Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[ejaz007]

India’s BSF admits to killing Kashmiri boy

* BSF director general says prima facie evidence points to constable

SRINAGAR: India’s border guards said on Wednesday that one of their soldiers had shot dead an innocent boy in Kashmir last week, in a rare confession by troops after anti-India protests roiled the disputed region over the death.

The admission could ease a recent spike in tensions in Kashmir, where hundreds of people have been injured in pitched street battles between government forces and rock-pelting Muslim crowds protesting the killing of the boy. Those protests were threatening to morph into huge demonstrations against Indian rule in the disputed region, and embarrass New Delhi while it tried to reach out to moderate separatists to end a two-decade-long violent insurgency.

Inquiry: “We have conducted an internal inquiry and prima facie evidence points to a constable,” Border Security Force Director General PPS Sidhu told a news conference.

“Exemplary punishment will be given to the person so that such crimes are not repeated in the future,” Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Omar Abdullah said.

In the past, government forces in Kashmir have been accused of killing civilians during protests and in staged gun battles by passing them off as separatist militants, charges security forces have mostly denied. Last year a judicial probe into the alleged rape and murder of two women, which also triggered massive protests across Kashmir, pointed to the involvement of police. But so far no police official has been identified or punished for the crime. agencies

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Should be hanged.Bloody savages

 

[Hellfire]

India’s BSF admits to killing Kashmiri boy

* BSF director general says prima facie evidence points to constable

SRINAGAR: India’s border guards said on Wednesday that one of their soldiers had shot dead an innocent boy in Kashmir last week, in a rare confession by troops after anti-India protests roiled the disputed region over the death.

The admission could ease a recent spike in tensions in Kashmir, where hundreds of people have been injured in pitched street battles between government forces and rock-pelting Muslim crowds protesting the killing of the boy. Those protests were threatening to morph into huge demonstrations against Indian rule in the disputed region, and embarrass New Delhi while it tried to reach out to moderate separatists to end a two-decade-long violent insurgency.

Inquiry: “We have conducted an internal inquiry and prima facie evidence points to a constable,” Border Security Force Director General PPS Sidhu told a news conference.

“Exemplary punishment will be given to the person so that such crimes are not repeated in the future,” Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Omar Abdullah said.

In the past, government forces in Kashmir have been accused of killing civilians during protests and in staged gun battles by passing them off as separatist militants, charges security forces have mostly denied. Last year a judicial probe into the alleged rape and murder of two women, which also triggered massive protests across Kashmir, pointed to the involvement of police. But so far no police official has been identified or punished for the crime. agencies

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

any Indian news paper link for same? i seem to recall he got hit by a tear gas canister ..... maybe you have found something otherwise.

 

[Jackdaws]

what the F

you just told the forumers the biggest indian joke, congrats maybe its time for you to compete in the indian laughter challenge

Ah - another Pakistani with no point to make covering it up by rolling on the floor laughing - nice.

 

[dmt111]

NONSENSE THREAD!!!

 

[Hutchroy]

One thing I wish to know is -

If Pakistan want Kashmir's independence - then why did they invade an independent Kashmir in the first place?

What do Pakistani history books teach? Do they teach that India invaded Kashmir first? Or do they teach that the ruler of Kashmir appealed to the Indian state after Pakistan had invaded and was fairly close to Srinagar?

Here are some excerpts. When you have time please read the full Article :

LRB · Tariq Ali · Bitter Chill of Winter

Bitter Chill of Winter - Tariq Ali

In constitutional terms, Kashmir was a ‘princely state’, which meant that the Maharaja had the legal right to choose whether to accede to India or to Pakistan. In cases where the ruler did not share the faith of a large majority of his population it was assumed he would nevertheless go along with the wishes of the people. In Hyderabad and Junagadh – Hindu majority, Muslim royals – the rulers wobbled, but finally chose India. Jinnah began to woo the Maharaja of Kashmir in the hope that he would decide in favour of Pakistan. This enraged Sheikh Abdullah. Hari Singh vacillated.

Kashmir’s accession was still unresolved when midnight struck on 14 August 1947 and the Union Jack was lowered for the last time. Independence. There were now two armies in the subcontinent, each commanded by a British officer and with a very large proportion of British officers in the senior ranks. Lord Mountbatten, the Governor-General of India, and Field Marshal Auchinleck, the Joint Commander-in-Chief of both armies, made it clear to Jinnah that the use of force in Kashmir would not be tolerated. If it was attempted, Britain would withdraw every British officer from the Pakistan Army. Pakistan backed down. The League’s traditional toadying to the British played a part in this decision, but there were other factors: Britain exercised a great deal of economic leverage; Mountbatten’s authority was resented but could not be ignored; Pakistan’s civil servants hadn’t yet much self-confidence. And, unknown to his people, Jinnah was dying of tuberculosis. Besides, Pakistan’s first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, an upper-class refugee from India, was not in any sense a rebel. He had worked too closely with the departing colonial power to want to thwart it. He had no feel for the politics of the regions that now comprised Pakistan and he didn’t get on with the Muslim landlords who dominated the League in the Punjab. They wanted to run the country and would soon have him killed, but not just yet.

Meanwhile, something had to be done about Kashmir. There was unrest in the Army and even secular politicians felt that Kashmir, as a Muslim state, should form part of Pakistan. The Maharaja had begun to negotiate secretly with India and a desperate Jinnah decided to authorise a military operation in defiance of the British High Command. Pakistan would advance into Kashmir and seize Srinagar. Jinnah nominated a younger colleague from the Punjab, Sardar Shaukat Hyat Khan, to take charge of the operation.

Shaukat had served as a captain during the war and spent several months in an Italian POW camp. On his return he had resigned his commission and joined the Muslim League. He was one of its more popular leaders in the Punjab, devoted to Jinnah, extremely hostile to Liaquat, whom he regarded as an arriviste, and keen to earn the title of ‘Lion of the Punjab’ that was occasionally chanted in his honour at public meetings. An effete and vainglorious figure, easily swayed by flattery, Shaukat was a chocolate-cream soldier. It was the unexpected death of his father, the elected Prime Minister of the old Punjab, that had brought him to prominence. He was not one of those people who rise above their own shortcomings in a crisis. I knew him well: he was my uncle. To his credit, however, he argued against the use of irregulars and wanted the operation to be restricted to retired or serving military personnel. He was overruled by the Prime Minister, who insisted that his loud-mouthed protégé, Khurshid Anwar, take part in the operation. Anwar, against all military advice, enlisted Pathan tribesman in the cause of jihad. Two extremely able brigadiers, Akbar Khan and Sher Khan from the 6/13th Frontier Force Regiment (‘Piffers’ to old India hands), were selected to lead the assault.

The invasion was fixed for 9 September 1947, but it had to be delayed for two weeks: Khurshid Anwar had chosen the same day to get married and wanted to go on a brief honeymoon. In the meantime, thanks to Anwar’s lack of discretion, a senior Pakistani officer, Brigadier Iftikhar, heard what was going on and passed the news to General Messervy, the C-in-C of the Pakistan Army. He immediately informed Auchinleck, who passed the information to Mountbatten, who passed it to the new Indian Government. Using the planned invasion as a pretext, the Congress sent Nehru’s deputy, Sardar Patel, to pressure the Maharaja into acceding to India, while Mountbatten ordered Indian Army units to prepare for an emergency airlift to Srinagar.

Back in Rawalpindi, Anwar had returned from his honeymoon and the invasion began. The key objective was to take Srinagar, occupy the airport and secure it against the Indians. Within a week the Maharaja’s army had collapsed. Hari Singh fled to his palace in Jammu. The 11th Sikh Regiment of the Indian Army had by now reached Srinagar, but was desperately waiting for reinforcements and didn’t enter the town. The Pathan tribesman under Khurshid Anwar’s command halted after reaching Baramulla, only an hour’s bus ride from Srinagar, and refused to go any further. Here they embarked on a three-day binge, looting houses, assaulting Muslims and Hindus alike, raping men and women and stealing money from the Kashmir Treasury. The local cinema was transformed into a rape centre; a group of Pathans invaded St Joseph’s Convent, where they raped and killed four nuns, including the Mother Superior, and shot dead a European couple sheltering there. News of the atrocities spread, turning large numbers of Kashmiris against their would-be liberators. When they finally reached Srinagar, the Pathans were so intent on pillaging the shops and bazaars that they overlooked the airport, already occupied by the Sikhs.

The Maharaja meanwhile signed the accession papers in favour of India and demanded help to repel the invasion. India airlifted troops and began to drive the Pakistanis back. Sporadic fighting continued until India appealed to the UN Security Council, which organised a ceasefire and a Line of Control (LOC) demarcating Indian and Pakistan-held territory.[*] Kashmir, too, was now partitioned. The leaders of the Kashmir Muslim Conference shifted to Muzaffarabad in Azad Kashmir, leaving Sheikh Abdullah in control of the valley itself.

 

[mrwarrior006]

^^^^OMG PAKISTANIS REALLY DID THIS

 

[Aslan]

..........

 

[Jackdaws]

They delayed an invasion because one of them had to go on a honeymoon? Jeez. Well, but what's the story about the Maharaja's atrocities?

 

[Valiant_Soul]

Here are some excerpts. When you have time please read the full Article :

LRB · Tariq Ali · Bitter Chill of Winter

Bitter Chill of Winter - Tariq Ali

An echt and comprehensive description of what happened, thanks! Should give some insights to the Pakistani members here.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A few of the pictures that were quite obviously not from Kashmir have been removed. Please ensure the images you post are correct.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Great work Black Blood ..

 

[Valiant_Soul]

Why should we go in circles here? One member here said that India cannot afford the so-called occupation of Kashmir for long, it would be made too costly. Well, if Pakistan is thinking in terms of money, then India has only emerged extremely sound economically in the last 60 years and going by the current rate of growth India will have a completely different picture by the next decade. And if costly means denting the spirit of the nation by the use of cowardly acts of terrorism then that is an even more foolish idea.

So just what does ordinary citizens of Pakistan looking at? A meaningless and totally unjustified pursuit and interests of the "power grabbers" in their nation. At the most, they can expect that LoC is turned into international border. There is no third settlement that India will ever agree upon. They are deliberately putting their leg in the mud while there are green pasture behind.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The usual rubbish.

The violation that I spoke of was Pakistan’s refusal to remove its ‘citizens and tribesmen’. Demilitarization had nothing to do it. It is hilarious how everytime I raise this question, you quickly resort to how demilitarization was subject to negotiation. So once again. Why weren’t the Pakistani ‘citizens and tribesmen’ withdrawn?

Because you didn't read the resolution properly. Here it is again:

UNSC resolution :http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc13aug48.htm

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.

So what principles are being talked about, that both governments accept and the details of which are to be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the UN commission? The following, which includes both regular troops and 'tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting'.

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.

Now if you argue that these ‘citizens and tribesmen’ were part of ‘irregular forces’ meant to fend any ‘attempt to seize control’ of territory by India, you practically validate India’s refusal to the UN sanctioned troop strength. If India had accepted the UN proposal, then India would have been left with a measly 18,000 troops, excluding armour, while Pakistan would be have been able to retain 6,000 of its regular troops, excluding armour, and thousands of armed and semi-trained ‘citizens and tribesmen’, which also included PA regulars. By the end of 1950 the number had swelled to a mammoth ‘80,000’.

Remember, India had insisted on retaining a higher number of military personnel together with armour because of the existence of this ‘irregular force’ in the guise of ‘citizens and tribesmen’, called ‘Azad Kashmir Force’.

Strawman - at no point have I argued that the irregular forces should have stayed or would have stayed and in fact the same resolution points out that 'For the purpose of these proposals "forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides'.

So your argument that Pakistan would have been able to retain 6,000 regular troops along with any number of irregular troops compared to 18,000 is clearly inaccurate since the UNSC resolutions clearly recognize and identify the problem of irregular forces and their impact on the situation.

I stand corrected. Northern Areas actually have no status. Neither is it part of Pakistan not is it part of ‘Azad Kashmir’. Limbo is however a correct observation.

Until the dispute is resolved one way or the other, that is unfortunately the status of disputed territories.

But so long as the locals can establish representative government and administer most of their affairs themselves, it should mitigate the impact. I do fault successive GoP's for not doing this far earlier however, as was done with Azad Kashmir.

J&K was incorporated into the constitution of India on the basis of Instrument of Accession. Section 6(1) of The India Act, and Section 7 of The Independence Act, made that valid. Pakistan did not have any writ to something of that sort.

You incorporated it based on your own laws - it is the equivalent of suggesting that Pakistan come up with a constitutional amendment that allows us to incorporate G-B because a certain percentage of the population participated in local elections. However, internationally, such a unilateral annexation or integration has no basis, as suggested in the UNSC resolutions declaring the territory disputed and pointing to a plebiscite as resolution.

A lame and equally pathetic excuse.

There was no ‘violation of the right to self-determination for the Kashmiris’, because firstly, the resolutions do not provide a time limit for holding of plebiscite and secondly, the plebiscite itself was subject to conditions, one of which entirely depended on Pakistan, and Pakistan alone. Nehru’s ruling out of plebiscite was because the ‘pre conditions’ weren’t fulfilled and because of ‘practical’ impossibilities that had cropped up with the passage of time. His position was vetted by Gunar Jarring, the President of Security Council, in 1957 and again a year later by Dr Frank Graham, UNCIP representative. Nehru however hadn’t closed doors for settlement of Kashmir issue.

What is lame and pathetic about it? Are you now going to deny the statements of Nehru and other GoI officials clearly stating a rejection of the need for plebiscite and an adoption of the status quo as a resolution of the dispute?

Here are (thanks to Karan) some of the quotes of other Indian officials on the issue:

V.K. Menon UN Security Council (763 Meeting, 23 January, 1957):
With Pakistan's intransigence, and passage of time, the offer lapsed and was overtaken by events


"I wish to make it clear on behalf of my Government that under no circumstances can we agree to the holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir"

Representative of India (M.C. Chagla) UN Security Council (1088 meeting, 5 February 1964):


"Any plebiscite today would by definition amount to questioning the integrity of India. It would raise the issue of secession - an issue on which even the United States fought a civil war not so very long ago. We cannot and will not tolerate a second partition of India on religious grounds"

So it is evident that India had made clear long before Operation Gibralter that it would not honor its commitment to the UNSC resolutions. And despite Indian protestations, it should be clear now that there was no intransigence on the part of Pakistan or violation of any conditions, whether related to the withdrawal of conventional forces or irregular forces.

When a party to an agreement – which the Cease Fire Agreement was – willfully violates the terms and conditions of the said agreement, it no longer remains binding on the other party. The agreement becomes invalid. The Cease Fire agreement became invalid that way. Since all other subsequent resolutions were directly dependent on or connected to this Cease Fire agreement, those became defunct. Simple.

No terms and conditions were violated before India chose to unilaterally violate its commitment to the UNSC resolutions, as is evident from the statements of the Indian leaders and officials.

 

[toxic_pus]

Because you didn't read the resolution properly. Here it is again:

UNSC resolution :http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc13aug48.htm


So what principles are being talked about, that both governments accept and the details of which are to be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the UN commission? The following, which includes both regular troops and 'tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting'.

I have read the resolutions all right.

What possible negotiations do you suppose Pakistan would have done with India, with regard to complete withdrawal of it’s ‘citizen and tribesmen’? Did Pakistan at all negotiate with India on this particular issue?

During the time Dr Frank Graham was preparing his 3rd report, Pakistan reported, falsely, that all the ‘citizens and tribesmen’ were withdrawn. The question then is, why did Pakistan even make that claim without first negotiating with India, if the ambit of negotiations did include ‘citizens and tribesmen’.

Strawman - at no point have I argued that the irregular forces should have stayed or would have stayed and in fact the same resolution points out that 'For the purpose of these proposals "forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides'.

So your argument that Pakistan would have been able to retain 6,000 regular troops along with any number of irregular troops compared to 18,000 is clearly inaccurate since the UNSC resolutions clearly recognize and identify the problem of irregular forces and their impact on the situation.

Firstly, I haven’t accused you of making that argument. The para that you have quoted was connected to the first one and in isolation it makes no sense. When asked about ‘citizens and tribesmen’, you have clearly claimed in your previous post, that negotiation was meant for regular and irregular forces. That would imply, that you were considering the ‘citizens and tribesmen’ as irregular forces.

As the language of the resolution clearly indicates, the withdrawal of regular and irregular forces was contingent upon negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN appointed commission, and rightly so, since the militarization of the conflict meant that one side could attempt to seize control in case of a unilateral, unconditional withdrawal by the other.

Secondly, the figures of 18,000 and 6,000 for India and Pakistan, respectively, didn’t include the ‘irregular force’. It was about their own troops. Since you have chosen to read that para in isolation you got the wrong impression.

In any case, disbanding of Azad Kashmir force was one of the major ‘obstacles’ and is reported as such by Dr Frank Graham in his 3rd Report. Pakistan had adamantly refused to disband Azad Kashmir force and instead augmented it. That was one of the reasons why India wanted a larger troop strength. Additionally, the presence of 'citizens and tribesmen' always retained the threat of further infiltration.

You incorporated it based on your own laws - it is the equivalent of suggesting that Pakistan come up with a constitutional amendment that allows us to incorporate G-B because a certain percentage of the population participated in local elections. However, internationally, such a unilateral annexation or integration has no basis, as suggested in the UNSC resolutions declaring the territory disputed and pointing to a plebiscite as resolution.

Not entirely true. Section 6(1) of The India Act, 1935 states:

A State shall be deemed to have acceded to the Federation if His Majesty has signified his acceptance of an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof…

‘State’ here refers to the Princely State. ‘Federation’ here refers to British India. However u/s 7 of The Indian Independence Act, 1947, this section applied to both India and Pakistan.

What is lame and pathetic about it? Are you now going to deny the statements of Nehru and other GoI officials clearly stating a rejection of the need for plebiscite and an adoption of the status quo as a resolution of the dispute?

Here are (thanks to Karan) some of the quotes of other Indian officials on the issue:

So it is evident that India had made clear long before Operation Gibralter that it would not honor its commitment to the UNSC resolutions. And despite Indian protestations, it should be clear now that there was no intransigence on the part of Pakistan or violation of any conditions, whether related to the withdrawal of conventional forces or irregular forces.

Nehru didn’t mention of any ‘status quo’ anywhere. His ‘rejection’ of plebiscite was because of unfulfilled ‘pre-conditions’ and ‘practical’ inability to hold such plebiscite. Gunnar Jarring and Frank Graham, both admitted that the passage of time made the implementation of the resolutions ‘progressively difficult’.

Irony is that it is precisely because of Pakistan’s intransigence that ‘pre-conditions’ couldn’t be fulfilled.

No terms and conditions were violated before India chose to unilaterally violate its commitment to the UNSC resolutions, as is evident from the statements of the Indian leaders and officials.

If the performance of an agreement is subject to pre-conditions, and the same agreement couldn’t be performed due to non fulfillment of those ‘pre-conditions’ then it is not a violation of agreement. That’s ABC of agreement/contract laws.