Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[Frankenstein]

So being a Kashmiri pundit (the original instigators of Kashmiri 'struggle'), Matoo asked valid questions wanting to know what can Pakistan offer better than what India is presently doing.

India is presently doing is killing, torching, raping. We can provide them freedom, what else do they want more??

Answer - Nothing. Zilch!

You know jack squat, until and unless you can time travel

 

[Mirage2000]

1. What do you intend to do about the non-muslim Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists who will come with the land? This is nearly 40% of the population of the state, about 4 million people.

Nothing in particular they will be citizens of Pakistan and will be treated as such.

They will demand equal rights under the constitution. How prepared are you to secularize Pakistan to accommodate these people and grant them first class citizenship?

I support secularism and I do think Pakistan whenever comes to a powerful position to take IOK back will be a secular country,or even if it remains Islamic the constitutional equality will be there.

2. If you decide to ask non-muslims to leave permanently, what kind of compensation are you prepared to give? My family, for example, has owned properties in Baramulla and Anantnag for countless generations. I cannot even contemplate in a rational mind that someone would ask me to leave my own house.

No body will ask non muslims to leave thats for sure.They will just become Citizens of Pakistan.

3. What kind of economic and social package will be put together for the new acquisition? Can you offer more economic/social benefits than India? If so, how?

What special package is India offering? nothing special than laws to allow your Army to carry out killings of Kashmiries without any fear.

They will have everything that other Pakistanis are having.Though the peace(that IOK doesn't has) will be there,GoP will do think of putting money and developing Kashmir's tourism and other Industries.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

By giving into the demands of the Kashmiri Muslims now ,will it not set a bad precedent for the future wherein you can achieve your goals not by peaceful,democratic means,but by intimidation at the point of the gun.

I know this is the biggest dilemma for India. Giving in to the demands of the Kashmiris (peaceful or violent) would set a wrong precedent be it the Sikh Khalistan movement (now effectively crushed) Tamils or Naxils etc.

The point about Kashmir is that there was a foul play involved by the departing British and hence India got the land access to Kashmir and the occupation for right or wrong reasons. India is not alone about safeguarding its integrity. Pakistan had the same sentiments when it lost its eastern wing but we had to accept the reality. The Bengalis didn’t want anything to do with us whether the obnoxious governments in the west liked it or not. The will of the people prevailed in the end.

Kashmir is disputed from the day British empire left it intentionally unresolved. There will have to be a middle ground if we the people of the subcontinent have to move forward there will be some middle ground some give and take. It’s the “give” which is the tricky part. A strong leadership in both sides that decides a final solution that keeps the wishes of the people of Kashmir in mind and main prieority.

Otherwise we will be condemned to stay in this confrontation left by British for coming future.
Maybe off topic something really irks me I hope you or someone else picks it up. This English race is strange (to put it mildly) wherever they set foot or whenever they left from somewhere. They have left a conflict for the people of that place
Be it Kashmir, the making of Israeli state are the prime examples. The division of Arabian Peninsula re Kurds vs. Iraq/ Iran/ Turkey. The Cyprus issue (Greece Vs Turkey). The Durand line (Pak Afghan border issue). think of a Place where British set foot and 9 out of 10 times you will find a conflict.

In all these cases Kashmir and Palestine are the prime conflicts that have taken the whole region a hostage. Can we be smart enough to solve the conflict? I wonder and I pray

 

[sensenreason]

Nothing in particular they will be citizens of Pakistan and will be treated as such.

I support secularism and I do think Pakistan whenever comes to a powerful position to take IOK back will be a secular country,or even if it remains Islamic the constitutional equality will be there.

No body will ask non muslims to leave thats for sure.They will just become Citizens of Pakistan.

What special package is India offering? nothing special than laws to allow your Army to carry out killings of Kashmiries without any fear.

They will have everything that other Pakistanis are having.Though the peace(that IOK doesn't has) will be there,GoP will do think of putting money and developing Kashmir's tourism and other Industries.[/QUOTE]

This is seriously funny. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is not even free and you talk of putting money in Kashmir. So you mean to say the Pashtuns, Balochs, Muhajirs and Bengalis were provided equal treatment??? While India has issues you cannot pretend that you treat other ethnic groups well. If you were to discuss it to win brownie points its a different matter. Differences with East Pakistan were well documented and so are the isssues in Sindh & Balochistan.

The fact is Pakistan is still in the clucthes of the Feudal elite of punjab. Its your choice to deny it but I personally think Kashmiris have got a better deal in India than they ever will in Pakistan.

 

[mattoo]

This thread was opened for a special reason by me. For me, the Kashmir issue is not something distant and remote happening to a third person. It's real and personal and something that affects me in a direct sense.

The question I posed to Pakistanis was around the treatment of non-muslims. Apart from superficial and hollow promises of fair treatment, I think no Pakistani has seriously considered what it means to suddenly have 2 million non-Sunnis and 4 million non-muslims added to the population.

There is a constitutional problem in Pakistan, i.e. the constitution explicitly states that the leadership of the country MUST be exclusively muslim and continues on to define what that type of muslim must be. The President and Prime Minister cannot be anything other than muslim. So where is the question of equality or secularism?

If the state becomes secular, then the question will arise as to what is the difference between us and India if we are both secular? Essentially, by declaring an Islamic republic, they have painted themselves into a corner.


There are many laws, some of which are Islamic, as mandated by the constitution that are discriminatory to minorities. No plans exist to change these, not to mention rustling up the public support for such change.

What about the habits and culture of these non-muslims? They may like to dress "unislamically" or for that matter drink (prohibited) or celebrate festivals in public. Social issues exist.

The other facets of accession to Pakistan would involve the economic aspect. The Indian government spends on jobs, economic growth, infrastructure, water and energy resources, tourism, trade and investment, and connectivity with outside world. The total amounts spent so far have been close to two-quarters of a billion dollars. Pakistan has no resources for itself, where will it provide for the newcomers?

All the "mai muslim tu muslim" bhaichara will last for 2 days. People still need jobs, food, water, security etc.

My point is that Pakistanis only have the religion card. That's it. No social plan, no legislative plan, no constitutional plan, no economic plan and no monies to fund and structure these.

If you were serious about buying a new sofa for your house, you will at least check if you can afford it and where is the space to fit it in your living room. How is it that there is a demand for Kashmir but no plan beyond the sloganeering?


To my fellow Indians -

Think of driving at night on a lonely road with your wife/gf. Suddenly a dog starts chasing the car and barking loudly. Your wife/gf is tense about the snarling dog. But consider this - you stop the car. Now the dog is confused. His plan was to bark loudly and chase the car. Beyond that, he has no real plans to drive your car. He simply cannot because he is not capable. His fun comes from chasing the car. That's it.

My point is that essentially you are getting tense about nothing.

 

[Bhairava]

This thread was opened for a special reason by me. For me, the Kashmir issue is not something distant and remote happening to a third person. It's real and personal and something that affects me in a direct sense.

The question I posed to Pakistanis was around the treatment of non-muslims. Apart from superficial and hollow promises of fair treatment, I think no Pakistani has seriously considered what it means to suddenly have 2 million non-Sunnis and 4 million non-muslims added to the population.

There is a constitutional problem in Pakistan, i.e. the constitution explicitly states that the leadership of the country MUST be exclusively muslim and continues on to define what that type of muslim must be. The President and Prime Minister cannot be anything other than muslim. So where is the question of equality or secularism?

If the state becomes secular, then the question will arise as to what is the difference between us and India if we are both secular? Essentially, by declaring an Islamic republic, they have painted themselves into a corner.


There are many laws, some of which are Islamic, as mandated by the constitution that are discriminatory to minorities. No plans exist to change these, not to mention rustling up the public support for such change.

What about the habits and culture of these non-muslims? They may like to dress "unislamically" or for that matter drink (prohibited) or celebrate festivals in public. Social issues exist.

The other facets of accession to Pakistan would involve the economic aspect. The Indian government spends on jobs, economic growth, infrastructure, water and energy resources, tourism, trade and investment, and connectivity with outside world. The total amounts spent so far have been close to two-quarters of a billion dollars. Pakistan has no resources for itself, where will it provide for the newcomers?

All the "mai muslim tu muslim" bhaichara will last for 2 days. People still need jobs, food, water, security etc.

My point is that Pakistanis only have the religion card. That's it. No social plan, no legislative plan, no constitutional plan, no economic plan and no monies to fund and structure these.

If you were serious about buying a new sofa for your house, you will at least check if you can afford it and where is the space to fit it in your living room. How is it that there is a demand for Kashmir but no plan beyond the sloganeering?


To my fellow Indians -

Think of driving at night on a lonely road with your wife/gf. Suddenly a dog starts chasing the car and barking loudly. Your wife/gf is tense about the snarling dog. But consider this - you stop the car. Now the dog is confused. His plan was to bark loudly and chase the car. Beyond that, he has no real plans to drive your car. He simply cannot because he is not capable. His fun comes from chasing the car. That's it.

My point is that essentially you are getting tense about nothing.

You just hit the bull's eye sir.

 

[dabong1]

I am trying to give an estimate of the people in India who are a stakeholder of JnK in India, those who own property and land in the state. The immigrants to P0K and Pandits in Pakistan do not hold properties in JnK. Considering them the percentage will definitely be closer to 40% as @mattoo suggested.

My family came from IOK and we still have land there and the papers to go with like the majority of kashmiri refugees in AJK.....the same is probaly true of kashmiri refugees in india.

I think we should also bring in all the kashmiri refugees worldwide.

 

[parasite]

I hope this link is also useful to put things in perspective....

Link--> 'Cross-border terror as substantive as J&K issue' - Rediff.com India News

India [ Images ] on Tuesday said terrorism arising out of the sub-conventional conflict directed by Pakistan against it for over two decades cannot be ignored and was as substantive an issue as Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ].
Outlining India's approach to ties with Pakistan, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao [ Images ] said advocacy of an incremental, graduated and forward-looking approach to address the trust deficit was by no means an attempt to avoid tackling the substantive differences that trouble the bilateral relations.

"While there can be no guarantees for success, such an approach seeks to build first on what is achievable and simultaneously to also address the more intractable issues in a sustained manner," Rao said in her address at a symposium in New Delhi [ Images ] on 'The Future of India-Pakistan Relations'.

"The issue of terrorism arising out of the sub-conventional conflict directed by Pakistan against India for over two decades now, cannot be ignored either. It is as substantive an issue as the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, or the issue of Siachen glacier," she added.

Noting that a host of issues continue to bedevil India-Pakistan relations and cast long shadows on bilateral ties, she advocated "imaginative and creative" approaches to tackle issues of security, confidence-building.

In this context, she underlined the need for economic linkages and enhanced people-to-people contacts as they seek to pave the way for a serious and comprehensive dialogue and could build the sinews of a more "durable and lasting" peace, so that the dawn of a new era does not remain a chimera.

Rao asserted that it was incumbent on each and every one to persevere with patience and dedication so that future generations do not remain hostage to a poison-ridden legacy of political misunderstandings and geopolitical antagonisms.

She also pointed out that India's efforts to bridge the trust deficit and pave the way for a serious and comprehensive dialogue were thwarted by a level of overreach by Pakistan that complicated the resumption of a sustained dialogue process. "However, we do not view this as a setback in our quest for peace as both sides appear to be committed to ensuring that the spirit of Thimphu is not lost. The foreign minister of Pakistan Shah Mehmood Qureshi has accepted our invitation to visit India, dates for which will be decided through diplomatic channels," Rao said.

"In the India-Pakistan discourse, we have literally eaten bitterness for the last 60 years and given the complexities of our ties, the task of improvement in ties is also Sisyphean," she added,

At the same time Rao wondered what explains the warm and spontaneous applause of thousands of spectators at the Jawaharlal Nehru [ Images ] Stadium on October 3 this year when the Pakistani contingent entered the stadium for the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games [ Images ] in New Delhi.

"On one hand there is the push of realism that compels us to see the relationship with Pakistan as hobbled by its many limitations. While on the other hand, there is the pull of emotion, of sentiment, of the muffled footsteps of shared history that beat in our blood, that generates a response that is giving and generous."

According to Rao, predicting the course of one of the most complex and unpredictable relationships in the modern era was a task that most intrepid astrologers would hesitate to undertake but asserted that the choices for the future are stark and real. "Either we learn to live together in peace and harmony or we risk imparting to future generations our differences and prejudices that will continue to divide us rather than unite us and indeed widen the gulf between us," she said.

Given the complexities of the relationship and the tortured path that the two countries have traversed till now, it is easy to be cynical and predict a gloomy future, she said.

"However, as an eternal optimist and someone who believes in the power of people to shape their destiny, I feel it is incumbent on all of us to strive and achieve a peaceful and mutually reinforcing relationship that will unlock the true potential of more than a billion people for their betterment," Rao concluded.

 

[foxbat]

Looks like this incident created some shaheeds in defence.pk too..

Lets lighten up folks..

 

[PAKFA]

Good Riddance..
Congrats to indian army for giving him the slow death in a mosque and not blasting the gates of mosque and killing him..

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

Good Riddance..
Congrats to indian army for giving him the slow death in a mosque and not blasting the gates of mosque and killing him..

These kind of terrorist deserve a barbaric death but kido to Indian army which has face of humanity and giving him consolidated death.

 

[CurryChaawal]

One terrorist less,but still many to be finished.
Good going.
Lets clear them out.

 

[Veeru]

May his soul rest in peace.... Ameen

So ur praying for a terrorist???

R.I.P Brother.....

A terriorist is ur brother??

Salute to the brave warrior.

How can u people salute to a terrorist?? do u do it for baguti or baitullah mehsud also??

Always remember if you supports a terrorist one day the same terrorist will target you people.

So no need to make a terrorist a hero.

 

[PAKFA]

So ur praying for a terrorist???



A terriorist is ur brother??



How can u people salute to a terrorist?? do u do it for baguti or baitullah mehsud also??

Always remember if you supports a terrorist one day the same terrorist will target you people.

So no need to make a terrorist a hero.

They are facing the same consequence even worse but bad part is still not learning from it. 'JO dusro ke liye aag jalate hai , Aag unko hatho ko bhi nahi bakshati '

 

[RollingStones]

I know this is the biggest dilemma for India. Giving in to the demands of the Kashmiris (peaceful or violent) would set a wrong precedent be it the Sikh Khalistan movement (now effectively crushed) Tamils or Naxils etc.

The point about Kashmir is that there was a foul play involved by the departing British and hence India got the land access to Kashmir and the occupation for right or wrong reasons. India is not alone about safeguarding its integrity. Pakistan had the same sentiments when it lost its eastern wing but we had to accept the reality. The Bengalis didn’t want anything to do with us whether the obnoxious governments in the west liked it or not. The will of the people prevailed in the end.

Kashmir is disputed from the day British empire left it intentionally unresolved. There will have to be a middle ground if we the people of the subcontinent have to move forward there will be some middle ground some give and take. It’s the “give” which is the tricky part. A strong leadership in both sides that decides a final solution that keeps the wishes of the people of Kashmir in mind and main prieority.

Otherwise we will be condemned to stay in this confrontation left by British for coming future.
Maybe off topic something really irks me I hope you or someone else picks it up. This English race is strange (to put it mildly) wherever they set foot or whenever they left from somewhere. They have left a conflict for the people of that place
Be it Kashmir, the making of Israeli state are the prime examples. The division of Arabian Peninsula re Kurds vs. Iraq/ Iran/ Turkey. The Cyprus issue (Greece Vs Turkey). The Durand line (Pak Afghan border issue). think of a Place where British set foot and 9 out of 10 times you will find a conflict.

In all these cases Kashmir and Palestine are the prime conflicts that have taken the whole region a hostage. Can we be smart enough to solve the conflict? I wonder and I pray

I still dont get the Kashmir problem. If this is about hoisting the Kashmir flag and governing themselves, why dont they just do it? If someone stops them, then they have all the right to secede. What will a small completely independent district achieve, just for independence sake? To me Kashmir is still an issue of some leaders who want to govern the area (for whatever reasons) not getting the chance to do so. Its got nothing to do with religion or economic prosperity. And it absolutely has nothing to do with intelligent and smart thinking that being part of a larger Union is the way to go for getting the best of resources and best of lifestyle. For instance, Indian rupee is 2 times pakistani rupee. If Kashmiris were to shift over to pakistan, they would have to pay 2 times for every economic resource they had accessible to from within India. And they would have to wait possibly two or three times longer for infrastructure to reach them, than within India which can fund them faster. The economic implications will push Kashmir district to a backwater, which will have gross inequities with its much larger neighbor, as Kashmir alone does not have scale to implement large projects, nor official machinery to win large international loans and grants, or even establishing its international rights. Even if somehow Kashmiris chose to be independent, they need to choose an SAR status within India, much like HK or Macau. Even then, HK, Macau and Taiwan have incredible entrepreneurship and industries that Kashmiris cannot hope to achieve. I am sorry I do NOT believe in the Kashmiri story.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I am sorry I do NOT believe in the Kashmiri story.

Well! Therein lies the problem; and that's what sets us worlds apart.

It could just be that indian are in denial. Could also just be blind selectiveness about the reality to accept

either way, realities on the ground will always speak louder than numbers, or new delhi face-saving measures


indians do themselves (and occupied Kashmiris) a huge disservice when they bring up economics into this issue; one could argue that the French colonialism would have afforded better opportunities for Algeria (remember Operation Esperance?)

We all know that the economically & militarily superior French, despite cash grants, distribution of land ownership and other so-called "measures" would prove quite futile

The struggle and armed resistance against the French was a bloody one; more so even than that of Kashmiris against the indian occupiers over the past 6 decades. Mass graves, mass killings, ****, disappearances were the reality in both cases.

In one case, the Algerians sacrificed so much to get their independence. In the second case, said result is still in the works. It will be realized though, there is little doubt in my mind.


the storm has been brewing for quite some time now. This isn't a war of economics, caste-war, or war of civilization. It is a war between occupied peoples and their occupier --who is known to have committed vast human rights violations and iron-fist tactics against the former.

The (formerly known) Soviets were unable to do it in Afghanistan. The (formerly dubbed) West Pakistanis were unable to do in today's Bangladesh (exacerbated by a foreign terrorist movement supported by the enemy); and I sure don't believe that the hindustanys would be able to do it in Kashmir.



best path is a saner one; prepare yourselves on HOW to deal with a Kashmir that is not under hindustany administrative (military) rule.