Kashmir - Think the Unthinkable

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Now, as far as forced demographic change is concerned, they are merely shrieks, and have no basis in fact.

If the Government of India was less responsible, nothing would have stopped them from arming the agitating hindus with AK-47s and charging them into Kashmir, like Pakistan has repeatedly, ceaselessly done for the last 60 years.

But obviously, we are saner and cooler than that, which is why the international community supports whatever stand we take on Kashmir.

Perhaps you are correct, however we will have to wait and see, and the 'shrieks' do indicate that a certain intolerant and violent streak exists in India just as in other peoples.

Now, if only Pakistan could keep her army under some kind of control, not to mention her intelligence agency, things would be far better for all of us.
But it seems that Pakistan is unable to do so, therefore, we cannot risk giving up control over a piece of land that has tremendous strategic value for us, and hence, for the democratic and secular world.

Pakistan has kept her Army under control, Sharif signed off on Kargil as well, and Pakistan has stayed out of Kashmir actively for almost a decade now. And the recent events have nothing to do with Pakistan interfering - they are the spontaneous and vociferous expression of dislike for India because a pretext came up for them to do so.

And your last claim is silly, since the entire 'strategic' value of Kashmir for Pakistan, and for India vis a vis Pakistan, comes about because it is a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan.

In other words it is strategic solely because it is disputed, and the tensions between India and Pakistan exist primarily because of the dispute. Solve the dispute and the tensions and any need for 'strategic value' is gone. That argument of yours is just another canard like that of 'India breaking up'.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

I dont know about any lessons that might have been learned by Congress of BJP

Malay, the fundamental mental block was due to Muslim vote bank, now that Indian Muslims have clearly showed that they don't even give a damm, I think the government will move ahead slowly but surely in implementing tougher measuers.

No one ever expected that Jammu would harbour such strong anti-Kashmir sentiments. The blockade was done by the people of Jammu, there is literally anger in the streets of Jammu. If the Pakistani Kashmiri's think that they are going to get what they want, then they are wrong, and Jammu has just proven that.

Jammu will not allow Kashmir to get free lunches now on. And no political party can afford to overlook this, thats for sure.

So true...

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

We are willing to compromise by not claiming the whole thing - why should we give it up?

No , you are seeking a part of our territory, Go away.
We are willing to compramise on AK, we are ready to withdraw our claims to AK.

Its your country that refused to even implement the conditions associated with the instrument of accession, let alone the subsequent UN resolutions.

Which the generation of today gives a damm about. So from UN argument now you have decided to jump towards original agreement.

We are arguing for a compromise on the claims, along the lines of partition, keeping in mind the sentiments of the people involved.

Something which was forced upon us at that time and which we coudn't do any thing about at that time.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No , you are seeking a part of our territory, Go away.
We are willing to compramise on AK, we are ready to withdraw our claims to AK.

The dispute is over the entire princely state of J&K. What you are stating (LoC as international border) is not a compromise, but the GoI's actual wish.

Which the generation of today gives a damm about. So from UN argument now you have decided to jump towards original agreement.

We are arguing for a compromise on the claims, along the lines of partition, keeping in mind the sentiments of the people involved.

Don't really care what the generation of today gives a 'damn about' - it does not invalidate the illegal occupation of Kashmir, nor the fact that the plebiscite was both a condition of the original instrument of accession and the UN resolutions - its not 'jumping around' its called making several arguments in defense of my own POV, and pointing out that India's occupation of Kashmir is illegal on several levels, not least of which its own basis of claiming the territory.

Something which was forced upon us at that time and which we coudn't do any thing about at that time.

Nothing was forced upon 'you' since there was no 'you'. It was a bunch of people united into a colony by the British, and some of us decided that we wanted our own country when the British decide to leave - rules and conditions were laid down for partitioning the colony, and those rules were not followed properly in Kashmir, and that position was endorsed in the UN which reiterated the plebiscite condition as the means of resolving the 'dispute'.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

The dispute is over the entire princely state of J&K.

Something which has been fluid for over thousands of years.

What you are stating (LoC as international border) is not a compromise, but the GoI's actual wish.

Take it or leave it, we don't have incentives to leave a solid mass of geographicl land, you can cry hoarse but no one seem to heed to your claims. I have always pointed out, world works on incentive and effective coast to benifit ratio and not based on emotions. At present the violence in Kashmir is not destablising entire India, millitancy was never worse or near to major civil wars or conflict, nations are not boycotting our produce nor are talking about placing sanctions on us. Thus giving away Kashmir does not bring us any incentive so whatever is with us shall remain with us. To sum it up I don't find Indian govt compramising in the near or far future, so it is either accepting LOC as IB or war for you, its you nations choice.

Don't really care what the generation of today gives a 'damn about' -

It is your perception, something which as per my view is isolated.

nor the fact that the plebiscite was both a condition of the original instrument of accession and the UN resolutions

So did UN not recognise Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, but you did. So your argument and your nations argument seems nothing short of hipocracy, use and abuse UN laws and ideas on your terms.

its not 'jumping around' its called making several arguments in defense of my own POV

Exactly, its your point of you and you use it effectivel;y in stifling debate, every time.

Nothing was forced upon 'you' since there was no 'you'. It was a bunch of people united into a colony by the British, and some of us decided that we wanted our own country when the British decide to leave - rules and conditions were laid down for partitioning the colony, and those rules were not followed properly in Kashmir, and that position was endorsed in the UN which reiterated the plebiscite condition as the means of resolving the 'dispute'.

It was done on British terms, something which China disputes, Afghanistan disputes. Why should we be any different?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have no clue what you are on about IPF - its too incoherent.

I'll respond to what little did make sense.

Take it or leave it, we don't have incentives to leave a solid mass of geographicl land,

That will be for the governments to decide , not jingoists on a defense forum, and to that end no one has countered either the legal arguments around the invalidity of Indian claims on Kashmir, nor have the potential benefits of a resolution been countered.

I am not suggesting that the governments will do anything soon, but that within India the dynamics of Kashmir have changed, as the recent events have ended the facade of 'kashmiris liking India', despite all the attempts to use development etc. The effects of this will not be known for a while, but it is a significant event, and so we shall have to wait and see how it influences the future.

It was done on British terms, something which China disputes, Afghanistan disputes. Why should we be any different?

It was done on terms the leading political parties of the time accepted. And I reiterate, since there was no 'you', there is nothign for 'you' to protest.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

I have no clue what you are on about IPF - its too incoherent

My keyboard has some problems so I am finding it hard to type, anyways, tke time to read it twice.

That will be for the governments to decide , not jingoists on a defense forum

Point to me any government that has negotiated or settled peacefully and whole heartedly any issue with negative incentives and inefficient cost to benifit ratio. Unfortunately you are not willing to see this simple fact.

P.S:Are you accusing us(posters) of jingoism. I did not expect this from you.

and to that end no one has countered either the legal arguments around the invalidity of Indian claims on Kashmir

Because it is a pointless exercise. Tell me where are you going to take your arguments?

nor have the potential benefits of a resolution been countered.

AFAIK there seems no potential benifits for Indian side. However I agree it benifits Pakistan a lot. Talk about getting free lunch.

I am not suggesting that the governments will do anything soon

Agreed

but that within India the dynamics of Kashmir have changed, as the recent events have ended the facade of 'kashmiris liking India', despite all the attempts to use development etc.

It should have happened a long time, It has now happened at the wrong time. Too little too late for Kashmiris.

The effects of this will not be known for a while, but it is a significant event, and so we shall have to wait and see how it influences the future.

My bet is that Indian government will slowly stop appeasement.

It was done on terms the leading political parties of the time accepted.

o you mean to say they were not put in a position to comparamise and had agreed based on free spirit and will.

And I reiterate, since there was no 'you', there is nothign for 'you' to protest.

Holds true in reverse too. Since there was no you or me, there is nothing for you to bring in legalities that existed in a time when you were not there in debating with me.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

IPF,

Give me a coherent single response, line by line retorts are of no use.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Point to me any government that has negotiated or settled peacefully and whole heartedly any issue with negative incentives and inefficient cost to benifit ratio. Unfortunately you are not willing to see this simple fact.

The first aim to is to show that India has no legal position to claim 'our territory", which it doesn't, yet it continues to hid behind that excuse to avoid resolving the issue, therefore it is important to shred that argument.

Once that is done, yes it is a matter of 'cost to benefit', and that is what the authors of the articles have argued.

Most Indians here haven't focused on the issues related to that 'cost to benefit', rather just indulged in nationalistic rhetoric - "we will never give it up", "settle outsiders in Kashmir" etc..

Flint is really the only one who came close to arguing the central theme of the articles, by stating that the 'strategic loss' outweighs any benefit, to which I gave my response.

P.S:Are you accusing us(posters) of jingoism. I did not expect this from you.

That is in fact too kind a word for some advocating forced demographic changes and even ethnic cleansing so some misplaced nationalist egos can be satisfied.

Holds true in reverse too. Since there was no you or me, there is nothing for you to bring in legalities that existed in a time when you were not there in debating with me.

No at all - The conditions of partition were agreed to by both sides (the parties representing the people), even though the ML had strong misgivings over the plan. Congress agreed to it, and what is being argued over is the violation of the conditions of that agreement agreed to by both sides.

Your responses around the 'partition issue' do indicate something I have noticed that many Indians, despite their claims of 'acceptance' and "India pakistan friendship" end up revealing - a continued non-acceptance and dislike (perhaps hate) of Pakistan.

Quite sad really that you guys cannot let it go and accept and respect the decisions of millions to live their lives as they see fit. Instead you view Pakistan as part of 'Indias Jagir' in some 'Akhand Bharat'. That attitude is unfortunately also reflected in Kashmir.

To reiterate the crux of my comments in this thread:

within India the dynamics of Kashmir have changed, as the recent events have ended the facade of 'kashmiris liking India', despite all the attempts to use development etc. The effects of this will not be known for a while, but it is a significant event, and so we shall have to wait and see how it influences the future.

 

[Contrarian]

Your responses around the 'partition issue' do indicate something I have noticed that many Indians, despite their claims of 'acceptance' and "India pakistan friendship" end up revealing - a continued non-acceptance and dislike (perhaps hate) of Pakistan.

Quite sad really that you guys cannot let it go and accept and respect the decisions of millions to live their lives as they see fit. Instead you view Pakistan as part of 'Indias Jagir' in some 'Akhand Bharat'. That attitude is unfortunately also reflected in Kashmir.

I am sorry to say that you are completely off mark here. No one here thinks of Pakistan as India's Jagir and absolutely no one wants reunification of any kind with Pakistan. The Akhand Bharat concept does more rounds in forums and all of them Pakistani/Bangladeshi than in political circles in practical life where it really counts.

And yes, as far as Kashmir is concerned, speaking from the cost to benefit ratio, it is indeed better to hold onto Kashmir than let it go.

 

[Spring Onion]

I am sorry to say that you are completely off mark here. No one here thinks of Pakistan as India's Jagir and absolutely no one wants reunification of any kind with Pakistan. The Akhand Bharat concept does more rounds in forums and all of them Pakistani/Bangladeshi than in political circles in practical life where it really counts..

Ah Akhand Bharat is such a wishful thinking still there but thanks to the changing world now Dalits are getting more aware so first of their intergration should be the issue before Akhand Bharat which is being still carried out by RSS, VHP and other terrorist Hindu organisations.

And yes, as far as Kashmir is concerned, speaking from the cost to benefit ratio, it is indeed better to hold onto Kashmir than let it go.

Yes at the cost of millions of innocent Kashmiris and their life

 

[Malang]

I agree with Malaymishra,


Akhand Bharata is something which I never heard of before talking to Pakistani forumers but Pakistani reactions to Godhra, Babri Masjid, Kashmir etc. is highly unsettling...


Reunification with Pakistan? the streak of hate and mistrust which exists on both sides of Radcliffe's border would ensure no Unification would take place. Unification is something which is mutual and has consent of the majority on both sides. For starters misconceptions and mistrust must be removed and a conscious and concentrated effort must be made by both sides to atleast restore some civility and atmosphere of peace.


India Conquering Pakistan? I have not heard of any military professional declaring this as an aim nor any govt ever having this on its manifesto and 61 yrs of history is ample proof that India has no desire to conquer Pakistan. Past several wars are also proof that any endeavour by either side to do the same is impossible.


As for Kashmir, all was quite till 1987, I am sure like any Pakistani soldier (or citizen), an Indian soldier (or citizen) too would digress at the very thought of killing an unarmed innocent.


To blame Indians for being unfair to Kashmiris because they are muslims to me
is quite a ludicrous accusation


1. 150-200million Muslims of India have till know shown no sympathy to Kashmiri Muslims, apparently only Pakistani Muslims have shown sympathy to them unlike Palestine issue where the whole Islamic world is pro-their cause.


2. Indians who follow Islam are in a much better state than most nations incl Islamic ones.


3. Kashmiris have never hesitated in taking aid, never once came to their "motherland" during Kargil. Kashmiris enjoy unfair number of freedom and rights. Kashmiris get massive aids, and even a small protest ensures their coffers are filled to the brim from both sides.


4. I believe Kashmiris are some of the smartest people in the world, they know GoI's thumbscrew(not giving up the land part) and know how to appeal to passions of Pakistanis(Muslims being harassed by Hindus). They are enjoying the best of the situation. It has the least poverty of all states in India, its own constitution, flag, anthem .

 

[ashfaque]

Ah Akhand Bharat is such a wishful thinking still there but thanks to the changing world now Dalits are getting more aware so first of their intergration should be the issue before Akhand Bharat which is being still carried out by RSS, VHP and other terrorist Hindu organisations.

Jana, I know how this Akhand Bharat phrase becomes very famous in Pakistan, though I can assure you people never think about these things in India. This phrase become famous in Pakistan by one program done my Zaid Hamid, program name was "Brasstacks", there he talked about Samrat Ashoka and his Akhand Bharat, and according to him India wishes to achieve this again.

Problem is people are victim of misinformation both in India and Pakistan.

As for as Dalits are concern they are going to be future of India. Though this is not topic…..

RSS, I too hate them... again out of topic….

But I can bet you they way India (a secular and democratic country) has handled various religious groups, no other country could do in whole world. Some fights are bound to happen in between Hindu and Muslims of India, due to Political reasons. But if you look Islamic countries they have completely failed, amazingly they are killing own Muslim people like unwanted creatures. Powers like US and others; they are easily able to play with these Islamic states. But please tell same thing they are able to do with India? Answer is NO and that is biggest success of Secular/Democratic country.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

IPF,

Give me a coherent single response, line by line retorts are of no use.

Agreed, point taken.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Apologies to all with going off topic with Akhand Bharat.

However, a quick post to clarify my comments.

I am not suggesting that, as Energon puts it, there is n active movement to reunite the two countires, however the sentiment of disrespect and 'ownership' is implicit in comments such as 'we allowed one partition against our wishes in 1947 and we won't allow another one'.

The people of the Indian state have no claim on the land of Pakistan, and never did - comments such as those imply that something was 'taken from India', and hence my comments.