Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[gubbi]

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.

It is relevant. That or the very reason for creation of Pakistan is flawed.

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.

Pakistan hesitated accepting Junagadh's and Hyderabad's accession. That hesitation should explain what your leaders at that time were thinking.
Secondly, though accession was later accepted, there was no way that Pakistan could put in place an administrative machinery and neither were there troops to "defend" territorial integrity. Pakistan knew they were a lost cause and held no moral grounds for any justification and thats why, attention was shifted to Kashmir.
Basically, those territories were never yours, in any sense of the term, so any argument holds no weight.

 

[GUNNER]

NEW DELHI, Sept 13, 2010 (AFP) - India's government said it was "deeply distressed" by violence in Kashmir after the worst day of rioting since a wave of anti-India protests began in the Muslim-majority region in June.

In a statement at the end of a special cabinet meeting on Kashmir, the government said it was "deeply distressed by the turn of events since Eid and especially the events that took place today following certain rumours".

It expressed "its profound grief at the loss of life and offers its sincere condolences to the bereaved families".

 

[muse]

there is nothing further back to Hinduism.

Just when I thought you were serious -- But we can agree to disagree. If one argues that Hindu is the totality of India, then of course you will continue to have the probelms you do, because it is clearly not acceptable to people.

O

r if not go back at all, then the present is India, isn't it?

No, it's not, clearly - look at the evidence, clearly the present day Indian state thinks that it will unravel if the states that today form "India" are allowed to be free.

Then what is the ground for demand for separation?

Listen, if they are Indian, they can do what they want with themselves, if they can't they are "captive"

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

More lies - what legal ground under the rules of partition prevented the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan? And its rather rich of an Indian to argue 'moral ground' when you blatantly occupy and annex Junagadh and claim legitimacy under the basis of plebiscite, yet refuse that right to the people of Kashmir, as promised them in the UN.

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

Snide comments don't change the fact that the majority of the world sees J&k as disputed territory. Lets not forget that it is only on google.in that the delusional map of Kashmir is displayed, and reality shown to the rest of the world.

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?

No, the people of Kashmir were in fact up in rebellion against the disctator Mahrajah and his atrocities and discrimination against the local Muslim population, and it was the dictator that invited India into Kashmir, not the people of Kashmir.

And again, you cannot argue for the legitimacy of accession when India herself ignored accession in the case of Junagadh and Hyderabad.

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.

That is the definition of colonization and the eradication of a distinct community, Kashmiris.

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?

Ahh, so when did Pakistan make a decision to hold a plebiscite in Junagadh? And certainly, the UNSC resolutions call for a plebiscite in the entire State of j&K, and several commissions have proposed plans to accomplish that, lets have it then.

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).

The various UN commissions proposed several means of dealing with these issues.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is relevant. That or the very reason for creation of Pakistan is flawed.

Not at all. Jinnah's speech addressing all religious groups in Pakistan after Pakistan's independence clearly explains that. And you have not provided any legal justification against the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan. Quite frankly, Pakistan's ideology is none of your business in the context of accessions.

Pakistan hesitated accepting Junagadh's and Hyderabad's accession. That hesitation should explain what your leaders at that time were thinking.

Pakistan accepted Junagadh's accession, the instrument of accession was delivered to Pakistan, and the communication between India and Pakistan clearly explain Pakistan's position on the issue. Hyderabad never actually acceded to either country before it was invaded by India.

Secondly, though accession was later accepted, there was no way that Pakistan could put in place an administrative machinery and neither were there troops to "defend" territorial integrity. Pakistan knew they were a lost cause and held no moral grounds for any justification and thats why, attention was shifted to Kashmir.
Basically, those territories were never yours, in any sense of the term, so any argument holds no weight.

The logistical issues of running Junagadh were Pakistan's problem to deal with, not yours. Pakistan did after all have two wings separated by an even larger expanse of Indian territory than Junagadh.

Again, there is no legal or 'moral' case you have against the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Because there is nothing further back to Hinduism.

What nonsense - Hindus sprouted magically out of the ground in Kashmir?

Apparently you belong to the 'creationist' school of thought, never mind human evolution and migration.

 

[karan.1970]

Easy Fateh, no reason to lose your cool.

So where are you guys move this Yatra thing?

So tell me honestly, Is it at all possible to move the location of the Haj yatra for Muslims.. What ever may be the reason? In the same way, its not possible for Amarnath Yatra to be moved as well.

But I guess you already know that and the intent of your question was something else ...

 

[Valiant_Soul]

Just when I thought you were serious -- But we can agree to disagree. If one argues that Hindu is the totality of India, then of course you will continue to have the probelms you do, because it is clearly not acceptable to people.

Which people? The ones who do not know how to live like a human, in co-existence? I would not care for such narrow-mindedness.

No, it's not, clearly - look at the evidence, clearly the present day Indian state thinks that it will unravel if the states that today form "India" are allowed to be free.

Whatever is your definition of freedom, it is flawed. And hence you have problems correlating the stance of Indians.

Listen, if they are Indian, they can do what they want with themselves, if they can't they are "captive"

Of course, they can do what they do with themselves. They can even choose to move out or stay here in peaceful co-existence. Even if they consider India to be occupier, they cannot call her an oppressor, and since they are not oppressed and free under the law, their demands are unjust.

 

[Valiant_Soul]

Apparently you belong to the 'creationist' school of thought, never mind human evolution and migration.

Apparently I do, because that makes the foundations of the society more pious and worthy of living. Besides, the length of history is not known to anyone, and anyone who claims such is a beguiler.

 

[muse]

Which people? The ones who do not know how to live like a human, in co-existence? I would not care for such narrow-mindedness.

You guys - Indians just killed 13 of them and complain that "they" don't want to co-exist? -- clearly not on Indian terms, at least. THINK!!

Even if they consider India to be occupier, they cannot call her an oppressor, and since they are not oppressed and free under the law, their demands are unjust

I'm not going to take advantage of your emotional state -- think about things before you express them on a public forum.

 

[karan.1970]

Yes, yes, "WERE" -- And what are now Hindus were just caste members and before that they were something else - don't trot out that rubbish and expect it to be persuasive.

Don't want to move it? then, don't - easy. eh? Why does the Secular Indian government seems to end up killing Muslims, even when the protests are anti-US? Or is it Anti-India and anti-US are the same thing? I think they might be in the minds of most captive Kashmiri.

Though no Pakistani will readily agree to this, but even in Kashmir, protestors can not be given a free hand to become riotous. If violent riots / activities are not checked, they result in deaths too. Mostly of people who are not even involved. Like we saw in Karachi.

So if people are to be killed either way, its better that its security forces aiming at people causing these riots than rioters causing death of bystanders.

 

[muse]

even in Kashmir, protesters can not be given a free hand to become riotous.

I'm not suggesting that protesters or rioters be given as you put it "a free hand" -- though Killing protesters does suggest that occupation forces find themselves under tremendous strain -- these killings will be responded to - we all know this - and of course this will be upping the ante - whose interest other than those who seek military confrontation will that serve?

 

[Valiant_Soul]

You guys - Indians just killed 13 of them and complain that "they" don't want to co-exist? -- clearly not on Indian terms, at least. THINK!!

I think it you who need to think. Think that these things do not happen un-provocatively. Think about violent protests, not jut a day of protest, months of on going violent protests.

I'm not going to take advantage of your emotional state -- think about things before you express them on a public forum.

I am never emotional. So perhaps you need to figure when a person is under emotions and when under logics.

 

[notsuperstitious]

I'm not suggesting that protesters or rioters be given as you put it "a free hand" -- though Killing protesters does suggest that occupation forces find themselves under tremendous strain -- these killings will be responded to - we all know this - and of course this will be upping the ante - whose interest other than those who seek military confrontation will that serve?

Now you have hit the crux of the problem, now the question is, who seeks military confrontation, they are the ones fuelling the violence.

One policeman was run over by peaceful protesters in a lorry today, who is fuelling this? Look no further than the beneficiary.

 

[HariSeldon]

US slams rioters in Kashmir, Punjab

hmmm...thats interesting turn-of-events. As west is not-that-interested at this point in commenting abt Kashmir situation, Will not these type of action by the protesters will alienate them further from west, whose support they require very much to create pressure on GoI?