What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
Ms Jiang Yu is Foreign spokesperson and she mentioned that its a India-Pakistan issue.

Infact all countries say that so this is nothing new. I don't understand why this seems to be big news.

Yes, you are right. In the eyes of international community, the Kashmir issue is pretty much settled (Status quo), and no country is willing to get involved between India and Pakistan.
 
Ms Jiang Yu is Foreign spokesperson and she mentioned that its a India-Pakistan issue.

Infact all countries say that so this is nothing new. I don't understand why this seems to be big news.

The actual official statement had already been posted and its about Chinese denying all those lies, fabricated figures 11k Chinese troops in Northern Pakistan.

In the same press briefing the official said China will stick to stapled visas for Kashmiris from Indian Occupied Kashmir.

Simple and clear. There was NO physical involvement/interference of China in Indian Occupied Kashmir in the past too.

So Indian media/blogs can have a sugarcoated add-on for local public consumption
 
Wrong, see above. And Bhutto had no authority to do anything with Junagadh once the State had acceded to Pakistan. He was merely a local administrator. India was well aware of the Pakistani position on Junagadh, as can be seen from the various telegrams exchanged between the two governments. There was no question of Pakistan allowing Indian forces into Junagadh.

Bhutto did what looked best at that time.There was a rebellion in Junagarh against the decision of the nawab .He made this decision to prevent bloodshed .He was not merely a local administrator but the PM of the state.If the King really liked his country so much he would have stayed instead of fleeing to Karachi.Mr SN Bhutto was the man in charge now.

Moreover there were two minor states called Mangrol and Babariawad which were also ruled by Muslim kings.These two states decided to join India.The nawab considered these two states as his vassals and decided to annex them by force.India thereby launched 'operation peace' to get these two states which were now Indian territory. Indian forces did not enter Junagarh until they were asked to do so by the Junagarh dewan which at that point of time had much more power and authority than the king
 
Bhutto did what looked best at that time.There was a rebellion in Junagarh against the decision of the nawab .He made this decision to prevent bloodshed .He was not merely a local administrator but the PM of the state.If the King really liked his country so much he would have stayed instead of fleeing to Karachi.Mr SN Bhutto was the man in charge now.
Whatever fancy title Bhutto held, his legal status after the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan was that of a local administrator - legally Junagadh was no longer an independent State. And the same applies with the King - once accession had taken place he had no role other than one that the State of Pakistan would assign to him. SN Bhutto was legally obliged to act only in accordance with the directives of the Pakistani State, and India was well aware of what the position of the Pakistani State was through its diplomatic communications with Pakistan.
Moreover there were two minor states called Mangrol and Babariawad which were also ruled by Muslim kings.These two states decided to join India.The nawab considered these two states as his vassals and decided to annex them by force.India thereby launched 'operation peace' to get these two states which were now Indian territory. Indian forces did not enter Junagarh until they were asked to do so by the Junagarh dewan which at that point of time had much more power and authority than the king
The question of Mangrol and babariawad is a more complicated legal question than you make it out to be - the two were considered to be under the suzerainty of Junagadh, with the Nawab of Junagadh the main authority. The two would therefore have to abide by the decision of the Nawab on accession.

And India supported the provisional government of Junagadh leaders and rebels in conducting the campaign of violence and destabilization that Indian then herself used as an excuse to invade Junagadh. Bhutto had no authority to do anything along the lines of inviting a foreign entity to come into Junagadh - foreign affairs of Junagadh after accession were under the purview of Pakistan.
 
An interesting point made here
Peace In Kashmir

Let me cite some facts to confirm my point. Chaudhry Muhamnmad Ali was the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the period 1955-1957. Prior to this, he had been a senior minister in the cabinet of Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. In his voluminous book Emergence of Pakistan he relates that shortly after the Partition, the Muslim ruler of the Hindu-majority princely state of Junagadh declared that his state would accede to Pakistan. India refused to accept this decision and sent in its armed forces that took over the state and incorporated it into India. After this, a meeting was held in Delhi, attended by Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, from the Indian side, and Liaqat Ali Khan and Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, from the Pakistani side. Chaudhry Muhammad Ali writes:

‘Sardar Patel, although a bitter enemy of Pakistan, was a greater realist than Nehru. In one of the discussions between the two Prime Ministers, at which Patel and I were also present, Liaqat Ali Khan dwelt on the inconsistency of the Indian stand with regard to Junagadh and Kashmir. If Junagadh, despite its Muslim ruler’s accession to Pakistan, belonged to India because of its Hindu majority, how could Kashmir, with its Muslim majority, be a part of India simply by virtue of its Hindu ruler having signed a conditional instrument of accession to India? If the instrument of accession signed by the Muslim ruler of Junagadh was of no validity, the instrument of accession signed by the Hindu ruler of Kashmir was also invalid. If the will of the people was to prevail in Junagadh, it must prevail in Kashmir as well. India could not claim both Junagadh and Kashmir.

‘When Liaqat made these incontrovertible points, Patel could not contain himself and burst out: “Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir, and we could reach an agreement.” Patel’s view at this time, and even later, was that India’s efforts to retain Muslim-majority areas against the will of the people were a source not of strength but of weakness to India. He felt that if India and Pakistan agreed to let Kashmir go to Pakistan and Hyderabad to India, the problems of Kashmir and of Hyderabad could be solved peacefully and to the mutual advantage of India and Pakistan.’

If what Chaudhry Muhammad Ali says is true, it is incontrovertible evidence that the conflict over Kashmir is a creation of the Pakistani leaders themselves, and not of India.

Further proof of this is available in another book by an important Pakistani leader, Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan. This book was originally written in Urdu under the title Gumgashta Qaum. Its English title is The Nation That Lost Its Soul. In this book, Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan reveals:

‘When Mountbatten arrived in Lahore when fighting broke out in Kashmir, he addressed an important dinner meeting which was attended by the Pakistani Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan, the Governor of the Punjab, and four Ministers from the Punjab, where he delivered a message from Patel. In his message, Patel suggested that India and Pakistan should abide by the principles that had been agreed upon between the Congress and the Muslim League with regard to the political future of the princely states, according to which the states would accede to India or Pakistan depending on the religion of the majority of their inhabitants as well as their contiguity to either of the two countries. Accordingly, Patel suggested that Pakistan should take Kashmir and renounce its claims to Hyderabad Deccan, which had a Hindu majority and which had no land or sea border with Pakistan. After delivering this message, Mountbatten retired to the Government House to rest.’

Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan further relates:

‘I was in-charge of Pakistan’s operations in Kashmir. I went to see Liaqat Ali Khan, and pointed out that Indian forces had entered Kashmir and that Pakistan could not succeed in driving them out using the tribal raiders to ensure that Kashmir became part of Pakistan. I even said that it seemed unlikely that the Pakistani Army could succeed in doing so. Hence, I insisted, we must not reject Patel’s offer. But Liaqat Ali Khan turned to me and said, “Sardar Sahib! Have I gone mad that I should leave the state of Hyderabad Deccan, which is even larger than the Punjab, in exchange for the mountains and peaks of Kashmir?”

‘I was stunned at Liaqat Ali Khan’s reaction, shocked that our Prime Minister was so ignorant of geography, and at his preferring Hyderabad Deccan over Kashmir. This was nothing but living in a fool’s paradise. To acquire Hyderabad was clearly impossible, and we were rejecting an opportunity that would have given us Kashmir. Yet, Liaqat was totally unaware of the importance of Kashmir for Pakistan. That is why I resigned in protest as in-charge of Kashmir operations.’
 
And India supported the provisional government of Junagadh leaders and rebels in conducting the campaign of violence and destabilization that Indian then herself used as an excuse to invade Junagadh.

India did not destabilize anything.The people of the state were against the decision of joining Pakistan from the very beginning .It is very natural that there were riots and protests.At the later stages even the Muslims in Junagarh wanted to join India and not Pakistan.
 
‘When Liaqat made these incontrovertible points, Patel could not contain himself and burst out: “Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir, and we could reach an agreement.”

Why should Junagadh have been left out? Patel was being disingenuous here. If anything, the issue was of J&K vs both Junagadh and Hyderabad. India was being hypocritical and selective in its policies in both latter instances.
 
Just to correct to you dear, he meant territorial integrity and not integrity of character.

You got it wrong there :P
I didn't get it wrong - I referred to 'integrity' primarily in the context of territory, as used by the poster, though I may have also used it in the context of 'moral integrity' in other places.

In any case, stick to the arguments instead of pointless asides.
 
Oh no not again!

Man, why are we going round and round the khoonta like a bhains?

Why don't you understand AM, we are acting on interests and not morals/promises/emotions/free will etc. because that's not the way you run a country.
I never ceases to surprise me how quickly Indians run away from any rational arguments defending their position in Kashmir and turn to what essentially amounts to 'India is expansionist and wants more land, and we will invade and occupy whatever land we want to', in this case Kashmir.

By extension this argument also means that India is a warmongering State that cannot be trusted by its neighbors, and Pakistan's position WRT India is absolutely justified - because by extension of this argument Indians are often reduced to regurgitating, India could invade and occupy the territory of Pakistan or any other nation and then annex it by claiming 'interests' - i.e India is a warmongering, hostile nation and a perpetual threat to its neighbors.

1. We can't demilitarize until we see the promise of peace from the side of pak. We learnt our lessons from 1947, 1965 and Kargil. Quite frankly, we don't trust you. But don't worry demilitarization will be an automatic fallout the day K-issue is resolved.
Demilitarization was covered by the various UN appointed commissions, it was India that refused to accept the many sensible proposals advocated by them.
2. I don't care if we are called hypocrites/double standard/evils/satan and neither does GoI. Cmon AM, as I said, we are acting purely on our interests here.
Again, see first part of my response.

You may shout about junagarh and what not to your heart's content..the point is...IS ANYBODY LISTENING?
Whether someone is listening or not does not change history and the facts, and your repeated attempts to do anything other than address the arguments is indicative of the fact that you have lost the argument.
One thing I have found here on PDF, even sane pakistani members are very very emotional when it comes to kashmir. My dear friend, you do not solve problems by being emotional, when will you understand this simple common sense?

Mushy wasn't emotional and see how far we went with him.

An emotional doctor only kills the patient.

Again, I am not the one posting tripe about 'dying, bleeding, killing' to maintain some sort of 'integrity' based on a religio-cultural myth of 'mother India'. I have pointed out why the Indian position on J&K, keeping in mind Indian actions in Junagadh and Hyderabad, is flawed and illegal, and how that leads to the position that the Indian State is occupying the land and people of Kashmir.
 
Why not in India if they are soooo righteous?

Because of business right? So that means whenever and wherever a nation threatens Google, it will mend its ways, although in that country only, but it will nevertheless.

So you see their is a limit to their righteousness.

LOL...ever heard of anything more ridiculous than 'limited righteousness' ?

It's like saying 'limited love'
It's like saying 'limited honesty'

My friend, don't get confused. This is called opportunism, not righteousness.:coffee:

None of which negates the point that the google is essentially letting Indians live in their delusional world when it comes to the status of Kashmir, while the rest of the world gets to deal with the facts.
 
India did not destabilize anything.The people of the state were against the decision of joining Pakistan from the very beginning .It is very natural that there were riots and protests.At the later stages even the Muslims in Junagarh wanted to join India and not Pakistan.

The Provisional Government was openly based and supported in India, and it was Provisional Government rebels that carried out the majority of violence and instability in Junagadh. There isn't much more needed to establish Indian complicity in the chaos and destabilization of Junagadh.
 
The Provisional Government was openly based and supported in India, and it was Provisional Government rebels that carried out the majority of violence and instability in Junagadh. There isn't much more needed to establish Indian complicity in the chaos and destabilization of Junagadh.

AM, It's been sooooooo many threads and sooooooooo many posts yet I'm still searching for an answer. Since I consider you a rational person and hence respect your views, I had asked you a question in the other thread but may be because of your busy schedule, you couldn't find time to answer me.

My dear AM,

I accept all your views and agree with them

I repeat, I accept all your views and agree with them

I repeat again, I accept all your views and agree with them

Now my dear AM, will you please care to answer a simple question of mine?

Please. I beg of you.

I will put it in caps so that it doesn't escape your eyespan.

So AM, here is my question,

WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN INSIST, AND AS A RESULT SUCCEED, ON REMOVING 'INDEPENDENCE' AS AN OPTION FOR THE KASHMIRIS??? I'M SURE YOU ARE AWARE THAT IN CASE A REFERENDUM TAKES PLACE, 'INDIA' AND 'PAKISTAN' ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM AND THIS WAS DONE ON GOP's INSISTENCE.

Please my dear AM, do reply to this simple query of mine.

Peace! :wave:
 
The Provisional Government was openly based and supported in India, and it was Provisional Government rebels that carried out the majority of violence and instability in Junagadh. There isn't much more needed to establish Indian complicity in the chaos and destabilization of Junagadh.

AM, It's been sooooooo many threads and sooooooooo many posts yet I'm still searching for an answer. Since I consider you a rational person and hence respect your views, I had asked you a question in the other thread but may be because of your busy schedule, you couldn't find time to answer me.

My dear AM,

I accept all your views and agree with them

I repeat, I accept all your views and agree with them

I repeat again, I accept all your views and agree with them

Now in the backdrop of my my accepting your arguments and in fact agreeing with them, my dear AM, will you please care to answer a simple question of mine?

Please. I beg of you.

I will put it in caps so that it doesn't escape your eyespan.

So AM, here is my question,

WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN INSIST, AND AS A RESULT SUCCEED, ON REMOVING 'INDEPENDENCE' AS AN OPTION FOR THE KASHMIRIS??? I'M SURE YOU ARE AWARE THAT IN CASE A REFERENDUM TAKES PLACE, 'INDIA' AND 'PAKISTAN' ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM AND THIS WAS DONE ON GOP's INSISTENCE. GOP AND MANY PAKISTANIS HERE ON PDF CHAMPION THE CAUSE OF THE KASHMIRIS' FREE WILL. MY DEAR AM, WHERE DID THIS CONCERN FOR THEIR FREE WILL GO THEN?

Please my dear AM, do reply to this simple query of mine.

Peace! :wave:
 
For the love of God, what an Ignorant post.. India is a secular country, Bangladesh amended their constitution declaring it a secular country.

You can go to lot of semantics whether two nation theory is success or failure, but you cannot say all Bangladeshis are muslims over 10% are Hindu. No, Bangladeshi is not Islamic state.

India is as much secular as Israel or Vatican. A country which is birth place of hinduism reverting to secularism is dream at best. Think of saudis can be turned secular??

Polygamy and civil polygamous marriages are legal in Bangladesh, though the practice is rapidly declining. An estimated 1% of Bangladeshi men are in polygamous marriage; much lower than the average rate found in other nations that permit polygamy. Certain cities have also placed hefty taxes on the practice of polygamy, with the tax increasing per each new wife the man takes. There is no known limit for the number of wives a man can take in Bangladesh, though the social norm is usually up to four.

Bangladesh has a right to choose whatever political system they want be is secular or islamic. The fact is that with a country of 90% muslim population the majority influences will flow and it will remain an islamic country unless it gets kicked out of OIC.
 
It's been sooooooo many threads and sooooooooo many posts yet I'm still searching for an answer. Since I consider many pakistani friends here rational,hence respect your views, I have a question for all of you and would like to receive your views.

My dear friends,

I will put it in caps so that it doesn't escape your eyespan.

So here is my question,

WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN INSIST, AND AS A RESULT SUCCEED, ON REMOVING 'INDEPENDENCE' AS AN OPTION FOR THE KASHMIRIS??? I'M SURE YOU ARE AWARE THAT IN CASE A REFERENDUM TAKES PLACE, 'INDIA' AND 'PAKISTAN' ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM AND THIS WAS DONE ON GOP's INSISTENCE. GOP AND MANY PAKISTANIS HERE ON PDF CHAMPION THE CAUSE OF THE KASHMIRIS' FREE WILL. MY DEAR FRIENDS, WHERE DID THIS CONCERN FOR THEIR FREE WILL GO THEN?

Please my dear friends, do reply to this simple query of mine.

Peace!
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom