Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[anurag_singh]

Well, obviously there is a need for greater education, to enhance their "sensitivity".



Well, that has to be decided after greater sensitivity is achieved.

Let us assume, if tomorrow US will capture mecca then will you shift mosque to islamabad and decide sacredness of mecca later when greater sensitivity is achieved?

 

[Areesh]

 

[Ingis]

Indian forces killed 13 protesters and wounded scores of others Monday in confrontations across Kashmir fueled in part by a report that a Quran was desecrated in the United States, a police official said. A police officer was also killed.

The Associated Press: India forces battle Kashmiri protesters; 14 killed

This report clearly highlights two points --

1) The protests were against alleged Quran desecration in US and were not primarily against India rule (though some foreign elements might have used this as an opportunity to ignite anti-India sentiments).

2) The death of the policeman clearly showcases how "peaceful" these Kashmiri protests are.

 

[gubbi]

No comparison can be completely identical, but in both cases, regardless of the attempts by the Indian State to cover up its forced annexation of the territory and people of Kashmir, the fact is that the people and territory are forcibly occupied.

Better than starting a war by illegally invading an independent entity and creating a mess in the first place.

No matter how much you would like to believe in the illegality of accession of J&K to India, the fact remains that the whole world (except for some delusional entities) accept the legal document of accession.

The rest of the sops 'promised' to Kashmiris depend solely on territorial integrity of the 'state' and not parts thereof.

Anyway, as EzajR so clearly put it, Kashmiris has full representation to the Indian Parliament which their compatriots in other occupied territories are deprived of.

Again, does not change the fact that the people and territory are occupied and denied the promised right to self-determination. Occupiers can implement any number of policies to legitemize their occupation and win over the occupied, the fact that the people are occupied however does not change, and it is patently obvious that in Kashmir the people refuse to accept Indian occupation.

Why should they be treated with 'kid gloves'? Why give them the 'right for self-determination'? Are they a special breed? Kashmir "struggle" was started by the Kashmiri pundits - who were conveniently driven out by moral sponsors of this unrest and now have usurped this movement on religious grounds. This is plain hypocrisy.

I say scrape Article 370, fully integrate the whole state into Indian Union, let other Indians buy property in Kashmir (like they are allowed to buy property in other Indian states) and deport the trouble makers to build roads in NE.

Enough of this showing of so called 'moral support' by outsiders - based solely on religious grounds. Nothing else.

So does Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, or for that matter Afghanistan - that does not justify the occupation and annexation of Afghan/Pakistani/Sri lankan/Bangladeshi/Nepali territory by India.

If anyone signs a treaty of accession, then yes - J&K did, it is fully justified. Your argument doesn't hold weight AM.

Well, obviously there is a need for greater education, to enhance their "sensitivity".

Yeah, we all see how that 'greater education promoting sensitivity' is unfolding in Pakistan. Keep that "education" to yourselves - thank you.

 

[muse]

It's unfortunate that the Indian claims all South Asians as Indians of a some sort or kind -- because given the opportunity, those Indians who could secure freedom for themselves, for their first act chose to not be Indian -- and this struggle continues to this day - Whether in captive Kashmir or in the disputed North East or in the East or in the deep South.

So it sems this idea of India should be examined more deeply - I'm not suggesting any doing away with present organized India, but simply to reexamine the basic assumptions, such as everyone was Hindu - there wasn't even such a thing as a Hindu until Muslims and English came - or that everyone was "Indian" - there has only been a India for 63 years. What is need is another set of ideas or basic assumptions that allow for greater inclusion.

 

[Valiant_Soul]

Some people cannot help but make it aptly clear that all these movements are basically of the nature of "Muslims against the rest".

Some people really are unable to learn to co-exist - and that is why all such societies are doomed to end in a mess.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Taken out of context, its a canard. In reality the reverse logic can be applied to any of the parts of any of the countries you mentioned. By the same logic parts of Pakistan are indeed occupied territories too. Why do not Pakistanis use the same moral principles there, but instead resort to technical ones there?

Self interest, nothing else.

Not really - referendum in NWFP, Jirga's in Baluchistan and FATA, local assemblies/parties in favor in Punjab and Sindh.

The point being that a particular identity point (Muslims and Muslim majority territories) was used to advocate in favor of a particular idea, Pakistan, and the people of the territories constituting Pakistan agreed and accepted it in various ways.

In J&K India in fact promised a plebiscite, and further agreed to it in the UN, and in fact held a unilateral plebiscite when it invaded and occupied Junagadh that had acceded to Pakistan, so it has not allowed the kashmiris to enact that compact of Statehood with India, nor resolved the dispute with Pakistan, given the precedence of plebiscite she herself implemented in Junagadh.

 

[muse]

Isn't it more like Hindus against Muslims? Serves those Muslims right for being asleep, comatose for as long as they have been -- their awakening must be in freedom not slavery

 

[gubbi]

In J&K India in fact promised a plebiscite, and further agreed to it in the UN, and in fact held a unilateral plebiscite when it invaded and occupied Junagadh that had acceded to Pakistan, so it has not allowed the kashmiris to enact that compact of Statehood with India, nor resolved the dispute with Pakistan, given the precedence of plebiscite she herself implemented in Junagadh.

There were no parts or areas of Junagadh under Pakistani occupation. Secondly, Junagadh was a Hindu majority state ruled by Muslim ruler. Pakistan accepting Junagadh's accession went against the very reason for Pakistan's creation - a state for the sub-continent's Muslims.

So a referendum in Junagadh was a very easy thing to do. Unlike J&K (and NOT only Kashmir) which has parts under occupation by two other countries.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Complete and utter nonsense, distortion and double standards.

Better than starting a war by illegally invading an independent entity and creating a mess in the first place.

You mean like India did in invading the territory of Junagadh and Hyderabad, and forcibly annexing them, in the former case AFTER the territory had acceded to Pakistan?

No matter how much you would like to believe in the illegality of accession of J&K to India, the fact remains that the whole world (except for some delusional entities) accept the legal document of accession.

I see no respect from India for the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan, or for that matter for the wishes of the ruler of the State of Hyderabad.

The 'delusional entities' would comprise most of the world.

Anyway, as EzajR so clearly put it, Kashmiris has full representation to the Indian Parliament which their compatriots in other occupied territories are deprived of.

Does not change the fact that they are forcibly occupied and denied the right to self-determination that India promised and in fact argued as the overriding means of establishing legitimacy in accession with its actions in Junagadh.

Why should they be treated with 'kid gloves'? Why give them the 'right for self-determination'? Are they a special breed? Kashmir "struggle" was started by the Kashmiri pundits - who were conveniently driven out by moral sponsors of this unrest and now have usurped this movement on religious grounds. This is plain hypocrisy.

Why? Because India herself established self-determination as the main principle in invading and annexing the State of Junagadh, after its accession to Pakistan, and then holding a unilateral plebiscite.

I say scrape Article 370, fully integrate the whole state into Indian Union, let other Indians buy property in Kashmir (like they are allowed to buy property in other Indian states) and deport the trouble makers to build roads in NE.

Shift to complete colonization in other words ...

If anyone signs a treaty of accession, then yes - J&K did, it is fully justified. Your argument doesn't hold weight AM.

India herself agreed to plebsicite as overriding the instrument of accession in agreeing to the UNSC resolutions, and in ignoring the accession by the State of Junagadh to Pakistan, and claiming that its unilateral plebiscite legitimized Indian rule.

 

[Valiant_Soul]

So it sems this idea of India should be examined more deeply - I'm not suggesting any doing away with present organized India, but simply to reexamine the basic assumptions, such as everyone was Hindu - there wasn't even such a thing as a Hindu until Muslims and English came

The fact that the term "Hindu" was not coined before the Muslims came does not extincts their existence from history. The people who are so
staunch against "Hindu India" may not even realize that their own ancestry runs back to what is now known as Hinduism.

 

[muse]

But why stop back at "Hindu" why not go even further back?

---------- Post added at 03:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

Or why go back at all?

 

[Valiant_Soul]

Because there is nothing further back to Hinduism. Or if not go back at all, then the present is India, isn't it? Then what is the ground for demand for separation?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There were no parts or areas of Junagadh under Pakistani occupation. Secondly, Junagadh was a Hindu majority state ruled by Muslim ruler. Pakistan accepting Junagadh's accession went against the very reason for Pakistan's creation - a state for the sub-continent's Muslims.

There could not be parts of Junagadh under Pakistani occupation since the State had already acceded to Pakistan and was therefore Pakistani territory, if you go by the argument of accession as being the overriding means of legitimacy.The instrument of accession had been signed a month before the official Indian invasion, and there was plenty of diplomatic communication between India and Pakistan on the issue to argue 'ignorance of accession'.

And the conditions of accession of Princely States did not involve taking into account the ideology of the two countries, so the argument about Pakistan being a State for Muslims is a completely flawed and irrelevant one.

So a referendum in Junagadh was a very easy thing to do. Unlike J&K (and NOT only Kashmir) which has parts under occupation by two other countries.

India was the occupying entity, it had no right to hold anything in Junagadh without going through the UN or asking Pakistan's permission. And the difficulty of holding a plebiscite in J&K is precisely why the UN was approached on the issue, passed resolutions and initiated commissions to propose solutions. Holding a plebiscite in J&K is not impossible, it is merely not in Indian interests to do so, rather hypocritically given that the Hindus in Junagadh were given a plebiscite within months.

 

[gubbi]

Complete and utter nonsense, distortion and double standards.
You mean like India did in invading the territory of Junagadh and Hyderabad, and forcibly annexing them, in the former case AFTER the territory had acceded to Pakistan?
I see no respect from India for the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan, or for that matter for the wishes of the ruler of the State of Hyderabad.

I have clearly stated why accession of Junagadh & Hyderabad and its acceptance by Pakistan holds no moral or legal ground. Period.

The 'delusional entities' would comprise most of the world.

No wonder, Pakistan sees itself existing in another universe/dimension. Time to wake up before its too late.

Does not change the fact that they are forcibly occupied and denied the right to self-determination that India promised.

Last time I read, it was J&K and its people who invited India and Indian forces to help thwart Pakistani aggression against their state. We helped on certain terms and conditions. Nothings for free you see. So pray, do tell me how does it make it a forced occupation?

Shift to complete colonization in other words ...

If thats the definition of integration (an act which will open doors for prosperity to the people there) in your dictionary, the so be it.

India herself agreed to plebsicite as overriding the instrument of accession in agreeing to the UNSC resolutions, and in ignoring the accession by the State of Junagadh to Pakistan, and claiming that its unilateral plebiscite legitimized Indian rule.

Plebiscite in the entire territory of J&K. Read that sentence again. It is India's decision (didnt Pakistan agree to those UN resolutions?) how and when (if ever) to hold a plebiscite. What has Pakistan to do with it? Why are you people interfering in this?

Parts of J&K are under occupation by two other countries. The very fact that Pakistan gives China leeway with territorial control of some parts and its insistence that those territories would be resolved AFTER the plebiscite, clearly shows that Pakistan is NOT interested in what Kashmiris want (let alone people form other parts of the state).