Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Kompromat]

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

Sir i am trying my level best to post the most relevant Images but if there is any Mistake please stick to this thread and Correct it.

Thanks:

 

[Kompromat]

Great work Black Blood ..

Thank you Sir

 

[toxic_pus]

Deleted: No longer required since the original post to which this was a response, was deleted by the OP.

 

[Kompromat]

Irrelevant image would be deleted , its my fault.

 

[pkd]

Story of fallen tulips and tarnished roses

:. Kashmir’s occupation: Story of fallen tulips and tarnished roses




Kashmir Watch, Feb 12

Shazeb Kashmiri

Kashmir continues to see its parents grievously wounded, and its children eternally orphaned. The garden of our freedom has been drenched with the blood of our sons and the honour of daughters - -- -our fallen tulips and tarnished roses.

Bharat’s illegitimate occupation continues to be a curse for Kashmir. We now have three generations of our youths decimated - - hundreds of thousands dead, four times as many injured, and a whole nation traumatized. Kashmir continues to see its parents grievously wounded, its children eternally orphaned, and the psyche of the entire peoples indelibly troubled. The Kashmiris continue to count their fallen, their injured, their tortured, their disappeared, and their raped. They continue to see their blooming tulips- - Wamiqs and Zahids - - smothered prematurely. They continue to see the violators of their roses- - Nelofer Jans and Asiya Jans- - go unpunished.

Kashmir’s prolonged agony is a saga of thousands of rapes, hundreds of disappearances, and countless extrajudicial killings. It is a saga of torture of individuals and collective punishments for the entire population through deceitful curfews and crippling restrictions. It is the saga of an entire population circumscribed by concertina wires.

It is a saga of highway blockades and communal onslaughts. It is a saga of terrorized Kashmiri students and businessmen in India. It is a saga of the military and police brutalities. It is a saga of treacherous fifth columnists of Kuka Parrey’s and Muma Kanna’s shame. It is a saga of electronic media clamp downs, and murderous assaults on the print journos. It is a saga of blinkered patriotism of the Indian media.

This entire despicable display of the India’s state sponsored terrorism against the rebellious population has occurred on the watches of the likes of the deceitful Abdullahs, the treacherous Bukshis and the serpentine Muftis. Kashmir has been converted into a fortress on directions of the brutal Jagmohans, shameless Saxenas and communal Sinhas. All this barbarity to Kashmiris has happened under the watchful eyes of our own lowly politicians- - the self-serving agents of NC, PDP and Congress.

And all this misfortune has been heaped upon Kashmiris with the singular aim of subduing them into submission, in the purported need of maintaining the territorial integrity of Bharat. It is becoming increasingly clear the Indian intelligentsia in the recent months, that Bharat has not won Kashmir, and it cannot retain it for long.

Although, India has worked hard to dehumanize and terrorize Kashmiris, it has effectively alienated even those few in Kashmir who are least interested in freedom. It has made no inroads into the hearts and minds of the Kashmiris. Since the Indians have not learned appropriate lessons from their Jalianwala Bagh, they are doomed to witness the consequences of this historical omission- - slowly but surely.

They have chosen to ignore the admonition of one of their foxiest- - Jawahar Lal Nehru, who on June 26, 1952 said in the Lok Sabha: “… it is the people of Kashmir who must decide. And I say with all respect to our Constitution that it just does not matter what your Constitution says; if the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there….The alternative is compulsion and coercion... the decision... ultimately lies with…[the] people in Kashmir, not…with [the Indian] Parliament.”

Continuing to churn out his wisdom, this Machiavellian architect of Kashmir’s ongoing tragedy observed: “Do not think you are dealing with a part of U.P., Bihar or Gujarat. You are dealing with an area, historically and geographically, and in all manner of things [different]… We have to be men of vision and there has to be broad minded acceptance of facts… [that] real integration comes of the mind and the heart and not of some clause which you may impose on other people.”

Did you note the words “other people”? Nehru had quite rightly figured the ultimate fate of illegitimate occupation of Kashmir. More than sixty years on, India has not won the Kashmiri’s hearts, nor have the Kashmiris changed their minds. The Kashmiris continue to remain the ‘other people’ for India. Even to Nehru, Kashmir was not India.

The delusional political, bureaucratic and military Babus in New Delhi, and their equally dishonest representatives in Kashmir, continue to believe that India can retain Kashmir at gun point. And, the Kashmiris continue to resist- - with their life, limb and honour- - the occupier’s ill-conceived temptation.

Who will ultimately prevail is not debatable: The garden of our freedom has been watered by the blood of our sons and the honour of our daughters. This unfortunately mounting toll of our fallen tulips and tarnished roses will not go waste. No self-respecting people will allow the martyrs’ blood go waste.

Both, the time-honoured verdicts of history, as well as the long ignored Nehruvian realization, continue to be valid for Kashmir: No people can be occupied against their wishes for long, no matter what the strength or the nature of the onslaught by the occupier.

Tags: Kashmir conflict, Kashmir Human rights, India human rights, Indian army


Kashmir Watch :: In-depth coverage on Kashmir conflict

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I came across this video after a segment on the BBC a few months ago in which they looked at the impact of media and technology in Kashmir. The people they interviewed said that this song by Chris de Brugh was one of the more popular songs in the valley and served as a sort of 'anthem' for the freedom movement.

The images of Kashmiri oppression and occupation by India in this video are set to the Chris de Burgh soundtrack.

 

[DavyJones]

@AM - the video is not available.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@AM - the video is not available.

Maybe its blocked in India?

I just watched it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have read the resolutions all right.

Then it should be obvious that the resolutions clearly call for negotiations on the withdrawal of conventional forces and irregular forces, and that therefore debunks the Indian argument that Pakistan was in violation of the resolutions by not immediately withdrawing irregular forces.

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’.

Irrelevant - whether or not Pakistan negotiated with India over the withdrawal of its 'citizens and tribesmen' or its conventional forces, before withdrawing them, does not change the fact that Pakistan was under no obligation to withdraw them unless it was satisfied through the tripartite negotiations.

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.

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.

I'll have to go through Graham's report and others to see what was said, but this is a tangential argument to the one of whether Pakistan was in violation of the UNSC resolutions by not withdrawing its 'citizens and tribesmen'.

Your points here apply in the issue of which side was 'intransigent' in the negotiations towards demilitarization, they do not change the fact that Pakistan did not have to withdraw anyone unless satisfied through the negotiations.

Nehru didn’t mention of any ‘status quo’ anywhere.

He did right here;

Offer of a settlement on the basis of the ceasefire line was the logical corollary. Nehru made this offer while addressing a public meeting in New Delhi on April 18, 1956. "I am willing to accept that the question of the part of Kashmir which is under you should be settled by demarcating the border on the basis of the present ceasefire line. We have no desire to take it by fighting."

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.

Again, this is different from arguing that Pakistan 'violated the resolutions', you are now arguing that the Indian decision to unilaterally violate her commitment to the resolutions was on the basis of a perception of Pakistani intransigence. Intransigence does not equate violation, and would be the subject of a separate discussion. Lets settle the 'violation' question first, and IMO it has been clearly shown that Pakistan committed no violation by not withdrawing either conventional or irregular forces.

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.

But there was no time-line and no mechanism within the resolutions that addressed the issue of 'non performance' due to the passage of time. This is a subjective argument on India's part that the resolutions became 'unimplementable' due to the passage of time. If 'non-fulfillment of pre-conditions' within an arbitrary time-frame nullified the agreement as India argued, and the UN commission was in agreement, then the way to render the agreement void was to have the UNSC issue a resolution declaring that.

As it is you chose to apply your own interpretation based on a self-created arbitrary time-line and unilaterally violate the Indian commitment to the resolutions.

P.S: Will respond to the India Act question later.

 

[Halaku Khan]

They continue to see the violators of their roses- - Nelofer Jans and Asiya Jans- - go unpunished.

This illustrates the basic problem with the Kashmir "freedom" movement - it has been established that the two young ladies mentioned drowned by accident.

The "leaders" are admittedly on Pakistani payroll, and the whole movement is based on fraud and dishonesty.

That is why it is not getting any traction amongst the people.

 

[Atheist]

Lol and people here still believe that India gives a damn about these resolutions - How noobish.... India will continue the status quo till it turns into a permanent border... neither Pakistan nor the Jihadis groups can do anything about it - let alone grab it by force..and we always have our all time ally Russia to veto any resolution against India especially in terms of Kashmir - So happy bashing as long as you can

 

[toxic_pus]

Then it should be obvious that the resolutions clearly call for negotiations on the withdrawal of conventional forces and irregular forces, and that therefore debunks the Indian argument that Pakistan was in violation of the resolutions by not immediately withdrawing irregular forces.

For the umpteenth time you have failed to make the distinction between 'regular/irregular forces' and the 'citizens and tribesmen'. I am beginning to feel that it is deliberate. Its the 'citizens and tribesmen' that I am talking about. Remember?

Irrelevant - whether or not Pakistan negotiated with India over the withdrawal of its 'citizens and tribesmen' or its conventional forces, before withdrawing them, does not change the fact that Pakistan was under no obligation to withdraw them unless it was satisfied through the tripartite negotiations.

It is relevant because it creates something called 'precedence'. Pakistan's claim of withdrawal of 'citizens and tribesmen' without negotiation with India proves that Pakistan was 'satisfied' and more than happy with not negotiating with India, with regard to these 'citizens and tribesmen'.

The question therefore is, if Pakistan could claim to have withdrawn its 'citizens and tribesmen' without negotiating with India, what stopped Pakistan from actually withdrawing its 'citizens and tribesmen'?

Your points here apply in the issue of which side was 'intransigent' in the negotiations towards demilitarization, they do not change the fact that Pakistan did not have to withdraw anyone unless satisfied through the negotiations.

By making a claim to have withdrawn its 'citizens and tribesmen', Pakistan proved their 'satisfaction' without any negotiation regarding its 'citizens and tribesmen'.

He did right here;

Offer of a settlement on the basis of the ceasefire line was the logical corollary. Nehru made this offer while addressing a public meeting in New Delhi on April 18, 1956. "I am willing to accept that the question of the part of Kashmir which is under you should be settled by demarcating the border on the basis of the present ceasefire line. We have no desire to take it by fighting."

I don't see any status quo. On the other hand I see a pragmatic approach to solve the imbroglio. Contrary to what Pakistanis believe, plebiscite was not the objective, but a means to solve the Kashmir 'dispute'.

Again, this is different from arguing that Pakistan 'violated the resolutions', you are now arguing that the Indian decision to unilaterally violate her commitment to the resolutions was on the basis of a perception of Pakistani intransigence. Intransigence does not equate violation, and would be the subject of a separate discussion.

Self-evident facts are not perception. It is however funny how 'intransigence does not equate violation' and yet, India not holding plebiscite primarily, for non-fulfillment of preconditions, and generally, due to impracticability of the plebiscite, is 'violation'.

Lets settle the 'violation' question first, and IMO it has been clearly shown that Pakistan committed no violation by not withdrawing either conventional or irregular forces.

Similarly, it has been clearly shown that India committed no violation by not holding the plebiscite since the preconditions for the plebiscite were not fulfilled.

But there was no time-line and no mechanism within the resolutions that addressed the issue of 'non performance' due to the passage of time. This is a subjective argument on India's part that the resolutions became 'unimplementable' due to the passage of time. If 'non-fulfillment of pre-conditions' within an arbitrary time-frame nullified the agreement as India argued, and the UN commission was in agreement, then the way to render the agreement void was to have the UNSC issue a resolution declaring that.

As it is you chose to apply your own interpretation based on a self-created arbitrary time-line and unilaterally violate the Indian commitment to the resolutions.

Firstly, the 'time-line' argument doesn't fly. By the end of '53, it was evident that neither Pakistan nor India was willing to budge in a way that would be acceptable to the other party. The negotiations had come to a deadlock. I am assuming that you have resorted to 'time-line' argument out of ignorance of what the situation was then. I will let it pass.

Secondly, the UN can't just suo motu nullify an agreement. Both the parties had to agree. Again, basics of agreement law.

One more thing. Political rhetoric is one thing and legal argument is another. Your accusation of 'unilaterally violating' UN resolutions is what it is - just rhetoric of desperation.

I'll have to go through Graham's report and others to see what was said....

P.S: Will respond to the India Act question later.

No problem.

 

[karan.1970]

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.


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.

Sorry to jump in but had to clarify the text taken from my post. What you have here is not the complete chronology of comments as I had put in the previous post. Attached below. If you notice the very first comment of 1957 blames Pakistan for not meeting its obligations as per the agreement leading to wrecking the implementation. So your comment of these posts proving that India's leaders had decided to not honor the commitment despite no transgression on part of Pakistan is not correct..

"India had accepted these resolutions, subject to assurances, (mentioned in para 6) and in the hope of having the matter resolved quickly. Pakistan, however, wrecked the implementation of the resolutions at that time by not fulfilling the preconditions. If an offer is made and it is not accepted at the time it is made, it cannot be held for generations over the heads of those who made it".


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"

Lal Bahadur Shastri New York, stated on March 31, 1966

 

[Solomon2]

Pakistan has been 'hammering at the issue', at the UN and at any international forum it gets a chance to. But -

This "hammering" is mere tapping compared to terrorism, nuclear confrontation, and border warfare. If you evaluate the feelers from the GoI, you may find that progress on Kashmir is indeed possible - but it can't happen while these three issues dominate India-Pakistan relations. And why not at least suspend them for a while? After all, they are merely tactics for achieving the goal of liberating Kashmir. With the right governments at the helms of India and Pakistan, diplomacy may be more effective.

your usage of the term 'terrorism' is only accurate and acceptable provided you also accept the fact that the US was founded by terrorists and on the basis of terrorism.

I concede nothing. Don't you think discussion about the U.S. belongs in other threads?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

For the umpteenth time you have failed to make the distinction between 'regular/irregular forces' and the 'citizens and tribesmen'. I am beginning to feel that it is deliberate. Its the 'citizens and tribesmen' that I am talking about. Remember?

For the umpteenth time, I am not the one making the distinction, the language of the UNSC resolutions should be self explanatory - again:

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.

The resolutions clearly refer to 'Citizens (Pakistani nationals) and Tribesmen', and their withdrawal is linked to negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN commission. End of story.

It is relevant because it creates something called 'precedence'. Pakistan's claim of withdrawal of 'citizens and tribesmen' without negotiation with India proves that Pakistan was 'satisfied' and more than happy with not negotiating with India, with regard to these 'citizens and tribesmen'.

Whether Pakistan was satisfied or not at one particular time does not change that fact that Pakistan was not obligated to withdraw tribesmen without negotiations. Perhaps Pakistan started to withdraw/withdrew and realized that it would amount to handing India a military advantage. Pakistan would then be acting within the framework of the resolutions to not withdraw until negotiations were concluded.

The question therefore is, if Pakistan could claim to have withdrawn its 'citizens and tribesmen' without negotiating with India, what stopped Pakistan from actually withdrawing its 'citizens and tribesmen'?

Perhaps we decided doing so with give India a military advantage and therefore decided to wait until negotiations to our satisfaction were completed.

I don't see any status quo. On the other hand I see a pragmatic approach to solve the imbroglio. Contrary to what Pakistanis believe, plebiscite was not the objective, but a means to solve the Kashmir 'dispute'.

Again, ""I am willing to accept that the question of the part of Kashmir which is under you should be settled by demarcating the border on the basis of the present ceasefire line."

On the basis of the present ceasefire line - that is status quo.

Self-evident facts are not perception. It is however funny how 'intransigence does not equate violation' and yet, India not holding plebiscite primarily, for non-fulfillment of preconditions, and generally, due to impracticability of the plebiscite, is 'violation'.

Similarly, it has been clearly shown that India committed no violation by not holding the plebiscite since the preconditions for the plebiscite were not fulfilled.

If the facts were self-evident then the proper recourse was to have the UNSC take into account the 'self-evident' facts and pass a resolution indicating so.

There was

Firstly, the 'time-line' argument is doesn't fly. By the end of '53, it was evident that neither Pakistan nor India was willing to budge in a way that would be acceptable to the other party. The negotiations had come to a deadlock. I am assuming that you have resorted to 'time-line' argument out of ignorance of what the situation was then. I will let it pass.

Deadlock does not equate irrelevance of the resolutions nor violation of them. This was India's unilateral decision that things could no longer move forward and it acted unilaterally to violate its commitment to the resolutions

Secondly, the UN can't just suo motu nullify an agreement. Both the parties had to agree. Again, basics of agreement law.

And Pakistan did not agree with your interpretation of the situation, and we did not agree - hence a unilateral violation of the commitment on the part of India.

One more thing. Political rhetoric is one thing and legal argument is another. Your accusation of 'unilaterally violating' UN resolutions is what it is - just rhetoric of desperation.

I think the above clearly shows that unilateral violation is exactly what it was - there was no language related to timelines or deadlocks in the resolution, and there was no violation of the resolutions by Pakistan (since the whole 'withdrawal of Citizens and Tribesmen' argument has been debunked). India chose to indicate that it would not honor its commitment to the resolutions without Pakistan's agreement - that is a unilateral violation of India's commitment to honor the UNSC resolutions, no matter how you try to spin it.