Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Geographically Kashmir is India's territory,

Not true according to the UNSC resolutions that declare Kashmir disputed territory, to which India, Pakistan and the international community agreed and committed to.

The resolution to the dispute remains granting the people the right to self-determination, in whatever configuration - district by district, the entire State, or separately as Kashmir (kashmir valley+ Azad kashmir), Jammu, Laddakh and Gilgit-Baltistan.

 

[karan.1970]

Not true according to the UNSC resolutions that declare Kashmir disputed territory, to which India, Pakistan and the international community agreed and committed to.

The resolution to the dispute remains granting the people the right to self-determination, in whatever configuration - district by district, the entire State, or separately as Kashmir (kashmir valley+ Azad kashmir), Jammu, Laddakh and Gilgit-Baltistan.

We can keep discussing the UN resolution till cows come home, but every one knows that it doesnt have a hope in hell to get implemented. The only way either India or Pakistan will yield on Kashmir is thru a crushing military defeat which is not possible in today's scenario either way. So the only chance some of the misguided inhabitants of Kashmir have to join Pakistan is by leaving india and taking citizenship of pakistan occupied Kashmir. The GoI will actually be glad to let these folks go. But we know its not gonna happen either..

 

[Contrarian]

I agree, all the talk against Hindu fundos is never matched by actual jail time ever.

Because they are not comiting an illegality. We can object to their views, Govt cannot jail them.

@asq:
Im not writing here to conform to your needs.

 

[footmarks]

Not true according to the UNSC resolutions that declare Kashmir disputed territory, to which India, Pakistan and the international community agreed and committed to.

The resolution to the dispute remains granting the people the right to self-determination, in whatever configuration - district by district, the entire State, or separately as Kashmir (kashmir valley+ Azad kashmir), Jammu, Laddakh and Gilgit-Baltistan.

If this is the case, and if Pakistan really supports Kashmir's freedom, why dont GOP declare Pakistan administered Kashmir as a soverign country and try to pass a resolution in UN for the same. one third of Kashmir is in your hands. Like Republic of China, let it become Republic of Kashmir,Let International community pressurise India to follow pakistan then.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If this is the case, and if Pakistan really supports Kashmir's freedom, why dont GOP declare Pakistan administered Kashmir as a soverign country and try to pass a resolution in UN for the same. one third of Kashmir is in your hands. Like Republic of China, let it become Republic of Kashmir,Let International community pressurise India to follow pakistan then.

We support resolution of the dispute through self-determination - under the UNSC resolutions there is no third option for 'freedom'.

Nonetheless, Azad kashmir does have a significant degree of autonomy, and passing a resolution in the UN and making Azad kashmir an independent nation does not resolve the issue of the territory occupied by India does it? So why do it?

If India and Israel can willfully violate their commitments to the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and Palestine, then why would an additional resolution in the UNSC change things?

Why doesn't the international community pressure India to agree to fulfill its commitment to the existing resolutions and negotiate with Pakistan to implement a referendum?

The UNSC resolutions already had the broad agreement of India, Pakistan and the international community on the principle of a plebiscite under the UN to determine which nation the Kashmiris can be part of - what is needed is the will on the Indian side to move towards implementing that solution of a plebiscite.

 

[Spitfighter]

We support resolution of the dispute through self-determination - under the UNSC resolutions there is no third option for 'freedom'.

I doubt that, Pakistan has violated the resolution on several occasions.

Nonetheless, Azad kashmir does have a significant degree of autonomy, and passing a resolution in the UN and making Azad kashmir an independent nation does not resolve the issue of the territory occupied by India does it? So why do it?

Indian Kashmir has a pretty significant degree of autonomy too under article 370 of the constitution.

If India and Israel can willfully violate their commitments to the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and Palestine, then why would an additional resolution in the UNSC change things?

Don't forget to add Pakistan to that list, and yes, additional UNSC resolutions won't change a thing, India won't even let it get that far in the first place.

Why doesn't the international community pressure India to agree to fulfill its commitment to the existing resolutions and negotiate with Pakistan to implement a referendum?

Pressure India and negotiate with Pakistan? lol.

Kashmir is a bilateral issue, India won't let the intl' community intervene, besides the resolutions are defunct, the insurgency sponsored by Pakistan changed the situation on ground.

The UNSC resolutions already had the broad agreement of India, Pakistan and the international community on the principle of a plebiscite under the UN to determine which nation the Kashmiris can be part of - what is needed is the will on the Indian side to move towards implementing that solution of a plebiscite.

It is meaningless to continually bring up the UNSC resolutions, they are irrelevant and you should focus on the issue rather than try to find a moral high ground, both sides are equally guilty. India and Pakistan will have to work it out by themselves.

A plebiscite is firmly out of the question. Kashmir is of too much strategic value (rivers) for India to completely give up its claim however a compromise on the more volatile regions (the valley) is plausible. A resolution was possible under Musharraf as nothing of that sort is possible without the PA in the loop. The current government in Pakistan is too weak to follow through on any deals, furthermore the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan is still evolving, so I doubt we'd make any moves for at least the next 4 years, if at all depending on how things go.

(also @ Asim)

By the way, how can a 'charity' organization threaten us with war? Nothing will change until Pakistan cuts these groups off. Plain and simple. India has more guns than Pakistan and these jihadis put together, there is no military solution, India cannot be forced out of Kashmir. By sponsoring these cave dwellers, Pakistan is weakening its own support within India and making a resolution that much more unlikely.

 

[Solomon2]

We have no issues with these parties fighting in Kashmir, but we do have issues when they fight outside of Kashmir. We also have issues when these parties fight in Kashmir using Pakistan as its base of operations.

Fight Indian Army in Kashmir from India, and you have our blessings.

Which means, from my point of view, that you consider terrorism against India OK whether or not such deeds can be traced back to Pakistan. That's what the world community wants Pakistan to give up, and what the GoP (and Pakistanis in general, it seems) still won't commit to do.

 

[paritosh]

Which means, from my point of view, that you consider terrorism against India OK whether or not such deeds can be traced back to Pakistan. That's what the world community wants Pakistan to give up, and what the GoP (and Pakistanis in general, it seems) still won't commit to do.

they would stop reading your post after the word 'terrorism'...for whatever the JuDs and the LeTs do in Kashmir is a freedom fight...
At one end they speak of the matter being an international dispute and try reminding us of the impending talks and conferences that we should participate in...and of all the UN resolutions over Kashmir that we have forgotten..
and on the other hand they openly profess their love and support to the "armed freedom struggle" some scary guys are waging....
quite frankly I hope that they stick to the latter approach...

 

[asq]

Please teach me the truth about British then. Dont talk silly, ok. If you want to oppose my words, give alternate thoughts or facts. dont show ur attitude.
Whoever was responsible for the partition of India and birth of Pakistan, I dont care anymore. All I want to say is that- those who dont want to be Indian and dont want to live in India are free to move to any country of their choice. But, as I said earlier, Land belongs to the nation, not to any individual. Geographically Kashmir is India's territory, If some ppl want to join pakistan, allow them to come to pakistan and give them pakistani ctizenship. Or keep your mouth shut rather then shedding crocodile tears about plight of Kashmiris.

What silly statement, countries are created out of existing lands, Namely Pakistan, another Pakistan can be created again if Muslims in India are kept down by force, cause force will has neveer solved anything.dude.

 

[asq]

they would stop reading your post after the word 'terrorism'...for whatever the JuDs and the LeTs do in Kashmir is a freedom fight...
At one end they speak of the matter being an international dispute and try reminding us of the impending talks and conferences that we should participate in...and of all the UN resolutions over Kashmir that we have forgotten..
and on the other hand they openly profess their love and support to the "armed freedom struggle" some scary guys are waging....
quite frankly I hope that they stick to the latter approach...

bird of the same feather, occpying lands which belong to others.

wrongly calling selve as Democracies, if so prove by holding free and fair elections in the ocupied areas, and please put us to shame by showing that the one we talk about are really with you, if u r what u say than do it man, it will be better than going to war and having many soldiers and civilians killed.


But i don't thuink u give value to such thing because in reality u r opressors.

 

[asq]

Which means, from my point of view, that you consider terrorism against India OK whether or not such deeds can be traced back to Pakistan. That's what the world community wants Pakistan to give up, and what the GoP (and Pakistanis in general, it seems) still won't commit to do.

if u comit to the recent U.N about Gaza than talk. dude,

Israel rejects war crimes findings of UN Gaza inquiry | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[asq]

they would stop reading your post after the word 'terrorism'...for whatever the JuDs and the LeTs do in Kashmir is a freedom fight...
At one end they speak of the matter being an international dispute and try reminding us of the impending talks and conferences that we should participate in...and of all the UN resolutions over Kashmir that we have forgotten..
and on the other hand they openly profess their love and support to the "armed freedom struggle" some scary guys are waging....
quite frankly I hope that they stick to the latter approach...

U .R totally misqouting us and that is a shame, it looks that u will go lower than the belly of a crawly creepy thing in order to make browny points with Solomon.

Man where is your dignity.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I doubt that, Pakistan has violated the resolution on several occasions.

Nowhere close to refusing to honor the resolutions period, which is India's current position, and has been for several decades.

Indian Kashmir has a pretty significant degree of autonomy too under article 370 of the constitution.

However, Pakistan remains committed to the underlying principle of Kashmiris determining their destiny through a plebiscite, whereas India does not.

Don't forget to add Pakistan to that list, and yes, additional UNSC resolutions won't change a thing, India won't even let it get that far in the first place.

Pakistan has not willfully refused to implement the resolutions, so no, Pakistan is not on that list.

Pressure India and negotiate with Pakistan? lol.

Perhaps I should have put better punctuation in there ... 'Pressure India to implement its commitments and pressure India to negotiate with Pakistan on how to arrive at the goal of plebiscite'.

Kashmir is a bilateral issue, India won't let the intl' community intervene, besides the resolutions are defunct, the insurgency sponsored by Pakistan changed the situation on ground.

Nothing in the resolutions suggests 'defunctness' based on whether an insurgency occurred or not, in fact, the resolutions remain valid until replaced by new resolutions or the resolution of the dispute between the concerned parties.

It is meaningless to continually bring up the UNSC resolutions, they are irrelevant and you should focus on the issue rather than try to find a moral high ground, both sides are equally guilty. India and Pakistan will have to work it out by themselves.

Pakistan does have the moral high ground - we stand for giving the Kashmiris the right to self-determination per the UNSC resolutions and the commitments to them of plebiscite by India and Pakistan, whereas India stands for occupation of J&K and a refusal to let Kashmiris decide their future as India herself committed to.

INDIA'S COMMITMENT OF PLEBISCITE FOR THE PEOPLE OF KASHMIR​

“Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(in telegram No. 402-Primin-2227 dated 27 October 1947 to Prime Minister of Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to Prime Minister of United Kingdom).

“In regard to accession also, it has been made clear that this is subject to reference to people of State and their decision.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(in telegram No.413 dated 28 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).

“ …….the people of Kashmir would decide the question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either Dominion then.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(in telegram No.255 dated 31 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).

“Kashmir should decide question of accession by plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of the United Nations.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(Letter No. 368-Primin dated 21 November 1947 to Prime Minister of Pakistan).

“We are anxious not to finalize anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide.

“And let me make it clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(Statement in Indian Constituent Assembly; 25 November 1947).

“We have not opposed at any time an over-all plebiscite for the State as a whole…….”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(in telegram dated 16 August 1950 addressed to the U.N. Representative for India and Pakistan: S/1791 : Anne 1(B).

“The most feasible method of ascertaining the wishes of the people was by fair and impartial plebiscite.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(Joint press communique of the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan issued in Delhi after their meeting on 20 August 1953).

“People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(Report to the All-India Congress Committee, 6 July 1951; The Statesman, New Delhi, 9 July 1951).

“Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied about between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(Statement in the Indian Parliament, 31 March 1955).

“We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations; we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(Statement in the Indian Parliament, 12 February 1951).

“We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, 2 January 1952).

“If, after a proper plebiscite, the people of Kashmir said, ‘We do not want to be with India’, we are committed to accept that. We will accept it though it might pain us. We will not send any army against them. We will accept that, however hurt we might feel about it, we will change the Constitution, if necessary.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(Statement in the Indian Parliament, 26 June 1952).

“I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir; it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but every where.

“I started with the presumption that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their own future. We will not compel them. In that sense, the people of Kashmir are sovereign.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
(Statement in Indian Parliament, 7 August 1952)

“The whole dispute about Kashmir is still before the United Nations. We cannot just decide things concerning Kashmir. We cannot pass a bill or issue an order concerning Kashmir or do whatever we want.

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(The Statesman, 1 May 1953)

“Leave the decision regarding the future of this State to the people of the State is not merely a promise to your Government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(In telegram No. 25 dated 31 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).

“In regard to accession also it has been made clear that this is subject to reference to people of State and their decision.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(In telegram No.413 dated 28 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).

“That Government of India and Pakistan should make a joint request to U.N.O. to undertake a plebiscite in Kashmir at the earliest possible date.”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
(In telegram No. Primin-304 dated 8 November 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).

“We have always right from the beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people deciding their fate by referendum or plebiscite………..”

“Ultimately, the final decision of settlement, which must come, has first of all to be made basically by the people of Kashmir…….”

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

(Statement at Press Conference in London, 16 January 1951, The Statesman, 18 January 1951).

“But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance and international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands.”

A plebiscite is firmly out of the question. Kashmir is of too much strategic value (rivers) for India to completely give up its claim however a compromise on the more volatile regions (the valley) is plausible. A resolution was possible under Musharraf as nothing of that sort is possible without the PA in the loop. The current government in Pakistan is too weak to follow through on any deals, furthermore the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan is still evolving, so I doubt we'd make any moves for at least the next 4 years, if at all depending on how things go.

And you continue to point out why Pakistan has the high moral ground by continuing to willfully declare India's intent to violate its commitment to the UNSC and the Kashmiri people, the commitment of plebiscite.

The excuse of a 'weak government' is a poor excuse. Even if one assumes the PA calls the shots instead of the GoP, why would the GoP not coordinate with the PA on negotiations with India and why would any proposal not amenable to the PA even be put forward? After all, as you pointed out, the PA as an institution backed Musharraf's peace efforts and proposals, which were some of the most significant for decades.
(also @ Asim)

By the way, how can a 'charity' organization threaten us with war? Nothing will change until Pakistan cuts these groups off. Plain and simple. India has more guns than Pakistan and these jihadis put together, there is no military solution, India cannot be forced out of Kashmir. By sponsoring these cave dwellers, Pakistan is weakening its own support within India and making a resolution that much more unlikely.

India is doing little to indicate it is interested in resolving the dispute, as indicated by the following statement:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...an-insists-kashmir-territorial-dispute-5.html

So what exactly are you threatening Pakistan with by suggesting 'nothing will change'?
India appears to have indicated 'nothing will change' all on its own.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Which means, from my point of view, that you consider terrorism against India OK whether or not such deeds can be traced back to Pakistan. That's what the world community wants Pakistan to give up, and what the GoP (and Pakistanis in general, it seems) still won't commit to do.

Since when is fighting occupation terrorism? Would the international community agree then that the US is a state founded on the basis of terrorism?

It is terrorism only when innocents are deliberately targeted, and that applies to both state and non-state actors IMO.

Perhaps you should apply your energies to convincing the international community to pressure India to let the Kashmiris decide, as promised under the UNSC resolutions. Surely as concerned as you are about 'terrorism' - the subjugation and occupation of a people would be of concern to you.

Oh wait - you support Israel and all of its depraved and illegal policies, so never mind.

 

[asq]

you are missing the 8 year old in the left most corner

So out of 5000, people u only see one kid on the side.