Kashmir | News & Discussions.
- Thread starter foxhound
- Start date
foxbat
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 4,093
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Absolutely.. You can question all you want. Not being an Indian citizen, the GoI is not answerable to you. Thats what I was trying to say.
You question is invalid..the Goverment of India is not in this forum...so my question was not directed at them...But at you guys....the Indian members. Howvever is that the best reply you have.....how dissapointing....every Pakistani Member can say the same.....when you attack there country....tsk tsk.
But like I said within this forum..not in India....I can say what ever I like....as long as its not abusive....do you understand what I am saying......or shall I water it down for you....LoL.
foxbat
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 4,093
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
I didnt question you at all...And Indian members are also not answerable to you.. Its you who is laying down an accusation about someone shooting someone just because he wanted to. So you should go ahead and provide the backup to that. Not upto Indian Govt or Indians to defend that.
And frankly my dear star, you dissapointment doesnt mean jack because Indians and Pakistanis continuously dissappoint each others. And that includes people of Indian or Pakistani origins. As they say, you can take a Pakistani out of Pakistan but you can not take Pakistan out of a Pakistani ..
And the reply is defined by the question, or havent you heard... Ask a stupid question ....
indian_for_peace
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
In my view, These seperatist are bunch of intolerant muslims and should be dealt with the way they have been. They are being misled by leaders for their selfish reasons. I consider kashmir issue to be a war of values. Where on one side is India ,a secular , democratic , inclusive country , and on other these bunch of youth are rioting, spreading venom in the name of religion,killing kashmiri pundits. They have no logic to support their ideology except religion. And Indian constitution is against it. All those who are behind these unrest are dangerous for values that we cherish. For restoration of peace , measures taken by GOI are commandable and killings of rioters is justified.period.
Asia Times Online :: India draws a line over Kashmir
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - A statement on Kashmir that the United Nations press office issued recently has ruffled feathers in India, forcing UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon's office to clarify that the offending words were not uttered by the secretary general himself.
Sent via e-mail on July 28 to a handful of reporters, the statement said that the "secretary general is concerned over the prevailing security situation there [in the Kashmir Valley] over the past month". It called on all parties to show restraint and while welcoming the recent resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan at the level of foreign ministers, the e-mail said the secretary general "encourages both sides to rekindle the spirit of the composite dialogue, which was initiated in 2004".
The expression of concern came in the wake of unrest in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) over the past two months that has claimed the lives of about 51 people, mainly civilians. While India is engaging in talks with Pakistan, it has suspended the composite dialogue since the bloody Pakistan-linked attacks on the Indian city of Mumbai in 2008 as Delhi believes Islamabad has not acted robustly enough to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism on its soil.
An incensed India asked the UN for an explanation for the "gratuitous advice". The secretary general's office quickly responded by playing down the e-mail, describing it as "guidance" rather than a statement by the Ban. "The Spokesperson's Office released to the media guidance which was prepared by the UN Secretariat, and that seems to have been taken out of context. This was not a statement of the Secretary General," the secretary general's spokesperson said at a media briefing.
India is one of the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping missions worldwide and is seeking a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.
India's response to the "guidance" has been criticized as rather excessive. But it has a long history.
The UN's role in the India-Pakistan conflict over disputed Kashmir has raised hackles in Delhi for decades. Delhi has been opposed to the UN, indeed any external attempt to resolve the conflict. It has been of the view that while UN resolutions have kept secessionist sentiments alive in Kashmir, arms supplied by Western powers to Pakistan have fueled the latter's military adventurism vis-a-vis India and encouraged it to pursue the military rather than the dialogue option with Delhi.
However, it was India that first took the problem to the UN Security Council.
Following Pakistan's aggression on the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in October 1947 in violation of a standstill agreement that the governments of India and Pakistan had with its ruler, India referred the issue to the Security Council on December 31, 1947, asking for Pakistan to stop. Instead of taking note of the aggression, the council declared Kashmir a disputed territory, thereby supporting the Pakistani position.
An August 1948 council resolution called for a plebiscite to determine the future of Kashmir. At that time, India was not opposed to such a move. At the time of Kashmir's accession to India, prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had said that this was conditional on a plebiscite. That position changed with the Security Council's handling of the issue. "Pakistan's only locus standi in Kashmir was that of an aggressor," an official in India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said. "The UNSC made it an equal party to a dispute that in fact did not exist as India's rights over J&K were clearly established by the treaty of accession."
With Pakistan becoming a part of two US-led Cold War military alliances, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and the Central Treaty Organization, by the early 1950s and Western powers taking a pro-Pakistan line in the UN, India's distrust of the UN and the West deepened. The promise of a plebiscite was put on the backburner, as was any role for the UN on Kashmir-related matters. From 1954 onwards, the Soviet Union used its veto in favor of India against UN resolutions on Kashmir and with that the impact of the UN's "meddling" on India was effectively blunted.
Unlike India, Pakistan favors a solution according to UN resolutions. This isn't surprising as the UN plebiscite envisages giving Kashmiris a choice between accession to India or Pakistan. It is silent on independence or freedom from Indian and Pakistani control, which is the option most popular among Kashmiris.
Pakistan has repeatedly sought to raise the Kashmir issue at international forums, although under the 1972 Simla Agreement with India it pledged to use bilateral dialogue to resolve it. In fact, diplomats who participated in talks that culminated in that agreement have written that the two countries had reached a tacit understanding on converting the Line of Control (LoC) (the ceasefire line of 1948, which with some small changes was made the LoC under the Simla Agreement) into an international border. That is, the two countries had agreed to give de jure status to the de facto situation. Domestic changes in the two countries in the 1970s prevented this from being implemented.
The policies of the major powers towards the Kashmir dispute were driven by their global interests or the agendas of their regional partners. Thus, right through the Cold War, Western powers backed Pakistan's claims over Kashmir, just as the Soviets recognized J&K as an "inalienable part of India".
During the Cold War, Western powers favored a plebiscite and a third party role to resolve the conflict, but this began to change in the 1990s. The end of the Cold War, India's growing economic clout, the lure of its giant market, the reality of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in the region and the realization that the dispute would be best resolved by the two countries themselves have contributed to this shift in position.
Since the 1990s, the major powers have endorsed the Indian position, that is, conversion of the LoC into an international border. In 1999, for instance, when Pakistan violated the LoC at Kargil in J&K, it was sharply criticized. The joint statement issued by US president Bill Clinton and Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif on July 4, 1999, in Washington expressed respect for the LoC in accordance with the Simla Agreement. That idea was echoed by a Group of Eight communique as well.
During the Cold War, Western powers were not averse to an independent Kashmir, where they would wield influence. This was an attractive option, given Kashmir's proximity to the former Soviet Union and China. In the post-9/11 scenario, an independent Kashmir is not that attractive any longer. "The international community has little appetite for redrawing maps, especially in this part of the world," the MEA official said. "It has realized that J&K is in safer hands under India than it would be either independent or in Pakistan's hands."
If in the past Western powers never hesitated to proffer advice to Delhi on the Kashmir issue, they have become more circumspect in recent years. Warm relations with India have always hinged on the support a country gave India on the Kashmir issue, a fact that the US has learnt and Britain is learning more slowly. At stake are ties with India, an emerging economic powerhouse. None of these countries would like to jeopardize their relations with India.
While the US is nudging India quietly to engage in talks with Pakistan, it has avoided advising it publicly. It prefers to manage a crisis as and when it erupts rather than engage itself fully in the Kashmir quagmire.
With the major powers shifting their line to match that of India's, Delhi has been more willing to allow US facilitation. Policymakers recognize that the US is India's best bet to get Pakistan to stop sponsoring anti-India terrorist groups.
However, this does not mean that India will take "gratuitous advice" quietly, as evident from the public ticking-off that visiting British dignitaries offering to mediate have repeatedly received from India or the recent response to the UN "guidance".
Some years ago, the UN, in the words of then-secretary general Kofi Annan, said that in the changed international context, UN resolutions on Kashmir were "obsolete". But Delhi is not taking any chances. Decades of distrust don't go away that easily.
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - A statement on Kashmir that the United Nations press office issued recently has ruffled feathers in India, forcing UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon's office to clarify that the offending words were not uttered by the secretary general himself.
Sent via e-mail on July 28 to a handful of reporters, the statement said that the "secretary general is concerned over the prevailing security situation there [in the Kashmir Valley] over the past month". It called on all parties to show restraint and while welcoming the recent resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan at the level of foreign ministers, the e-mail said the secretary general "encourages both sides to rekindle the spirit of the composite dialogue, which was initiated in 2004".
The expression of concern came in the wake of unrest in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) over the past two months that has claimed the lives of about 51 people, mainly civilians. While India is engaging in talks with Pakistan, it has suspended the composite dialogue since the bloody Pakistan-linked attacks on the Indian city of Mumbai in 2008 as Delhi believes Islamabad has not acted robustly enough to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism on its soil.
An incensed India asked the UN for an explanation for the "gratuitous advice". The secretary general's office quickly responded by playing down the e-mail, describing it as "guidance" rather than a statement by the Ban. "The Spokesperson's Office released to the media guidance which was prepared by the UN Secretariat, and that seems to have been taken out of context. This was not a statement of the Secretary General," the secretary general's spokesperson said at a media briefing.
India is one of the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping missions worldwide and is seeking a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.
India's response to the "guidance" has been criticized as rather excessive. But it has a long history.
The UN's role in the India-Pakistan conflict over disputed Kashmir has raised hackles in Delhi for decades. Delhi has been opposed to the UN, indeed any external attempt to resolve the conflict. It has been of the view that while UN resolutions have kept secessionist sentiments alive in Kashmir, arms supplied by Western powers to Pakistan have fueled the latter's military adventurism vis-a-vis India and encouraged it to pursue the military rather than the dialogue option with Delhi.
However, it was India that first took the problem to the UN Security Council.
Following Pakistan's aggression on the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in October 1947 in violation of a standstill agreement that the governments of India and Pakistan had with its ruler, India referred the issue to the Security Council on December 31, 1947, asking for Pakistan to stop. Instead of taking note of the aggression, the council declared Kashmir a disputed territory, thereby supporting the Pakistani position.
An August 1948 council resolution called for a plebiscite to determine the future of Kashmir. At that time, India was not opposed to such a move. At the time of Kashmir's accession to India, prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had said that this was conditional on a plebiscite. That position changed with the Security Council's handling of the issue. "Pakistan's only locus standi in Kashmir was that of an aggressor," an official in India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said. "The UNSC made it an equal party to a dispute that in fact did not exist as India's rights over J&K were clearly established by the treaty of accession."
With Pakistan becoming a part of two US-led Cold War military alliances, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and the Central Treaty Organization, by the early 1950s and Western powers taking a pro-Pakistan line in the UN, India's distrust of the UN and the West deepened. The promise of a plebiscite was put on the backburner, as was any role for the UN on Kashmir-related matters. From 1954 onwards, the Soviet Union used its veto in favor of India against UN resolutions on Kashmir and with that the impact of the UN's "meddling" on India was effectively blunted.
Unlike India, Pakistan favors a solution according to UN resolutions. This isn't surprising as the UN plebiscite envisages giving Kashmiris a choice between accession to India or Pakistan. It is silent on independence or freedom from Indian and Pakistani control, which is the option most popular among Kashmiris.
Pakistan has repeatedly sought to raise the Kashmir issue at international forums, although under the 1972 Simla Agreement with India it pledged to use bilateral dialogue to resolve it. In fact, diplomats who participated in talks that culminated in that agreement have written that the two countries had reached a tacit understanding on converting the Line of Control (LoC) (the ceasefire line of 1948, which with some small changes was made the LoC under the Simla Agreement) into an international border. That is, the two countries had agreed to give de jure status to the de facto situation. Domestic changes in the two countries in the 1970s prevented this from being implemented.
The policies of the major powers towards the Kashmir dispute were driven by their global interests or the agendas of their regional partners. Thus, right through the Cold War, Western powers backed Pakistan's claims over Kashmir, just as the Soviets recognized J&K as an "inalienable part of India".
During the Cold War, Western powers favored a plebiscite and a third party role to resolve the conflict, but this began to change in the 1990s. The end of the Cold War, India's growing economic clout, the lure of its giant market, the reality of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in the region and the realization that the dispute would be best resolved by the two countries themselves have contributed to this shift in position.
Since the 1990s, the major powers have endorsed the Indian position, that is, conversion of the LoC into an international border. In 1999, for instance, when Pakistan violated the LoC at Kargil in J&K, it was sharply criticized. The joint statement issued by US president Bill Clinton and Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif on July 4, 1999, in Washington expressed respect for the LoC in accordance with the Simla Agreement. That idea was echoed by a Group of Eight communique as well.
During the Cold War, Western powers were not averse to an independent Kashmir, where they would wield influence. This was an attractive option, given Kashmir's proximity to the former Soviet Union and China. In the post-9/11 scenario, an independent Kashmir is not that attractive any longer. "The international community has little appetite for redrawing maps, especially in this part of the world," the MEA official said. "It has realized that J&K is in safer hands under India than it would be either independent or in Pakistan's hands."
If in the past Western powers never hesitated to proffer advice to Delhi on the Kashmir issue, they have become more circumspect in recent years. Warm relations with India have always hinged on the support a country gave India on the Kashmir issue, a fact that the US has learnt and Britain is learning more slowly. At stake are ties with India, an emerging economic powerhouse. None of these countries would like to jeopardize their relations with India.
While the US is nudging India quietly to engage in talks with Pakistan, it has avoided advising it publicly. It prefers to manage a crisis as and when it erupts rather than engage itself fully in the Kashmir quagmire.
With the major powers shifting their line to match that of India's, Delhi has been more willing to allow US facilitation. Policymakers recognize that the US is India's best bet to get Pakistan to stop sponsoring anti-India terrorist groups.
However, this does not mean that India will take "gratuitous advice" quietly, as evident from the public ticking-off that visiting British dignitaries offering to mediate have repeatedly received from India or the recent response to the UN "guidance".
Some years ago, the UN, in the words of then-secretary general Kofi Annan, said that in the changed international context, UN resolutions on Kashmir were "obsolete". But Delhi is not taking any chances. Decades of distrust don't go away that easily.
Then if you don't want to answer..then why are you responding to me...makes no sense..and I know that Indian member's are not answerable to me.....thats why it is an open forum.
Thankyou for that information....it was certainly educational..keep up the good work.
Like I said to seiko I will wait..for the report...then I will discuss this issue.
Peshwa
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,918
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
LOL.....This is unique....
So the accused is always guilty in your books I see...
So assuming the Shpeel about "non-state" actors should also be disregarded since it comes from the accused?
and for that matter, in the case of mob-violence....can anyone be sure how anyone died? Just because the incident took place during a protest does not mean that the onus of the death is placed on the security establishment....
You have neither proof to accuse our security forces of this crime....nor can you refute through evidence that the child died due to actions of the security force and not the stampede....
Only a post mortem can reveal that and only the police/coroner can run such a test.....and hence the CRPF chiefs word overides your blind emotional outburst....
Please refrain from making sweeping accusations....especially since we are preached the same....
Peshwa
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,918
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
One of the most noted Terrorists, probably responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not Thousands of Indians as well as Pakistanis now....a very "upright human being" named Illyas Kashmiri was part of Pakistan's most elite unit of soldiers, The SSG....
So by that standard, are we to assume that the entire Pakistani army is full of blood thirsty terrorists....judging by the standards of their SSG personell?....Please gimme a break....
A soldiers duty is to follow orders.....In this case...the Police and CRPF whose orders were to maintain law and order....
No evidence can be provided to say that the child with ruptured lungs was a victim of our security forces through targetting.....
Until you find proof....stay clear of accusations....
Last edited:
indian_for_peace
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
Mr. Asim, Indian army is in kashmir for preservation of peace and values that Indian constitution promote. Army has not specifically killed a nine year old and will never do it. They have shot at a rioting , violent crowd for restoration law and order. And yes, Kashmir is integral part of India and it will be forever. Sooner or later Kashmiri people will realize that they are being used for selfish and vested interest of some leaders on name of specific religion. Hatred can not last forever nor will these seperatist leaders.
foxbat
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 4,093
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Peshwa
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,918
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
Jana....you never fail us...
Now lets see.....A 9 year old kid can hardly count, read or grasp simple arithmetic to an advanced level....
Yet this "special" boy was able to grasp the complexities of a political scenario between India and Pakistan.....understand the limbo that Kashmir is in and make an "informed decision" (according to you)....of coming to the street to protest what he felt was his right to "self determination....
I wish there was an icon for a laughing facepalm....
Sometime I feel you're more of a fiction writer than a journalist....but then again.....as is the case in India and Pakistan.....Scribes do write fiction!!...LOL!!
Sell your junk elsewhere....
Sit-in in Hyderabad (India) against Kashmir protest killings
Hyderabad: The city-based Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee of India yesterday organized a sit-in in the Andhra Pradesh capital to protest against the killing of children in ongoing protests in Kashmir and demanded an end to all violent actions immediately.
The Hyderabad protesters also demanded withdrawal of the Armed forces from civilian areas immediately, handover of law and order to the state government and release of all the people arrested during demonstration and agitations.
Hyderabad: The city-based Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee of India yesterday organized a sit-in in the Andhra Pradesh capital to protest against the killing of children in ongoing protests in Kashmir and demanded an end to all violent actions immediately.
The Hyderabad protesters also demanded withdrawal of the Armed forces from civilian areas immediately, handover of law and order to the state government and release of all the people arrested during demonstration and agitations.
mohan goyal
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2010
- Messages
- 209
- Reaction score
- 0
bottomline is if u want kashmir, attack us, beat us and take it.
Similar threads
