armed Forces and Militia of the State of Kashmir and on the other, the Azad Forces.


As pointed out in the UNSC resolutions thread, in Sir Owen Dixit's own words, it was India that was being the obstructionist in implementing the McNaughton proposal in some form, despite maintaining significantly larger number of troops (in comparison to Pakistan) on its side of the disputed territory.
It is really disappointing when your opponent doesn't give you a patient reading. Quite frankly, it is irritating.

You have built your case on the assumption that I am talking of 'troop withdrawal'. I have not. Read again. My point was, and continues to be, on withdrawal of 'tribesmen and Pakistani citizens'. Since UNSC resolutions make a clear distinction between 'tribesmen and Pakistani citizens' and Pakistani army, there is no scope for one to confuse Pakistani army as being referred to as 'tribesmen and Pakistani citizens'. The later group consisted of the infiltrators - in case you are wondering.

So no. You haven't debunked anything. You have simply propped up a strawman and then merrily flogged it to death.

My question continues to be unanswered: What prevented Pakistan from withdrawing the 'tribesmen' and its 'citizens'?

One more thing. Its Owen Dixon and not Dixit. Rest assured I know exactly which part of the report you are referring to. I however doubt if you are aware of the context of that part of the report.
 

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom