Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
New Recruit
This forum has nothing to do with Pakistan.
It is a mouth piece for Ultra Secular ex-pakistani traitors.
The proper name of this forum should be ZIONIST INDIAN FORUM.
The mods and admin has nothing to do with Islam and Pakistan.
At a time when countries around the world are blurring borders and willingly joining and giving up soverignity around the world to form economic unions like EU, ASEAN GCC e.t.c., it would be a step backwards if we in south asia end up going in the opposite way.
BS. You have just rehashed your same-size-fits-all argument of 'tripartite negotiation'.Hogwash - you need to actually pay better attention to the UNSC resolutions:
PART II
TRUCE AGREEMENT
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.
1. (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.
(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavor to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
========
As you can clearly see above, the withdrawal of the Tribesmen (whose presence in J&K any more I am not aware of) was also contingent on the tripartite negotiations mentioned.
Owen Dixon's comments, that you so love to quote every once in a while, were made after the talks with Nehru and Liaquat failed. That was not the end of negotiations though. It was only after this failure, Dixon came up with the concept of 'partial plebiscite' on Nehru's advice. That failed, because Dixon wanted to dismiss Abdullah's elected government, in the event of 'partial plebiscite'. Thats another topic. Maybe some other time.And Owen Dixon's report does lay the blame on India's doorstep, and that position is in fact validated by Indian analysts as well, who try to justify that obstructionism by arguing that any thing aside from the Indian position of a unilateral, unconditional withdrawal by Pakistan would be tantamount to 'rewarding' Pakistani aggression.
We would have absorbed it after having the UN hold a plebiscite there and if it was in our favor, since Pakistanis at least are not afraid of letting the Kashmiris express their opinion in such a plebiscite.
this argument of Pakistan unilaterally satisfying conditions has been clearly shown to be Indian propaganda - creating conditions conducive to a plebiscite in Kashmir was to be arrived at through a consultative process, as mentioned in the UNSC resolutions.
No - the responsibility lies with the party that reneged on its commitment (of holding a plebiscite to determine final status) to the UNSC resolutions, to the international community, to Pakistan and most importantly to the Kashmiri people, and unilaterally and illegally annexed the section of J&K under its control.
That doesnt give any outside party (read Pakistan) the right to interfere in what is basically India-Kashmiri problem. It doesnt give others the right to arm people and instigate them to kill innocents in the name of "freedom struggle".The decision to pursue a political vs a violent path does not indicate that the desire for separatism is gone -
....a political process as an occupied people does not mean they want the status quo to continue - participation in the political process is a means to address daily needs such as socio-economic development etc.
You, my friend are living in a dream land if you think the Kashmiris will chose Pakistan instead of India. No way, because I know. Given a choice they will opt for freedom from both India and Pakistan, but Pakistan will not let them be, so the next best option for them is India. And might I add, apart form those brainwashed morons which some elements in Pakistani establishment support, Kashmiris are pretty satisfied.Heck, Indians themselves don't buy into this bunk you are selling since they continue to oppose giving Kashmiri's their right to self-determination out of fear that the Kashmiris will choose Pakistan.
Thank the Indian forces and the Indian govt for efficiently dealing with terrorists, and not Pakistani establishment. If you are saying that Pakistan's govt had a hand in reducing this infiltration, it implies that the GoP knows something which would be very bad for Pakistan's health. Anyhow, if given a chance, or if they find an opportunity, those terrorists and their supporters would go for it with renewed vengeance.As for Pakistan - while the desire to pursue a violent solution to Indian occupation was high Pakistan supported the Kashmiris in that struggle, but to argue that Pakistan continues to do so is the height of ignorance given the record low levels of violence and infiltration (you cannot reduce it 100% given the terrain) and the fact that the GoI has already withdrawn 15,000 troops and Chidambaram today talked of possibly significantly further reducing troops because of the peace there.
California/Texas do not border India, they have never asked for Indian military help against outside aggressors and they do not share a history with us.Don't be childish. Either refute the argument or don't. The position espoused by many Indians that Kashmir is legally theirs simply because the Indian constitution says so is completely akin to the example of India trying to annex California and Texas by amending its constitution to declare them Indian states. Its an absurd argument on your part.
I did read that. It is not Indian propaganda. India and Pakistan went to the UN when Pakistan invaded Kashmir and failed leading to a military stalemate. had it not been for this blatant aggression against a supposedly independent state, kashmir would never have invited India. So your argument doesnt stand, you are basically beating around the bush.Hogwash and Indian propaganda as pointed out to Toxic Pus - please read through my responses to him.
Oh and Pakistan stands exonerated of its sins? By not annexing the area but yet showing it as part of Pakistan, and hoping that they join Pakistan instead of India. Yeah, apparently give them the illusion of rights of being a citizen with no voice or representation at the central level, and yet impose your constitution and laws on the people. Very interesting. What does that tell you? What if China imposed its constitution and laws on Bangladesh without annexing it and yet giving all Bangladeshis rights (whatever little they might be) very equal to those enjoyed by Chinese citizens. Or what if Iran does that in Baluchistan?It is better to give them all the rights and privileges of being a citizen, and opportunities at good governance, while also not illegally annexing the territory, than to illegally occupy and annex them as India has done, in violation of its commitment to the Kashmiris and others.
I forgot to respond to this post.The accession was itself subject to plebiscite, indicated in Mountbatten's acceptance of the instrument of accession (as was done in Junagadh), a position that was endorsed by India's leaders repeatedly - which was never conducted, so you have no locus standi.
And the GoI took the issue to the UNSC, and accepted the recommendations issued there, which also pointed out the disputed nature of the state.
If the Governors of California and Texas had exercisable sovereign powers and accordingly they chose to sign an Instrument of Accession, then yes, California and Texas would have become a part of India, by simply amending Indian constitution.Either refute the argument or don't. The position espoused by many Indians that Kashmir is legally theirs simply because the Indian constitution says so is completely akin to the example of India trying to annex California and Texas by amending its constitution to declare them Indian states. Its an absurd argument on your part.
At least allow your opponent to respond before doing that i-have-debunked-the-whole-world dance routine.Please see my responses to Toxic-Pus above - this argument of Pakistan unilaterally satisfying conditions has been clearly shown to be Indian propaganda - creating conditions conducive to a plebiscite in Kashmir was to be arrived at through a consultative process, as mentioned in the UNSC resolutions.
[...]
Hogwash and Indian propaganda as pointed out to Toxic Pus - please read through my responses to him.
If you could kindly provide the links to the articles you are talking about, I could educate my poor self of the spread of naxals to "23" out of 28 indian states.The Sunday Telegraph (London) recently carried out a full page article on the extent of Naxals insurgency detailing that it has spread to 23 Indian States.
Oh my!you don't need to be so hasty.may be you could enlighten me by giving references.Oh if it's not misconception, it's misinformation, hell the British media is loosing all it's credibility.