No comparisons with India, says Musharraf

[Awesome]

For Kashmir. On Kashmir.

 

[Awesome]

Neither flaming nor baiting for a flame. Just laying it out straight.

 

[Bull]

yes quite right sardarji not only has to run the whole india single handidly but the few spare moments he has.....he dashes to the fields to sow and cut the crops himself to feed whole of india....personally by hand. Hence the paucity of time is entirely understandable.

How informed you are, i envy you.

 

[Bull]

For Kashmir. On Kashmir.

You have to face tough questions on Kashmir,not us.

 

[Awesome]

Toughest Question for you. Why not allow the right for self-determination?

Taking responsibility would be like "Muahaha We are a ruthless oppression force and we shall form our dominion and rule over the Kashmiris!"

Since that would be truer to any other BS that Indians claim about their intentions with Kashmir.

 

[Bull]

Toughest Question for you. Why not allow the right for self-determination?

Taking responsibility would be like "Muahaha We are a ruthless oppression force and we shall form our dominion and rule over the Kashmiris!"

Since that would be truer to any other BS that Indians claim about their intentions with Kashmir.

We have elections there which is monitored by intl bodies.There is no need for anymore?

 

[vnomad]

yes quite right sardarji not only has to run the whole india single handidly but the few spare moments he has.....he dashes to the fields to sow and cut the crops himself to feed whole of india....personally by hand. Hence the paucity of time is entirely understandable.

The man's personal credentials are impeccable and so is his understanding of economics and the administration. He's never won (or even stood for) an election. He's an professor of economics, studied at Oxford and a member of India's planning commission. He recieved an honorary doctorate from Cambridge this year. You could call him stupid, illiterate, a farmer, a sardar whatever but fact remains he kickstarted India's reforms in 1991. The credit for a growth rate of 8.4% last year and 8.9% this year belongs to him more than anyone else.

For Kashmir. On Kashmir.

Its important to Pakistan. Indians would prefer that he stick to what he does best managing the economy and administration. I'm not surprised that Kashmir is low priority for him. Improving the internal conditions of the country is his priority.
But let me humor you, what questions on Kashmir are unanswered?

 

[Goodperson]

Toughest Question for you. Why not allow the right for self-determination?

Taking responsibility would be like "Muahaha We are a ruthless oppression force and we shall form our dominion and rule over the Kashmiris!"

Since that would be truer to any other BS that Indians claim about their intentions with Kashmir.

(Now there is no point in discussing this issue as it leads to personal animosity
neither Pakistan or India can resolve this nor any power in the world but since you are insisting here is India's position.)

India's position on your toughest question

In keeping with the terms of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the ruler of the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir ceded it to India via INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION (http://mha.nic.in/accdoc.htm). Pakistan tried to illegally occupy Kashmir by infiltrating irregular armed raiders. Indian forces pushed them out from the Srinagar valley. The Indian leadership unilaterally ordered cease-fire, and offered plebiscite, provided Pakistan vacated the portion left in its illegal occupation. Pakistan never did so. The plebiscite has become inoperative.

 

[vnomad]

Toughest Question for you. Why not allow the right for self-determination?

Taking responsibility would be like "Muahaha We are a ruthless oppression force and we shall form our dominion and rule over the Kashmiris!"

Since that would be truer to any other BS that Indians claim about their intentions with Kashmir.

I'll be perfectly honest with you. A plebiscite. What's in it for India?

 

[Goodperson]

I'll be perfectly honest with you. A plebiscite. What's in it for India?

Even if India accepted plebiscite, several details will have to be worked
out before it can be implemented. The questions to be answered include, for
example, who will be allowed to vote? Will the people of non-Kashmiri
origin now living in the area (e.g. the Mirpuris and Pakistanis in Azad
Kashmir) and/or the Kashmiris living outside the area be allowed to vote?
Who will make the voters list, and who will conduct the election? What
percentage of popular vote will be required for a definitive determination?
Would the fate of each region be decided separately? Or, will the decision
be made on the basis of statewide majority? If the latter, would it not,
like in 1947, lead to massive dislocation, massacre or disability of
minorities? Would any part be allowed to not join either India or Pakistan?
What will happen to the areas of Kashmir, ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963
or the "northern area" consisting of Gilgit and Baltistan which have been
annexed by Pakistan? What will be the recourse, if everything does not
happen as agreed?

If the principle under which plebiscite is being asked is accepted, how far
can this be taken. Would that mean that the people of different ethnicity
or sects or religious groupings be allowed to ask for independent countries
of their own. For examples, would not Sindhis and Balochs in Pakistan,
Shias, Buddhists and Parsis in the whole subcontinent also demand
independence. Also, we need to remember that being of the same religion,
ethnicity, sect or other grouping does not necessarily guaranty peace or
prosperity.

 

[Awesome]

I'll be perfectly honest with you. A plebiscite. What's in it for India?

Nothing at all, you'd lose Kashmir.

The big thing would be if India did it, anyway!

 

[vnomad]

Nothing at all, you'd lose Kashmir.

The big thing would be if India did it, anyway!

No solution to Kashmir in that case. So the PM is justified in not wasting time on Kashmir, while beefing up the armed forces for the next war on Kashmir.

 

[Awesome]

of course, thats why he won't take responsibility of Kashmiris and answer the tough questions on it.

And thus we're justified to do whatever we have to do to make life miserable on the other end. You guys have captured millions of our people. The gloves were off long before.s

 

[Skeptic786]

The man's personal credentials are impeccable and so is his understanding of economics and the administration. He's never won (or even stood for) an election. He's an professor of economics, studied at Oxford and a member of India's planning commission. He recieved an honorary doctorate from Cambridge this year. You could call him stupid, illiterate, a farmer, a sardar whatever but fact remains he kickstarted India's reforms in 1991. The credit for a growth rate of 8.4% last year and 8.9% this year belongs to him more than anyone else.

you misunderstood what i said. My intention was not to insult him.....just made an observation....based on Bull's original statement that "time nahi". Let me try to make you understand in what vein i had said that.

Say you ask your friend RAM or Sham or anyone else to dinner. He never turns up and one day you meet him on the street and say to him....oye ram you were suppose to come to dinner last week? what happened you never showed up? and he says.....sorry i could not make time.........to which you respond....."yeah you could not make time...i have seen the 100s of acres of land you have to plough and the 1000s of cows you milk daily...all by yourself...hence no time"

i hope it clarifies the matter.

 

[Skeptic786]

Even if India accepted plebiscite, several details will have to be worked
out before it can be implemented. The questions to be answered include, for
example, who will be allowed to vote? Will the people of non-Kashmiri
origin now living in the area (e.g. the Mirpuris and Pakistanis in Azad
Kashmir) and/or the Kashmiris living outside the area be allowed to vote?
Who will make the voters list,

although you display a UN flag...but you are forwarding 50+ years of indian positions.....but with one notable error in your understanding...leading me to conclude maybe your roots lie in south india as oppose to north india. I am not going to waste time on arguing against your hardered indian positions or stance but rather correct the error....which is an error even from indian prospective ( mirpuri point ).

Mirpuris are not pakistani.....but rather mirpur is an old town of the state of jammu and kashmir ( nowadays one of the six districts of azad kashmir ).....at the time of kashmir war in 1948 hindu inhabitants of mirpur fled to jammu and even to mainland india....those mirpuris are kashmiris too...some of these have even moved to UK and have surnames like Mirpuri ( i am reffering to hindu mirpuris ).....they and the muslim mirpuris that still live in the mirpur area are all kashmiris and have right to vote in any plebscite....this is not a debateble point or has ever crept up in indo-pak discussions on kashmir....if you had been a north indian you would have known this ( i donot rule out ignorance of kashmir history despite living in north india )

As for your Pakistanis living in Azad Kashmir.....India-Pak agreement which goes back to 1950s forbids Pakistanis from buying land in Azad Kashmir and indians from buying land in Indian Kashmir.....this is adhered to...hence we can tell whom of azad kashmir residents are original kashmiris and whom are pakistani migrants to azad kashmir...simply from glance of the land records. In any event this has never been an issue for the indian government in any negotiations simply because the vast majority of the people who live in Azad Kashmir support joining Pakistan....it is the azad kashmiris which instigated...started and by and large fought the original kashmir war in 1947. How did they do this? well 72,000 of them were veterens of the British Army and even had combat experience in the second world war on the burma front ( like many of my family members ).