What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
The issue is contingent upon removal of Pakistani troops from Kashmir completely. When the Pakistani troops go back to Pakistan, then we'll talk about plebiscite.

The withdrawal is contingent upon India and Pakistan arriving at an agreement on the withdrawal (as the UNSC resolutions point out) - which will likely also include an Indian draw-down of forces replaced by UN forces - so no, the issue is not merely contingent upon the withdrawal of Pakistani forces, especially when the Indian government continues to violate its commitment to implement the UNSC resolutions- first India has to accept and re-commit to the principle of holding a plebiscite - only then can you talk about creating the conditions to hold a plebiscite.
 
.
The withdrawal is contingent upon India and Pakistan arriving at an agreement on the withdrawal (as the UNSC resolutions point out) - which will likely also include an Indian draw-down of forces replaced by UN forces - so no, the issue is not merely contingent upon the withdrawal of Pakistani forces, especially when the Indian government continues to violate its commitment to implement the UNSC resolutions- first India has to accept and re-commit to the principle of holding a plebiscite - only then can you talk about creating the conditions to hold a plebiscite.

AM it is useless to talk about it none wants to yield and India is playing a waiting game.How much be discuss the issue all we will be doing is beating around the same bush
 
.
The withdrawal is contingent upon India and Pakistan arriving at an agreement on the withdrawal (as the UNSC resolutions point out) - which will likely also include an Indian draw-down of forces replaced by UN forces - so no, the issue is not merely contingent upon the withdrawal of Pakistani forces, especially when the Indian government continues to violate its commitment to implement the UNSC resolutions- first India has to accept and re-commit to the principle of holding a plebiscite - only then can you talk about creating the conditions to hold a plebiscite.

Pakistan has to get out of the land it is illegally holding first and then can they talk about plebiscite. The much hyped UNSC resolutions recognizes Pakistan as the aggressor and therefore places the precondition of withdrawal of Pakistani troops before the plebiscite is held.
Yeah talk about commitments, why not show some yourself by unilaterally withdrawing and then point fingers on others commitments and intentions.
 
.
Pakistan has to get out of the land it is illegally holding first and then can they talk about plebiscite. The much hyped UNSC resolutions recognizes Pakistan as the aggressor and therefore places the precondition of withdrawal of Pakistani troops before the plebiscite is held.
Yeah talk about commitments, why not show some yourself by unilaterally withdrawing and then point fingers on others commitments and intentions.

This discussion on the UNSc resolutions is continuing on another thread, and it has been clearly pointed out that the UNSC resolutions do not call for any sort of unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan without similar mutually agreed steps from India - please continue it there.

Let me just point out that it is India that is refusing to implement and accept the UNSC resolutions now (After accepting all of them when they were passed). So long as India refuse to accept that, the only thing a Pakistani withdrawal will do is allow India to send in her forces to PAK and occupy it and continue with its current occupation.
 
.
This discussion on the UNSc resolutions is continuing on another thread, and it has been clearly pointed out that the UNSC resolutions do not call for any sort of unilateral withdrawal from Pakistan without similar mutually agreed steps from India - please continue it there..

Sure

Let me just point out that it is India that is refusing to implement and accept the UNSC resolutions now (After accepting all of them when they were passed). So long as India refuse to accept that, the only thing a Pakistani withdrawal will do is allow India to send in her forces to PAK and occupy it and continue with its current occupation. ..

That would mean Pakistan does not intend to remove it's forces from Kashmir which is a pre-condition for the Execution of the UN resolution including Plebiscite.

Therefore the onus lies on Pakistan to remove its forces first since it Agreed to it in the resolution. If it doesn't, it itself is in violation of the resolution rather than India.

And India won't send its forces into PAK, we may send it in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir though.
 
Last edited:
.
Anti-India time over: Mirwaiz- Hindustan Times

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, 36, chairman of the moderate faction of Kashmir’s All Parties Hurriyat Conference, told HT on Thursday

“The time to be anti-India is over.”

It was a startling shift in position of a man who has been one of the leading symbols of the Kashmir Valley movement for separation from India.

“Hurriyat is keen on starting a dialogue with both India and Pakistan,” Farooq said, adding the Centre seemed to have realised “the Hurriyat was not articulating the Pakistani point of view, nor was it interested in embarrassing India at international forums”. He has been invited to one such forum in New York next week: The Organisation of Islamic Confe-rence foreign ministers meet.

Mirwaiz, which means chief preacher in Urdu, wields considerable influence in the Muslim majority state.

The Hurriyat is looking at a solution that revolves around “demilitarisation, self-governance and better people-to-people contact with the other part of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir)” he said.

The Mirwaiz wields considerable influence in Kashmir and is the chairman of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC)
 
.
For sure this doesn't means that they will kneel before india....i think they want some radical change in the region but india will never demilitarize Jammu Kashmire bcz this will be seen as a lose for the indian sight and the hole world will see the true indian face and all hose horrible acts they have done in these past 60 years.
 
.
Its not about "kneeling" down to India. Its about being fair/honest about the situation and looking after what he sees as the best interests of his people and he himself being relevant in Kashmiri politcal space. Othewise he will keep getting marginalised by the public.
 
.
For sure this doesn't means that they will kneel before india....i think they want some radical change in the region but india will never demilitarize Jammu Kashmire bcz this will be seen as a lose for the indian sight and the hole world will see the true indian face and all hose horrible acts they have done in these past 60 years.

No complete demilitarization in J&K: Omar Abdullah

The Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Sunday said that complete demilitarization will never happen in the state.

Rising Kashmir, Daily Newspaper, Srinagar Jammu and Kashmir - AFSPA still needed in JK: Omar
 
.
Pakistan-sponsored barbarism in Gilgit-Baltistan

B Raman



The first signs of political ferment against Islamabad appeared in 1971 when an organisation called the Tanzeem-e-Millat started operating in Gilgit despite the ban on its political activities. In 1974, Johar Ali Khan, the founder of the party, called for a strike to demand the repeal of the Frontier Crime Regulations and the recognition of the basic rights of the locals. When the agitation took a violent turn, AR Siddiqui, the then deputy commissioner, ordered the Gilgit Scouts, a para-military unit raised by the British and with a history of over a 100 years, to fire on the agitators and disperse them. They refused to open fire on fellow Shias. He then grabbed a rifle from a soldier of the Gilgit Scouts and opened fire on the crowd himself. One agitator was killed and the crowd dispersed. Johar Ali Khan and 15 others were arrested and taken to the jail. A large number of Shias raided the jail and got them freed. They were subsequently re-arrested.

Following these violent incidents — the first in the history of NA since the Pakistan Army occupied it — Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto, then in power in Islamabad, issued a notification disbanding the Gilgit Scouts as a punishment for its refusing to fire on the Shia agitators. The disbanding of the unit hurt the feelings of the Shias. It also threw a large number, who served in the Scouts, out of job. This marked the beginning of the Shia population in NA getting alienated against Islamabad. The Friday Times, a weekly of Lahore, published in its issue of October 15-21, 1992, “The Gilgit Scouts was the only credible law-enforcing agency from pre-partition times. Northerners generally resent the undoing of this centuries-old institution.”

The widespread anger caused by the disbanding of the Gilgit Scouts led to the emergence of a number of anti-Government religious organisations of the Shias. To counter this, the local Army authorities allegedly encouraged the formation of pro-Government organisations by the Sunnis. This injected the poison of religious sectarianism in NA, which like the rest of Jammu & Kashmir had historically remained a tolerant society.

This led to an anti-Shia carnage in Gilgit in May 1988 and was followed by more incidents in 1990, 1992 and 1993. In its issue of April 1990, The Herald said, “In May 1988, low-intensity political rivalry and sectarian tension ignited into full-scale carnage as thousands of armed tribesmen from outside Gilgit district invaded Gilgit along the Karakoram Highway. Nobody stopped them. They destroyed crops and houses, lynched and burnt people to death in the villages around Gilgit Town. The number of dead and injured was put in the hundreds, but numbers alone tell nothing of the savagery of the invading hordes and the chilling impact it has left on these peaceful valleys. Today, less than two years later, Gilgit is an arsenal and every man is ready to fight. In March 1990, when the administration raided homes in Gilgit Town to seize weapons, one was reminded of Karachi and Beirut, not Shangri-la. In February and March this year, sectarian violence in Gilgit claimed several lives in the worst flare-up since May, 1988.”

The Herald did not identify “the invading hordes” or their leader. These hordes consisted of Mehsuds and Wazirs from the Waziristan area of Federally-Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Their leader was a man called Osama bin Laden. He was then the blue-eyed mujahideen of the USA’s CIA. In 1988, it was the end of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Before the Soviets announced their intention to withdraw, attacks by Afghan and Arab mujahideens were intensified. An increased number of private flights organised by the CIA brought in more and more weapons to be used by mujahideens against the Soviet troops. Some of these weapons were diverted by the ISI to the Mehsuds and Wazirs, who carried out during 1988 the greatest massacre of Shias in the history of the sub-continent since India and Pakistan became independent in 1947. More Shias of Gilgit were killed by bin Laden’s Mehsuds and Wazirs in 1988 than the Shias (Hazaras) killed by the Taliban during the five years of its rule in Afghanistan.


Since the support of these tribals and of OBL and his Arab mujahideen was needed in the culminating battles against the Soviet troops, the Western world maintained a silence on the carnage of the Shias. Till The Herald broke the story of the carnage two years later, the outside world hardly had an idea of the ferocity of the suppression of the Shias of Gilgit by the Pakistan Army with the help of the invading tribal hordes from FATA.

Writing on the same subject, the Friday Times (October 15-21, 1992) said, “In 1988, 150 people were killed when armed lashkars from Chilas and Kohistan — a predominantly Sunni and an exceptionally militant region — raided the Shia-dominated region of Gilgit. After eight days of uninterrupted carnage, the military was finally called in and curfew imposed. Zia-ul-Haq’s regime exploited the Shia-Sunni chasm. The invasion from outside has ignited an inferno of instability that has continued to blaze with the passage of time. It has militarised an otherwise peaceful environment into a ghetto of blind hatreds and animosities.”

Twenty-eight Shias were killed in Gilgit Town in May 1992. Latif Hasan, a well-known Shia leader of the town, was murdered in broad daylight by masked assassins, leading to retaliatory attacks by Shias on the Sunnis, killing six of them. On August 18, 1993, 20 Shias were killed in the same town and the authorities had to impose a curfew.

Strongly condemning the anti-Shia incidents in NA, Allama Syed Sajid Ali Naqvi, the chief of the Tehrik-e-Jafria Pakistan, the Shia political organisation of Pakistan, demanded the dismissal of the inspector-general of police of NA. The Frontier Post of August 28, 1993, quoted him as saying, “Due to wrong policies and inappropriate tactics of the IGP of Northern Areas, the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that the Pakistan Army had to leave the peaks of Siachen for the streets of Gilgit. The bureaucracy and the authorities of Northern Areas, who do not have the fear of accountability, have started interfering in the beliefs, customs, traditions and religious affairs of the poor people.”


-- The writer is director of the Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai.
 
Last edited:
.
Really wants to know when writer visited the area ..... i don't think some one from chennai knows abt shia - sunni conflict tht also in 80's... may be true if the poster can post some international site link(S) too.
 
.
Another indian news article making lies and propaganda against Pakistan.

The author is from Chennai, India (south India not so far from Sri Lanka). How on earth would he know what is happening in Gilgit-Baltistan (the most northern areas of Pakistan).
 
.
Another indian news article making lies and propaganda against Pakistan.

The author is from Chennai, India (south India not so far from Sri Lanka). How on earth would he know what is happening in Gilgit-Baltistan (the most northern areas of Pakistan).

I wanted to say this same thing......... however I was doing some research........

But Yeah! this is just anti Pak propaganda, and the writer isnt that well known either.

Maybe he is following India TV like drastic measures for popularity

:disagree:
 
.
The writer is quoting from Pakistani publications, including The Herald, the Friday Times and the Frontier Post.
 
.
The writer is quoting from Pakistani publications, including The Herald, the Friday Times and the Frontier Post.

Correction:

The writer is quoting out of context from Pakistani publications, including The Herald, the Friday Times and the Frontier Post.

That said, not every one of the points he raise is wrong........

Much of what he has said is right, but to say that this was done or sponsored bu the Govt of Pakistan or the state is complete utter non sense.

That is why I said he is just being a sensationalist !!
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom