What's new

Let the people of Kashmir determine their own future

Incorrect, most of the areas acceded with Pakistan. Got liberated on their own, by the local forces; areas such as Gilgit Baltistan. Kindly get your facts right.
How Gilgit-Baltistan got liberated .

Please educate yourself, it is a two way street. India too has to vacate it's part and withdraw their forces, and no Pakistan does not have to hand it over to India. Kindly educate yourself about the issue first.
UN Resolutions | Kashmir

2. The Government of India should:

(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council’s resolution of 20 January that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission, a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of civil power in the maintenance of law and order;

(b) Make known that the withdrawal is taking place in stages and announce the completion of each stage;


On topic: Letting the Kashmiris decide is the very thing India cannot afford and will look to avoid. Amusing title.

Where is point 1? Why in a hurry to jump to point 2? :lol:

United Nations Official Document

And on topic, yes Kashmiris will determine their future in the next elections, no need to worry. :ashamed:
 
. . .
India will never let the people of Kashmir decide their own destiny... a population of 7 million no matter how much it wants independence can be swallowed easily by a nation of 1.1 Billion. There is nothing the kashmiris can do without Pakistani help that will free them of Indian oppression. This is a hard fact to swallow. That is why I do not support rebels fighting in Kashmir.
There is nothing that Pakistan can do either....though Pakistan is directly responsible for hardships faced by an average Kashmiri is an altogether different debate....
 
.
Incorrect, most of the areas acceded with Pakistan. Got liberated on their own, by the local forces; areas such as Gilgit Baltistan. Kindly get your facts right.
How Gilgit-Baltistan got liberated .

Please educate yourself, it is a two way street. India too has to vacate it's part and withdraw their forces, and no Pakistan does not have to hand it over to India. Kindly educate yourself about the issue first.
UN Resolutions | Kashmir

2. The Government of India should:

(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council’s resolution of 20 January that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission, a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of civil power in the maintenance of law and order;

(b) Make known that the withdrawal is taking place in stages and announce the completion of each stage;


On topic: Letting the Kashmiris decide is the very thing India cannot afford and will look to avoid. Amusing title.

Sir, as Highlighted in pink...when the withdrawing of the tribesmen is as per the satisfaction, and the arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have been effective...This is the first step. Once that happens, then and only then India can submit a plan to withdraw its own forces to bare minimum to support civil power in the maintenance of law.

Currently none of the first step has happened.

From the same source (infact from the UN's own resolution step), the plebiscite is the 6th step. It can be only done once the previous steps are effectively done.
 
.
The solution to this long-standing problem is the implementation of UN resolutions to hold a plebiscite so that the people of Kashmir can determine their own future. They can either opt for India or Pakistan or to become part of a new independent Kashmir state.

— Dr. Ali Al-Ghamdi is a former Saudi diplomat who specializes in Southeast Asian affairs. He can be reached at algham@hotmail.com
This guy doesn't know what the dickens he's talking about, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Why the UN Resolutions haven't been implemented thus far is due to the reason that Pakistan has not adhered to the resolutions themselves though they keep shouting from the rooftops that India is the culprit by not adhering to them.

Part 2 of the Resolutions clearly state that Pakistan has to withdraw ALL their troops and tribals used for the purpose for fighting in J&K before a plebiscite is held. It's now almost 2016 and Pakistan is yet to comply with the resolution.

Secondly, Pakistan should know that it was their representatives who had agreed to sign the resolutions under Chapter VI of the UN Charter which is non-enforcable unlike Chapter VII which would have made it mandatory for compliance.

It's clear that Pakistani commentators either haven't read the resolutions or are brushing these important facts under the carpet to fool the public by blaming India for non compliance.
 
.
This guy doesn't know what the dickens he's talking about, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Why the UN Resolutions haven't been implemented thus far is due to the reason that Pakistan has not adhered to the resolutions themselves though they keep shouting from the rooftops that India is the culprit by not adhering to them.

Part 2 of the Resolutions clearly state that Pakistan has to withdraw ALL their troops and tribals used for the purpose for fighting in J&K before a plebiscite is held. It's now almost 2016 and Pakistan is yet to comply with the resolution.

Secondly, Pakistan should know that it was their representatives who had agreed to sign the resolutions under Chapter VI of the UN Charter which is non-enforcable unlike Chapter VII which would have made it mandatory for compliance.

It's clear that Pakistani commentators either haven't read the resolutions or are brushing these important facts under the carpet to fool the public by blaming India for non compliance.
Adding to that. The resolution specifically mentioned withdrawal of the tribal militia, which was very much valid at that point of time.
Now, there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then. The ground realities have changed. The issue is no longer about tribal militia anymore. It is about terrorism and it's brazen support as an instrument of state policy. Still, some of these Pakistanis keep screaming at the top of their voice whenever they get a chance.

What were they doing, when they were actually given a chance ? Played a bit too smart ?
 
.
Your version of history is rather wrong here have a read from a neutral source-
Kindly educate yourself as to how Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir got liberated...A google search will help. GB was liberated by GB scouts, nothing to do with Pakistan.
Was the Maharaja's decision to merge his state with India legal?
chashma_shahi.jpg




It was absolutely legal. According to the agreement on which the partition of India was based, the rulers of princely states, like Jammu & Kashmir, had the absolute right to decide whether they wanted to join Pakistan or India. There was never any question of holding a referendum or a plebiscite. All the same, the then Prime Minister of India, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, agreed to hold a plebiscite because he was a democrat and wanted to find out what the people of the state of Jammu & Kashmir wanted.





Then why was a plebiscite not held?
thorntree.jpg




The plebiscite was not held because Pakistan refused to vacate the large parts of Jammu & Kashmir that had been occupied by its soldiers. The plebiscite was meant for all the people of the state of Jammu & Kashmir and not just for those who lived in the Kashmir Valley. But the Pakistanis felt that the parts of the state they had captured was theirs and would not part with it. Pakistan defied the agreement reached by the world body called the United Nations and refused to vacate its troops. The powerful countries of the world did nothing to ensure that Pakistan honoured the UN Resolutions on Jammu & Kashmir. India could not therefore hold a plebiscite.





Why could not India hold a plebiscite in the part of Jammu & Kashmir it controls?
kashmiri_villagers.jpg




In 1947, when the Pakistanis attacked Jammu & Kashmir, the most popular leader of that state was a man named Sheikh Abdullah. He was a friend of the Indian Prime Minister, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru. Both men believed in secularism, which is a concept that allows people of all religions and creeds to live together. Pakistan, on the other hand, was created on the basis of religion. The leaders of Pakistan wanted a country where only Muslims would rule. Indian leaders, on the other hand, felt that anybody could rule as long as the people elected that person. Sheikh Abdullah preferred the idea of secularism. He therefore wanted Jammu & Kashmir to be part of India rather than part of Pakistan. At the same time, the Hindus who were a majority in the Jammu region, also did not want to join Pakistan. Nor did the Buddhists of Ladakh. Since all these groups wanted to be with India, there was no point in holding a referendum on the Indian side of Jammu & Kashmir. Also, in 1954, the people on the Indian side of Jammu & Kashmir elected a government of their own. This government made it clear that their state was part of India and not part of Pakistan. Officially speaking, they "ratified Jammu & Kashmir's accession to India". This meant that henceforth there could be no question of holding a plebiscite in the state of Jammu & Kashmir.





Why cannot a plebiscite be held today?
kashmiri_protestor.jpg




A plebiscite cannot be held today for two reasons. Firstly, Pakistan continues to illegally occupy a large chunk of Jammu & Kashmir and does not allow the people here any freedom of choice. In most parts of the Pakistani occupied part of Jammu & Kashmir, the local people have no democratic rights. They cannot elect a government and they cannot dare to even talk against Pakistan for fear of being killed. For all practical purposes, the territory and the people captured by Pakistan in 1947 have been incorporated into Pakistan. These people have always been ruled by Pakistan and have not been given the opportunity to learn what democracy is all about. Unless, Pakistan agrees to give them a chance to participate in a plebiscite, it will be of no use. Secondly, Jammu & Kashmir became a legal, integral and inseparable part of India many many years ago. Today, no Indian government can allow some people in Jammu & Kashmir to break away from India. The Indian government tolerates some people in Jammu & Kashmir who talk about separation from India but does not like them. In other countries, people who want to break apart a country by creating a separate independent country are called traitors. They are usually punished by hanging. India is a more tolerant country.





Why is there so much trouble in Kashmir nowadays?
bomb_blast_vicitm.jpg




This is because a section of leaders belonging to the Kashmir Valley want to break away from India. Some of them want to form a separate country while others want to join Pakistan. Making such demands is against the law. The Indian government has been forced to arrest some of these leaders and put them in prison. Most of them have later been released. Some of them, however, decided to become terrorists and started to kill people in the Kashmir Valley and in other parts of the state. To protect the lives of people and to counter these terrorists, the Indian government posted soldiers in the Kashmir Valley. The terrorists then started killing these soldiers as well. The soldiers started fighting back and for all practical purposes, the Kashmir Valley became a battlefield. Indian soldiers have killed many terrorists but some remain to this day and continue to frighten the people of Jammu & Kashmir.





How did Kashmiri terrorists dare to take on Indian soldiers?
pallanwala_incident.jpg




Kashmiris are basically a proud people. The younger generation also showed that they are a brave people. When their elders and intellectual leaders told them about the glorious victories of Islam and how India had reneged on its promise for a plebiscite, the Kashmiri youth felt they had to take up the gun against the Indian security forces. This happened because some leaders in the Kashmiri Valley, who were unhappy about the fact that they could not rule, decided that they would force the Indian government to leave the Valley. These leaders knew they could not fight the Indian government by themselves. So they went to Pakistan. There the Pakistani leaders assured them all help because the Pakistanis felt that if India was forced to give up the Kashmir Valley, then they would grab it for themselves. They decided to help the Kashmiri leaders who wanted to separate from India. The Pakistanis trained Kashmiri youth to fight, set off bombs and carry out assassinations. They also gave them money and weapons of all kinds. These Kashmiri youth went back to the Valley and started a reign of terror in 1989. They became known freedom fighters as first and then later as terrorists. Now most Kashmiri youths are disillusioned and have stopped fighting but are still called terrorists, when actually those fighting are mainly from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, Pakistan and Afghanistan. These people are also looting Kashmiris and indulging in forced adulterous relations with many Kashmiri women.





What is the situation in the Kashmir Valley today?
srinagar_streets.jpg




Most Kashmiris are disillusioned with all the killing and fighting. They want peace. Elections were held in Kashmir and Dr. Farooq Abdullah, the leader of Jammu & Kashmir's main political party, the National Conference (NC), was elected Chief Minister. He is ruling the state today and has clearly said that Jammu & Kashmir cannot and will not be part of Pakistan. He has pledged full support to the Indian government to fight against the terrorists and the traitors who want to break away from India. There are other Kashmiri leaders, who wish to see the state return to normalcy and the people have a better life.





Why does violence continue in Kashmir?
arrested_militant.jpg




When Kashmiris began to grow disillusioned with the fighting, the Pakistanis realised that an opportunity to grab the Kashmir Valley was slipping out of their hands. They therefore trained people from Pakistan, Afghanistan and other places to fight in Kashmir. Most of these new fighters were mercenaries and were paid to fight in Kashmir. These mercenaries were also told that the Muslim faith was in danger and that they were fighting a Jihad or Holy War. These are the people who are creating the most trouble in the Kashmir Valley today. They are also responsible for killing former Kashmiri terrorists who have stopped fighting. These foreign mercenaries have no love for the ordinary Kashmiri and have caused them a lot of harm, killing their men and raping their women. They are also responsible for the abduction of six foreign tourists in 1995. One of the tourists, who was an American, managed to escape while another, a Norwegian, was cruelly beheaded. The other four tourists were also killed in cold blood but their bodies were never found.
I was about to rate you for mis-information and possibly trolling. I am guessing you are not much educated about the issue. There is a provisional government in GB and Azad Kashmir, legislative in GB. Elections were held this year, my friend. Just to educate you we liberated our selves, Pakistan had nothing to do with it, our forefathers drove the occupying forces out. And acceded with Pakistan. NLI played a key role in Kargil, we have given tons of sacrifices for the country, in fact NLI is the most decorated regiment, one of the best regiments in Pakistan. We have a massive number of Gilgitis and Kashmiris serving in the army too. I myself have 3 uncles serving in the army. Moving on, protests are held every now and then, most recent being the one in Chilas regarding slow payment of money, Bhasha dam(do a google search). People also protested a while back regarding constitutional status, how naive you are to say people are scared to hold protests. Kindly educate yourself about the issue first, will help.
Plus, the media is 10 times more free in GB, AJK than in IOK. We have local newspapers, local channels too. Do search for Pamir times and K2.

Currently none of the first step has happened.
Mutual agreement first, thus the need for the talks. Can't expect us to withdraw forces and turns out India doesn't follow. Has to be agreed upon by both the parties; India ignores talks.

Why in a hurry to jump to point 2? :lol:
You need to read it first.
 
.
Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir state, criticized Modi for the package saying that it would not address the political issues of the state. “Prime Minister Modi has made the same mistake of weighing the Kashmir issue in rupees and paise,” he tweeted. It was noteworthy that Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, grandfather of Omar Abdullah, supported the accession of Kashmir to the Indian Union at the time of the partition of the subcontinent.
And they still support it and will continue it in future. Also have some other thoughts about him -
India's Role in Resolving Kashmir Issue Will Continue: Omar Abdullah
'I Am A Muslim And I Am An Indian...' | Omar Abdullah | Jul 22,2008
A Soul in Exile: Kashmiri Muslims responsible for Pandit Exodus - Omar Abdullah...
Pakistan fudging facts regarding UN resolutions on Kashmir: Chief Minister Omar Abdullah - The Hindu

Syed Ali Shah Geelani, a senior Kashmiri leader who opposes India’s rule in the Valley, had planned to hold a “Million March” to protest Modi’s visit to Kashmir. However, Geelani was put under house arrest and was unable to lead the rally as security forces cordoned off his house. He announced then that economic packages had failed to resolve the Kashmir dispute in the past and that such attempts would not succeed in the future.
In India, without govt's permission, no march or April is allowed.

The Kashmir problem dates back to the time of the partition of the subcontinent when British colonial rulers agreed with the leaders of the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League on the division of British India into two nations – India and Pakistan. The partition was based on the two nation theory under which the Muslim majority regions would become part of the new nation of Pakistan while the Hindu-majority regions would remain part of India.
While discussing the problem of princely states you should also talk about the autonomous and sovereign states which were intruded and captured by Pakistan including the case of sovereign state of Balochistan captured in 1948. Because If the same thing is labeled wrong if done by another but right and justified if done by you, is called Hypocrisy.

The Kashmir problem dates back to the time of the partition of the subcontinent when British colonial rulers agreed with the leaders of the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League on the division of British India into two nations – India and Pakistan. The partition was based on the two nation theory under which the Muslim majority regions would become part of the new nation of Pakistan while the Hindu-majority regions would remain part of India.

The problem is way older than you can think and dates back to early 12th century.

Even though both countries agreed to a ceasefire as well as to maintain a Ceasefire Line, the plebiscite did not take place. This was mainly because of breaking the promise made by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. India’s main justification for not holding the plebiscite was the result of the elections held in Kashmir in which the National Conference was victorious. This party was led by Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, who favored Kashmir’s accession to India. But this election, which scuttled the UN-sponsored plebiscite, was not acceptable to the United Nations, Pakistan and the majority of the people of Kashmir.
One must not lie, First thing you should have done is to go and read Kashmir resolution by UN before posting this article full of lies and gullibility.
Before refrendum, it is very necessary by pakistan to remove its forces from P@K and refrendum can only be conducted in United Kashmir, so please respect the resolution and ask China too to do so.

The Kashmir problem remains insoluble in the absence of a settlement acceptable to both sides. It has been instrumental in straining bilateral relations between the two neighboring nuclear powers. Every now and then, leaders from one country or the other declare their willingness and determination to solve this problem but to no avail. When Muhammad Ayub Khan came to power in Pakistan, he stated his desire to resolve the dispute through negotiations. He was instrumental in holding a series of talks between the two countries in the 1960s but they did not bring about any positive outcome. The situation led to the second war over the issue in 1965, and a ceasefire came into force after the intervention of the United Nations.

On the other hand, when Atal Bihari Vajpayee became prime minister of India, he expressed his desire to resolve the issue, and subsequently a series of negotiations were held. The talks were halted following the Mumbai terror attacks. India accused Pakistan of being behind the blasts that shook India’s commercial capital. However, Pakistan blamed India, saying that the attacks were the handiworks of some Indian elements.
When Modi became prime minister, he also expressed his desire to solve the dispute and resumed talks at the level of national security advisors of both countries. But these talks were suspended following India’s protest over the meeting of the Pakistan High Commissioner in India with a prominent opposition leader of Kashmir.
India has been backstabbed countless times, still it believed in friendship, but you can't fool every Indian government like you used to with Congress govt. You also backstabbed Atal Bihari Vajpeyi, though he was the modest, and most down to earth PM India could ever have, If not with him, no one..
The solution to this long-standing problem is the implementation of UN resolutions to hold a plebiscite so that the people of Kashmir can determine their own future. They can either opt for India or Pakistan or to become part of a new independent Kashmir state.
Pardon me, but there are many similar posts like this on PDF, its like Begging, that too after Pakistan has tried every thing from covert attack to frontal attacks.

One thing I forget to add that UNSC Resolution 47 passed under chapter VI of UN Charter. "Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to chapter V of UN charter" i.e it is non-mandatory and only applicable if the both states willing to do, this is the reason Indian has still not acquired united Kashmir.
 
.
Mutual agreement first, thus the need for the talks. Can't expect us to withdraw forces and turns out India doesn't follow. Has to be agreed upon by both the parties; India ignores talks.
Thats the first step though as Pakistan didnt consult India or reached any agreement with India before invading princely state of J&K. Then why consult or reach an agreement with India in reversing your illegal occupation?
 
.
Thats the first step though as Pakistan didnt consult India or reached any agreement with India before invading princely state of J&K. Then why consult or reach an agreement with India in reversing your illegal occupation?
Invade? as in how? you do know that they were liberated by the locals, i can provide documented evidence too. In GB's case it acceded with Pakistan. Please get your facts right. You are the one illegally occupying it. same case applies for Junagadh and Hyderabad.
 
.
Let Indian Kashmir,P0K,Gilgit Baltistan and Aksai Chin join first.then lets decide. :-)
and should be de-militarised first ...... and no-one is going to do it

@Zarvan He should have said this to Pakistanis in 48 when they Invaded peaceful Kashmir... He's only 60+ years late.. Bravo
get your knowledge correct ksahmir had a stand still agreement but your forces intervened first and pakistani response came in retaliation

Indian muslims always put india first. No kashmiri one wants to join pk.
tell that to pro-pakistani processions in which pakistani flag is raised every time
 
.
Invade? as in how? you do know that they were liberated by the locals, i can provide documented evidence too. In GB's case it acceded with Pakistan. Please get your facts right. You are the one illegally occupying it. same case applies for Junagadh and Hyderabad.
As usual diverting topic by bringing other things in to the picture where none required.

You quoted UN resolution link. As per that link, the first step of vacating the occupied land of J&K has to be taken by Kashmir. Untill First step is not taken, how can you blame India of not doing anything?
 
.
As usual diverting topic by bringing other things in to the picture where none required.

You quoted UN resolution link. As per that link, the first step of vacating the occupied land of J&K has to be taken by Kashmir. Untill First step is not taken, how can you blame India of not doing anything?
Mutual agreement first. Kindly search google for the meaning. Not off topic, completely on topic, you do not even know basic history of Kashmir.
 
.
Mutual agreement first. Kindly search google for the meaning. Not off topic, completely on topic, you do not even know basic history of Kashmir.
I am tallking about the plebiscite which is mentioned by UN. Though after Shimla agreement UN resolution has no meaning but still if you want to hold it to your chest, then we are ready to discuss it.

So you want to stright jump to the step 6 of resolution without even following all the other steps. Well then Kashmir will keep on lying like this, no matter how hard you or your country try. Nothing is gonna move. You cannot selectively cherry pick the resolution items which suits you ignoring others which reverse the mis-doing of yours.

As per the UN resolution, Pakistan as occupier must vacate the area held by it first before anything else can be done. There is not more which can be done on that if plebiscite option has to be exercised.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom