Modi trying in Kashmir Israeli-style settlements

[Flash_Ninja]

I didn't call you a refugee. I asked, why are you in the UK, and not in Pakistan?
You guys talk like you are Human Rights experts, against occupation of Kashmir etc, is Pakistan an Utopia?
Or anything better than Syria for the sake of the argument?

I am not here to defend India, I just hate double standards.

-People who flee countries due to human rights issues are considered refugees.

-People who go to other countries for better economic opportunities are considered immigrants.

We only talk because the people of Kashmir are campaigning to join Pakistan. We never comment on the other human rights issues across the rest of India because our only stake is Kashmir, where we will fight for their right to freedom on an international level.

Also, following your logic again, who are you to talk to us about human rights violations? Why are you complaining about us when you yourselves are running an apartheid state?

 

[dray]

Grow up bhai, grow up .....

The best of your diplomats had failed to refute these arguments and convince the UN to accept the Indian position(Remember that 8 hours long speech by Menon which resulted in his collapse on the SC floor? but still a failure), and here you are trying to claim that Indian trolls like yourself have "refuted" Pakistani position multiple times ??

Then increase your trips to UN with your 'strong' case, what's stopping you?

Your media probably didn't report this old news: http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/jammu-and-kashmir-removed-from-list-of-disputes-under-un-439267

 

[M. Sarmad]

Your media probably didn't report this old news: http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/jammu-and-kashmir-removed-from-list-of-disputes-under-un-439267

Your media also reported this two days later (on Nov 17 2010), did you miss it:
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/kashmir-stays-on-unsc-agenda-list-for-this-year/20101117.htm


Also read post#43

 

[schoolboy]

Kashmir still remains on the agenda of the SC and the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP despite repeated requests by India, even after 45 years of signing of the Simla Agreement ... What more "Proof" is needed that the Indian position has never been accepted by the UN ??

Thanks for the link, I'm happy to be corrected on this point - though the news reporting (cited by both of us) is somewhat sensationalist. The annual report only makes note of the UNMOGIP set up in 1948 - whose role is observe the LOC and report back to the UN. It has no relevance to the solution to the dispute or the binding nature of the resolution.

I'm still waiting for your replies to the other questions.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Thanks for the link, I'm happy to be corrected on this point - though the news reporting (cited by both of us) is somewhat sensationalist. The annual report only makes note of the UNMOGIP set up in 1948 - whose role is observe the LOC and report back to the UN. It has no relevance to the solution to the dispute or the binding nature of the resolution.

I'm still waiting for your replies to the other questions.

The presence of UNMOGIP in India and Pakistan to this day and the UN's refusal to terminate it (despite repeated Indian requests) proves the UN involvement in Kashmir ... Simla Agreement can not supersede the UN Resolutions. India or Pakistan have no "legal" right to deprive Kashmiris of their right to self-determination (that was given to them by the UN through its SC resolutions) by signing any bilateral agreement to which the People of Kashmir are not a party.

What other questions ?

 

[TheDarkKnight]

I see my original post still rankles you. Anyway my intention was only to draw attention to the ease with which ex-pats pass comments on matters of fact that they are not privy to. I am aware of the limited dual nationality permitted in Pakistan - though as a matter of opinion I find it rather discriminatory and I am not aware of any country other than Pakistan which permits such selective dual-nationality.

Well I did start reading the thread and I found you and an Israeli member passing degrading comments about Pakistanis willing to go to developed countries for better opportunities. In Indians case it was even more hypocritical.
About dual citizenship I dont know how is that discriminatory? And if you were not responding emotionally to my post and read it carefully, you would have realized without even doing any research that Pakistan is not the only country to allow dual citizenship. When Pakistanis become dual citizen of US/UK ... isnt US/UK also allowing dual citizenship? Any way FYI US, Canada, UK and most european countries allow dual citizenship.

He can't. Most of these ex-pats wouldn't fare too well in their country of birth. Nearly all would cheerfully swap their nationality to desperately get out of Pakistan yet are adept at working themselves into ...

Whether I am desperate for a green card or a US passport is irrelevant to the discussion - it is not me who is emotionally reacting to purported matters of fact without being in a position to verify.

Exactly; then why bring up Pakistanis willingness to accept residence or citizenship in other countries? My only intention was to make this correction: Pakistanis dont really give up their citizenship when accepting US or UK citizenship.
And if we are discussing about desperation or not being able to do well at home, then the fact is that Indians are the single biggest abuser of US H1b and l1 visa and have the biggest backlog in immigration. And when accepting US citizenship ... they are the ones actually doing the swap.

In my personal opinion, I never belittle or think low of people going abroad for a better life; be it Indians here or the coworker I have from Israel.

 

[Tiger Genie]

OBL not our man, American was aware of his location because they were his forefathers, we r not stupids hide him near to our military center and we r not stupids to send freedom fighters along with pak made bullets, biscuits and pak made dry fruits..lol what else you have proof about haifz saeed and dawood Ibrahim? Tsk tsk

you say you are not stupid, yet you write this post.

 

[schoolboy]

Well I did start reading the thread and I found you and an Israeli member passing degrading comments about Pakistanis willing to go to developed countries for better opportunities. In Indians case it was even more hypocritical.
About dual citizenship I dont know how is that discriminatory? And if you were not responding emotionally to my post and read it carefully, you would have realized without even doing any research that Pakistan is not the only country to allow dual citizenship. When Pakistanis become dual citizen of US/UK ... isnt US/UK also allowing dual citizenship? Any way FYI US, Canada, UK and most european countries allow dual citizenship.

You seem to be mixing up many different issues. Let me explain

1. My post was not Pakistan-specific - please read the text again. I merely expressed my annoyance at how ex-pats (who are usually more disconnected from ground realities in their home countries) post sanctimonious opinions about matters of fact in their home countries when (1) they have chosen (for whatever reason) to be absent; and (2) they are in no position to verify or disprove such fact.

[Illustration: I read some random news article about violent protests in Pakistani Kashmir and then make a post about how cruel the Pakistani army is, how they crush protests, the causes for the protests, etc.]

In my next post I wrote down some questions that posters should ask themselves before responding to 'news'.

2. Emigration happens because of many factors, chiefly - bad rule of law in home country, better economic opportunities. I have posted nothing on cause of emigration. I do, however, agree with the Israeli poster that people who emigrate because of a specific shortcoming in their hone country (eg. persecution) should be careful before accusing other countries of suffering the same shortcoming.

3. I find the selective dual-citizenship law of Pakistan discriminatory because it allows dual citizenship with only a few countries - all prosperous western countries. IMO citizenship norms should not be guided by development status. On what basis does the law say that it's ok to be a Pakistani - US citizen but not a Pakistani - South African citizen? Or a Pakistan - Bolivian citizen? Other countries that permit dual citizenship (like the ones you name) do so without being so selective.

I hope this clarifies.

The presence of UNMOGIP in India and Pakistan to this day and the UN's refusal to terminate it (despite repeated Indian requests) proves the UN involvement in Kashmir ... Simla Agreement can not supersede the UN Resolutions. India or Pakistan have no "legal" right to deprive Kashmiris of their right to self-determination (that was given to them by the UN through its SC resolutions) by signing any bilateral agreement to which the People of Kashmir are not a party.

What other questions ?

Nope. The UNMOGIP is an observer mission to see what's happening on the LOC. Here's their official objective:

Following the India-Pakistan hostilities at the end of 1971 and a subsequent ceasefire agreement of 17 December of that year, the tasks of UNMOGIP have been to observe, to the extent possible, developments pertaining to the strict observance of the ceasefire of 17 December 1971 and to report thereon to the Secretary-General.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmogip/mandate.shtml

It proves / disproves nothing. If anything it recognises that it has a limited role after 1971 - which is quite consistent with the Simla Agreement.

And right of self determination is not "given" by the UN to anyone. It is a principle of international law and nations are generally very wary in recognising such a principle given the slippery slope it might take to hurt their own self interest subsequently. If you read the text of Resolution 48, it does not mention self-determination or grant it legitimacy; as a matter of fact the resolution recognises accession to either India or Pakistan (so much for independent Kashmir).

What I am trying to say is that Pakistan's approach to the Kashmir issue should be founded on a territorial dispute (from 1947) and not support for 'self-determination'. The former is very fact specific, the latter suggests that Pakistan greatly respects self-determination - in which case it will have to be ready to voice similar support for all such movements whether Tibet or Balochistan and be prepared for other countries to voice similar sentiments.

 

[Indika]

The regrettable part is that if Pakistan was truly serious about a political solution its leadership would have presented some concrete proposal to India long before (such as the proposals given by Alex Salmond to the British PM re referendum on the Scotland issue). That would have actually put some diplomatic pressure on India to respond - and India, could not, indefinitely choose not to comment on such proposals. Or it could have filed a lawsuit in the ICJ or asked the UN to pass more resolutions if it believed it had a good legal case - but those have not materialised either

Instead Pakistan seems to believe a military solution is the answer and glorifies all manner of violence as a justifiable method (I don't wish to take examples as that will invite emotion guided attacks on me personally) - an approach which only serves to undermine the legitimacy of the Kashmiri cause because it lumps genuine Kashmiri separatists with terrorists and blurs the distinction. I can only speculate that the military dominion over Pakistani administration and foreign policy is the reason - and as such I believe no political solution will materialise till a strong and stable civilian government emerges in Pakistan.

True, pakistan's involvement in kashmir makes the cause a big non-starter. Its like saudi support against human rights abuse.
With balochistan insurgency and home grown terrorism along afghanistan border pakistan must be most credible country to raise kashmir issue. Now guess what we might also have song for taliban movement in afghnistan sponsored by pakistan. By the way isnt song & dance haraam according to mulla's?

 

[PAK_MyRoots]

He even cannot stand on his own.A paralysed person how will he stand for Kashmir. Itne dande diye hai na iske ki yea sirf ek pakistani k kaabil reh gaya khasi.

if khusur-phusur can become an Indian PM, I guess its an encouragement for paralyzed person to standup.

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=496163800508068

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

It was and is, a legal dispute.

Prior to 1971 the dispute was the subject matter of a UNSC resolution (1948) that recommended a three step plebiscite. The steps and conditions it laid down would be unpalatable for nearly all Pakistanis who swear by it today.

[Note: UN resolutions are not binding but I mention that only to distinguish them from binding international law (such as ICJ rulings or ratified treaties - which both India and Pakistan have generally enforced, such as Sir Creek, Bay of Bengal maritime boundary with Bangladesh, etc.).]

After the war Z. Bhutto agreed to resolve the issue bilaterally as a concession in the Simla Agreement - in exchange for repatriation of POWs, other lands, etc. You are welcome to see the text of that document.

What form that bilateral agreement will take is anybody's guess. Personally I believe the most politically acceptable route (at least in India as of today) would simply be to convert the LOC into a border. I had a series of posts with one of the more-informed PDF members a week ago on the feasibility of this - you can see that in my posting history.

Converting LoC into IB is no longer possible. Maybe i was possible with Manmohan Singh at the helm. However, in the India of 2016 with nationalistic fervor rising, I sincerely doubt any govt will engage in any such misadventure.

...and with India growing economically and politically, it makes no sense to forego the rightful claim over Pakistan O Kashmir.

Honestly I believe Pakistan made the biggest blunder since 1947 by not taking advantage of Manmohan's foolishness. The best the Pakistanis could extract out of MMS was Sharm-al-Sheikh statement.

For Pakistanis, it's a gone case now.

 

[Indika]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=496163800508068

They are called kids for a reason. If you ask them to jump into a well they will do it. when kids go astray every one knows where the society is heading.

 

[Kedardel]

Pakistan can declare status quo and LOC as IB. Kashmiri who want to go to Pakistan can be allowed to shift and vice a versa.
There after India and Pakistan can reduce their tension and reduce their Arms expense and develop their country.

 

[schoolboy]

Converting LoC into IB is no longer possible. Maybe i was possible with Manmohan Singh at the helm. However, in the India of 2016 with nationalistic fervor rising, I sincerely doubt any govt will engage in any such misadventure.

...and with India growing economically and politically, it makes no sense to forego the rightful claim over Pakistan O Kashmir.

Honestly I believe Pakistan made the biggest blunder since 1947 by not taking advantage of Manmohan's foolishness. The best the Pakistanis could extract out of MMS was Sharm-al-Sheikh statement.

For Pakistanis, it's a gone case now.

I disagree. Even if India became the US overnight, it would not change the fact that (1) Pakistan is in possession of a third of Kashmir and (2) possession by both India / Pak of their respective bits of Kashmir has been for 70+ years and the territories are deeply annexed to respective possessors - whatever the original claim.Moreover India has itself agreed in the past that Pakistan has a legitimate claim so we cannot pretend that only our claim is rightful and theirs is not.

In short: there are competing claims and competing possession - so there is a dispute.

Acknowledging the dispute is half the solution. I believe the Indian government, has, thankfully at least acknowledged that a dispute exists and needs to be solved.

Anyway economic and political clout is no justification for not resolving the dispute. By that logic China would ignore any attempt by us to resolve the boundary issues we have with them as well.

The only thing that remains then is what solution and means of solution. I have already posted extensively on this somewhere else on PDF and believe that the easiest solution (at least in India)would be for a conversion of LOC to IB and give up the legal claim to Pakistani kashmir. I don't think a military solution is practical, moral or worth the cost and we can no more expect Pakistan to peacefully surrender their Kashmir anymore than they would expect us to. Conversion of LOC to IB would simply formalise what has already been the de-facto border for 70 years - and what will likely be the de-facto border for another 70 years. At least it will save us the money and stress of stationing troops in a populated area.

The only thing is - I don't see any solution possible until Pakistan has a strong civilian government or the PM restores primacy of civilian rule over the military.