What's new

‘Pakistan agrees to no bilateral pact on Kashmir’

UmarJustice

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Srinagar, Dec 27: Terming the Pakistan visit as a ‘successful one’, the Chairman of Hurriyat Conference (M) Mirwaiz Umar Farooq Thursday said the “biggest achievement of the amalgam’s Islamabad trip was that Pakistan has agreed that there will be no bilateral agreement on Kashmir with India.” He also said that they have not received “any formal or informal invitation” from New Delhi for talks.
Talking to Greater Kashmir over phone from New Delhi, Mirwaiz, who concluded his 10-day Pakistan tour along with seven other Hurriyat (M) leaders, said given the overwhelming support in Pakistan and Pakistan Administered Kashmir, the visit was “fruitful and successful.”
“We are satisfied with the Pakistan tour,” Mirwaiz said. “We told the Pakistan leadership that the people of Kashmir are the legitimate party to the Kashmir dispute. We also told them that the peoples’ aspirations can’t be by-passed.”
He said Pakistan accepted the “indigenous character of Kashmiris” as far as finding a permanent solution to Kashmir is concerned. “We persuaded Pakistan not to enter into any bilateral agreement with India over Kashmir. The biggest achievement of our visit is that Islamabad agreed that no bilateral pact on Kashmir would be entered into,” he said. “Once Pakistan will refuse bilateral solution on Kashmir, the step will naturally pave way for a trilateral dialogue that would ultimately end up in settlement of the issue.”
He said the Hurriyat (M) leaders held a series of meetings with Pakistan leadership, including those out of power. “We urged the leaders of political parties of Pakistan to ensure inclusion of Kashmiris in dialogue process in their respective election manifestoes,” Mirwaiz said. “All political parties agreed to our suggestion.” He said it was quite encouraging that “a country which is grappling with the internal crisis extended its full support to the Hurriyat delegation.”
Mirwaiz said another outcome of the Hurriyat’s visit was that Pakistan and PaK leadership agreed that trade and other economic ties won’t be done at the cost of Kashmir issue. “Instead, we demanded that two divided parts of Kashmir should get their share from the trade. We also stressed that Kashmiris should be allowed to utilize their resources like water and electricity that are presently controlled by Pakistan and India,” he said.
Mirwaiz said Pakistan agreed to the Hurriyat’s demand regarding making travel through the Line of Control hassle-free. “Now we want India to ensure the same,” he said. “We made it clear in Islamabad that Kashmir was primarily a political problem but it had economic aspect as well. The economic dimensions have to be clubbed into the political solution.”
To a query whether Hurriyat (M) has received any invitation from the New Delhi for fresh round of talks, Mirwaiz said he was not aware of any “formal or informal invitation.” “We won’t go with a begging bowl before Government of India. They have to make the atmosphere conducive by revoking the controversial laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and announcing the phased-withdrawal of forces,” he said.

Pakistan agrees to no bilateral pact on Kashmir Lastupdate:- Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com
 
.
So, whatever happened to those good old UN Security Council Resolutions that Pakistan keeps harping on, endlessly? :undecided: No one spoke about them? WTF? :cheesy:

In the UN General Assembly, Hina went all out quoting the lame duck resolutions with no mention of Kashmiris being part of it. (Rightly so as the Resolutions don't mention anything about aspirations of the Kashmiri people). And here we have the Hurriyat yahoos and Pakistan saying nothing regarding the UN Resolutions but solving the dispute in 'accordance with the aspirations of the Kasmiris'!

Now Pakistan needs to decide which way it wants to go. The UNSC way or the 'Kashmiri aspiration' way. You can't have the cake and eat it too, what? :P

If these scatterbrains of the Hurriyat are so concerned about Kashmir and Kashmiris why haven't they raised the issue with Pakistan as to why they have gifted 5,800 sq km of Kashmir's territory called the Trans Karakoram Tract to China unilaterally in 1963?

Bl00dy two faced Hurriyat idiots led by a bozo who's on his last legs! Jeeez! :tdown:
 
.
:rofl: Tune to sabki maar li. :D

India and Pakistan are these two according to me

Nope Hurriyat ppl and pakistan ...India doesn't give a **** about what this two decide.....they can ***** all they want..:cheers:

Though that analogy suits India pakistan as well:D
 
.
Why does this remind me of Mush's ' out of the box' proposal of dividing J&K into 6-7 zones.

Its so simple to unilaterally discuss a subject / issue which is a non starter.

What will they agree on next ? Allocating territories to each other on the moon ?
 
. .
Actually, Pak will try to declare Gilgit and the rest as its state. Reason we are keeping quiet is if that happens, then it means Pak accepts ground situation and end of story the APHC. They need to be more worried about this than any bi-lateral talk.
 
.
All hindis crying massively, like they always do. I think you hindis should achieve milestone in crying.
 
. . . . .
“Once Pakistan will refuse bilateral solution on Kashmir, the step will naturally pave way for a trilateral dialogue that would ultimately end up in settlement of the issue.”
I think Mirwaiz is inflating the negotiating prowess of Pakistan here, and I'm sure he knows it. India's stance is pretty simple and firm - Kashmir is a bilateral issue, no ifs, no buts.

The moment India talks of trilateral dialogue, it's committing political and diplomatic suicide by treating the HC as the sole representative of the Kashmiri people, and implying that they (and Kashmir) sit outside of the Union.

It's a non-starter, and Mirwaiz is aware of the problems around that historically. The HC will meet us in Islamabad, it will meet is at our High Commission in Delhi, it will irk Congress and others, but only serve to harden India's position on bilateral engagement.

What is clear as day is that India holds the upper hand in negotiations on all fronts. Pakistan can't dictate nor set the agenda (not that it has in the past, but it has been stronger than it is today).

The UN resolutions barely get a mention as OH has mentioned, and dreams of 'Kashmir banega Pakistan' are more distant than they've ever been. Coupled with our own internal problems, and the relative calm across the LoC, Kashmir won't be tackled seriously for some time yet.
 
.
I think Mirwaiz is inflating the negotiating prowess of Pakistan here, and I'm sure he knows it. India's stance is pretty simple and firm - Kashmir is a bilateral issue, no ifs, no buts.

The moment India talks of trilateral dialogue, it's committing political and diplomatic suicide by treating the HC as the sole representative of the Kashmiri people, and implying that they (and Kashmir) sit outside of the Union.

It's a non-starter, and Mirwaiz is aware of the problems around that historically. The HC will meet us in Islamabad, it will meet is at our High Commission in Delhi, it will irk Congress and others, but only serve to harden India's position on bilateral engagement.

What is clear as day is that India holds the upper hand in negotiations on all fronts. Pakistan can't dictate nor set the agenda (not that it has in the past, but it has been stronger than it is today).

The UN resolutions barely get a mention as OH has mentioned, and dreams of 'Kashmir banega Pakistan' are more distant than they've ever been. Coupled with our own internal problems, and the relative calm across the LoC, Kashmir won't be tackled seriously for some time yet.

That may be true, but it is also true that Pakistan has meddled in Kashmir's affairs for some time. What you're ignoring is that the empowerment politically of Pakistani Kashmir (so it is no longer a mere puppet of Islamabad, neither is divided further) will be a potent tool in negoitiation as it will strengthen affiliation in a viable future for Kashmiris across the LoC.

As long as the issue is Pakistan or India the issue is a dead issue simply for the fact that it represents what the Kashmiri people have fought from since the uprising against Hari Singh's rule: the dictation of their own destiny by others.

India cannot hold onto a piece of land indefinatly if the populace wish to no longer be part of it -- though that has been true for many decades, the process is slowing and the might of the Indian Army at this time is too strong for a resolution by the will of the Kashmiri people (the only way for a solution) so empowerment is the goal here: empower the Kashmiris your side of the LoC, and India will be at a stump for what to do.

India has given enough land for outside people who want to form separate state on Indian land. they can divide it among themselves.

That may be true. But what is also true is that Kashmir is not "Indian land" legally (that is to say, the owners and cultivators of the land are the true owners; those that have been born and raised upon it, not a quango in New Delhi) and historically (Treaty of Amritsar).

Before you bring up the Instrument of Accession (who's integrity has been questioned recently, but that is not a discussion for this thread) the Kashmiri people had rejected the rule of the Maharaja, as a political force, as early as 1930 through marches, demonstrations and protests. Thus, his integrity was questionable and was ultimately eroded in the uprising of 1947-8, which was for all instances and purposes a civil war.
 
.
All hindis crying massively, like they always do. I think you hindis should achieve milestone in crying.

People like you keep reminding me of screwed up education system in Pakistan which can not differentiate between a language and nationality.

Kashimis want a separate independent state, neither with Pakistan nor India.

And I want a billion dollars. :D

And between the 2, my wish coming true has higher probability..
 
.
As long as the issue is Pakistan or India the issue is a dead issue simply for the fact that it represents what the Kashmiri people have fought from since the uprising against Hari Singh's rule: the dictation of their own destiny by others.

India cannot hold onto a piece of land indefinatly if the populace wish to no longer be part of it.
You see, India will hold on to what it has now for the rest of time. It's not going to give it up barring a massive and sustained uprising, perhaps in the Syria mould. Even that would have to have an armed dimension, and those arms and support would have to be provided by us which would be a declaration of war on India.

Therefore, the supply of arms and support is not happening, and I don't see a violent uprising taking place with the relative calm the Valley enjoys today. More importantly, India has seen the worse of any uprising in the 90's. That intensity will not be seen again because (as I've said) the backing from Pakistan will be absent.

I take your point about empowerment, as India needs to certainly look at that aspect as demands have more or less zeroed in on greater powers / autonomy from a fair few. However, I disagree with your point that India can't hold on to what land it has now, as it certainly will.

I read today that a trial train run which connects Qazigund and Banihal was completed today in the Valley. This is part of connecting the Valley to the rest of India by train by 2017. Point being that these kind of steps is what commoners want to see. On our side, Pakistan Railways is close to collapse, with delays ranging from 18 hours to days.

The hope and brighter future (if legitimate grievances are addressed) is far better for Kashmiri's on the Indian side as it stands. I don't see them clamouring to be part of Pakistan which we fail to recognise more often than not.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom