What's new

New Delhi will only discuss Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, says Indian envoy

what are you trying to imply?

Imply?

I have stated a fact. Do you mean you cannot work it out for yourself, and need pointers?

When you claim without any data to back up your claim, i can safety call it a twisted fact or propaganda.

That itself is a claim without data to back up the claim. I suggest you particularise claims that I have made, which are unsupported by facts.

Enough reason suggest that to you because it suits your opinion better. I would rather listen to documented facts and figures rather than individual thoughts on an account.

Perhaps you had better leave it to a people who have practised democracy for 60+ years to make a judgement on what constitutes democracy and what does not, rather than opposing a view based on considerably lesser experience. Every election has been fought by the National Conference, and they have lost as well as won, so there was no 'guided democracy' involved. On the other hand, the azaadi faction did not even exist except in the form of a few disconnected individuals until 1989, and never later did they put their supposed mass support to the test. The documentation is clear; what the electorate was, how many voted, and the percentages for various parties. Asking for more, and more, and more is such transparent delaying tactics as to remind us all that Pakistan practised precisely the same tactics in front of the Plebiscite Commission. But then Pakistan has always depended on tall claims, and then adopted delaying tactics when hauled in front of a tribunal. The decision on Pakistan's complaint about the alleged violation of the Indus Waters Treaty is a case in point.

I would be the last person on the earth to form an opinion based on Wikipedia article. I just asked your opinion which you still haven't conveyed yet.

In that case, why don't you counter-pose your own narration of events? Is it because what has been reported is correct? Would you like Shabir Chaudhary on the matter? I can get his account and reproduce it here.

Calm down professor, don't take things too personal here.

There is no question of taking things personally here. It is you who have made unfounded allegations. If you check with those who have spent more time on this forum than you have, some several times more, you will find to your own fullest satisfaction that charges of falsification have never been made about me. So when you make such charges, you had better make them stick.

Last time I checked Bangladesh was an Independent Muslim majority state, names don't matter here what matters is that even after the split they haven't joined India so what you teach in your institutions about TNT is no true because the ground reality proves otherwise.

Yeah, right.

Here is a Pakistani opinion. It is far more realistic than the jingoism that I have been forced to listen to so far.

December 16

So you are impaling that Kashmir and other princely states were discouraged to remain independent and they had to join either one of the divided nations. I don't fully agree with that because British were not in power to dictate such things to princely but even for the argument sake If we say that it is true even then the Muslim majority of the state makes it a strong case for Pakistan.
  1. There is no implication here. Anybody who knows the subject knows also that this has been documented time and again, and there is no speculative element here. There were 561 princely states, ranging in size from Kashmir to those about the size of a postage stamp, and they all had the same message from the British: that they would have to join one or the other commonwealth.
  2. You may or may not fully agree with that. What is important is that the princes at that time agreed with it, or were made to agree with it, including the princes of Hyderabad, Travancore-Cochin and Manipur, besides Kashmir. These other three were Hindu-majority states; the phenomenon of wanting independence from both Dominions was not confined to members of either contending religion (not counting the Khalsa). Unfortunately for your fanciful arguments, the British were fully in power to dictate such things. You need to brush up your knowledge of the system of governance of these states by the British, and their use of the Indian Political Service and of Agents. There was nothing a ruler could do contrary to the wishes of the British. They were given sovereignty on a day, but had already been warned that they would have to surrender this sovereignty to one or the other Dominion - as they wished, and subject to the test of contiguity (which is why Kalat stayed in Pakistan).
  3. The religious affiliations of the subjects had nothing to do with the rulers' decisions; it was not the principle on which British India was divided, strangely enough, and contrary to the views of many misguided Pakistanis, and Indians as well. Perhaps if you look into electoral results of the 30s and 40s you might run across evidence of what really happened in the Punjab, in Sindh and in the NWFP.

The ruler who fled to save his life and disowned his people. I am sure India must have produced such documents in front of UN also.

Fled? Disowned his people? More opinions divorced of facts?

Mighty fine coming from the heights of Olympus.

Perhaps you should remind yourself where Hari Singh went from Srinagar, and who was left in charge.
Then why are we debating this after so many years.:closed:

What debate? The matter is open in order to regularise the position of Pakistan Administered Kashmir, and not for debate. There cannot be a debate with one side whining for sixty years that it should not have lost, and that it should have won, when in reality it lost - and also lost a grip on reality.

Jammu is controlled in its entirety by India. While a chunk of Kashmir is controlled by Pakistan. Correct if I am wrong.

The correction is simple. There were no two states. It was one and the same state, and the name of the state was Jammu and Kashmir. That does not mean that Jammu was ruled separately and Kashmir separately.

As regards Kashmir, Kashmir was the Vale of Kashmir. The rulers who conquered parts of Kashmir and bought out the rest also conquered Kishtwar, Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan (with help from the British) and the Pamir Emirates. They were given Mirpur to rule by the Sikh Empire. And the whole was known as Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmir nowhere meant all the rest of Jammu and Kashmir other than Jammu.
 
We are happy to discuss AZAD Kashmir - where the Pakistani flag flies with pride (as is case in iOK) and where there is so much natural beauty --- no militancy and no rebellion, no AFSPA, no mass graves or fake encounters. The people feel naturally at home and not in risk of being mass murdered -something the cowardly occupation forces (a.k.a. "sisies") have been good at and perfected 1989 onward
 
NO. Not anymore since 2010. Sorry! :)

Get your facts right, please.

Shimla 1972.

You can assume 3 types of region in J&K. First is the Jammu region including Udhampur. Second is the Kashmir Region, including the Srinagar valleh, and more plainer regions or Uri and Mujaffrabad and Mirpur, third is the Ladakh Region, including Kargil, Leh, skardu. Pakistani controls the part of kashmir and some parts of Ladhakh region. India have control over the Srinagar valleh, Uri aka kashmir, whole Jammu region, and half Ladhakh region.

That is Indian administered Kashmir. He needs to be told that the state of Jammu & Kashmir also contained other portions.

Few elements?70%+ of Muslims in the valley favour independence
In Kashmir, nearly half favour independence
PKKH.tv Archives 95% of Muslims In Occupied Kashmir Want Aazadi From India » PKKH.tv Archives

Illegal occulation yes illegal occupation of India of Kashmiri land that was given to them by racist dogra ruler

You have the gall to quote a Pakistani propaganda machine to prove your point? I admire the thickness of your skin.

Enough of your rant kid

90,000 martyred according to whom and by whom Indian army or the terrorist sponsored by Pakistan.

why kashmiri pandits are refgee in their own country.

As far as the number martyred is concerned, these are based loosely on the graves of the unknown. Unfortunately for the Pakistani case, the number of those trained in Pakistan, infiltrated into India and killed by the border guards, the local constabulary or army patrols is not seen as a source for the unfortunates who lie in those graves.
 
Pakistan know that they would never get Kashmir,that is why saving their face by talks.
Oh sure did you already have a control on that part .If answer is yes then what quarter million army is doings there on daily basis????
 
Get your facts right, please.

Shimla 1972.



That is Indian administered Kashmir. He needs to be told that the state of Jammu & Kashmir also contained other portions.



You have the gall to quote a Pakistani propaganda machine to prove your point? I admire the thickness of your skin.



As far as the number martyred is concerned, these are based loosely on the graves of the unknown. Unfortunately for the Pakistani case, the number of those trained in Pakistan, infiltrated into India and killed by the border guards, the local constabulary or army patrols is not seen as a source for the unfortunates who lie in those graves.
The first source is reuters
 
Oh sure did you already have a control on that part .If answer is yes then what quarter million army is doings there on daily basis????

Where do you pull out these fancy figures? I have an idea, but this is a polite forum, and it is preferable that you explain.

Your figure is dead wrong.

The first source is reuters

Nonsense.

Look at the following posts and dig out the pan-J&K poll that has been done.
 
To think that you have the effrontery and the gall to brag about this criminal act. Shame on you.
i just replied to him when he says that you were slightly left from us. so your indian media was jumping up and down that we will send our su 30mkis to Pakistan for attack i was refereeing at these context not supporting any 26-11 but arguing with you people are wasting time and bandwith and btw thanks for negative rating :D :D
 
i just replied to him when he says that you were slightly left from us. so your indian media was jumping up and down that we will send our su 30mkis to Pakistan for attack i was refereeing at these context not supporting any 26-11 but arguing with you people are wasting time and bandwith and btw thanks for negative rating :D :D

Please do not quote something someone else has done as an excuse. And I am not 'you people' but an individual who has his own opinions and stands on every subject, not a homogenised uniform slavish adherence to one national narrative or the other.

The negative rating is trivial; it is the state of your conscience that you should worry about, saying what you did and justifying it the way you did. It remains a shameful thing.
 
And its Highly Unlikely. India is ok with Status quo. and Pakistan can't do anything militarily or diplomatically.. So why beat a dead horse?? Why not Pakistan focus on its Internal threat and economy Instead of wasting time on the issues which they're well aware would never be solved??

It is the legitimate right of people of Kashmir. Let them decide thier fate.
 
Please do not quote something someone else has done as an excuse. And I am not 'you people' but an individual who has his own opinions and stands on every subject, not a homogenised uniform slavish adherence to one national narrative or the other.

The negative rating is trivial; it is the state of your conscience that you should worry about, saying what you did and justifying it the way you did. It remains a shameful thing.
You didn't get my point mate. I never support 26/11. Terrorism has no religion nor territory. Rest you are wise enough to understand
 
You didn't get my point mate. I never support 26/11. Terrorism has no religion nor territory. Rest you are wise enough to understand

@karakoram If you aren't in support of 26/11, why am I giving you a negative rating? I quite agree that terrorism has no religion and no territory. What is going on? What did you mean by that post then? Please explain; I am now thoroughly puzzled.
 
Oh sure did you already have a control on that part .If answer is yes then what quarter million army is doings there on daily basis????
There has been 4 major wars fought over Kashmir. You expect Indian army to plant mango trees there instead of stationing troops ?
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom