Pakistan is no friend of Kashmir, either

[Psychic]

Some members advocated assassination on the basis of an article or the author and that got me thinking, is criticism allowed at all or does anything that deviates from the official forum narrative is discouraged.

Criticism =/= distortion of history

Some members advocated assassination

That is more or less rhetorical;

And
There is a history behind it.

which reached it's climax with this

 

[xyx007]

We as a human being understand the situation in kashimir and have feeling to other human being.

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

Topic starter is a a-class idiot who just post the topic for the sake of it without looking at who is the writer of it. Enough said.

 

[Krptonite]

I fully support assassinating such traitors

Every piece of criticism would be acceptable that is based on facts and not lies like this article.

So yes I demand elimination of such traitors as that a state should do to traitors.

Is the state narrative so weak that it cannot withstand lies and disception from known dissenters ? Specially if it has a moral high ground on those issues.

If killing is acceptable, then where does it stop? Who decides who's a traitor and for what? And what does that mean for a democratic society? If someone is against perceived nationalistic values is it right to ask for their blood? If killing is the first solution for such irritants then what about future major irritants, domestic or international, when do you stop?

Look at Saudi Arabia and the khashogi mess they waddled into, is that what you desire for your country too?

 

[Imad.Khan]

Are you dumb or what? Referendum in Balochistan? What next? Referendum in kpk, sindh, Karachi, South Punjab and so on?

What kind of dumb logic is this

Did you even read my whole post or just zoomed in to that line because of lack of brain cells.

Gilgit Baltistan is already a province? Have you been sleeping or living in a cave for the last few years?

Its only a province in name, nothing more.

 

[Areesh]

Did you even read my whole post or just zoomed in to that line because of lack of brain cells.

That part of post was totally nonsensical so I emphasized on it

 

[tman786]

Payroll traitors the lot of them!!

 

[Areesh]

Is the state narrative so weak that it cannot withstand lies and disception from known dissenters ? Specially if it has a moral high ground on those issues.

If killing is acceptable, then where does it stop? Who decides who's a traitor and for what? And what does that mean for a democratic society? If someone is against perceived nationalistic values is it right to ask for their blood? If killing is the first solution for such irritants then what about future major irritants, domestic or international, when do you stop?

Look at Saudi Arabia and the khashogi mess they waddled into, is that what you desire for your country too?

State has every right to eliminate such traitors. It isn't about weakness or strength. It is all about giving message that treachery to state won't be tolerated. Pakistani state has responded very weakly to such elements and result is we have dozens of them operating from various countries in the world acting against interests of Pakistan

 

[M.Kamran_Pak]

In a recent opinion piece penned for the New York Times, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan asked the world to wake up to the conflict in Kashmir because if it does not, there is a risk of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Like previous Pakistani premiers, he sought to present Pakistan as a champion of the Kashmiri cause.

While the world indeed needs to take action on ongoing crackdown and rights abuses in India, it should not overlook the role Pakistan has played in the Kashmiri tragedy.

Over the past decades, it has shown little commitment to Kashmiri self-determination.

When India and Pakistan gained independence from Great Britain in 1947, Kashmir was a princely state which wanted to remain independent, a choice given by the colonial masters to all such entities and agreed upon by both countries.

Pakistan even signed a standstill agreement with the Kashmiri Hindu ruler of that time, Maharaja Hari Singh, which basically meant it agreed to its status as it was. However, a few months later, Pakistan broke that agreement and helped Pashtun tribesmen invade the region, eventually sending its own security forces to Kashmir in a bid to take over the valley.

In response, the Kashmiri ruler asked India for help to defend his kingdom. New Delhi agreed to intervene but only if Kashmir would agree to accede to it, albeit temporarily. The conflict escalated into what has come to be known as the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948, which led to the de facto partitioning of the region by Pakistan and India.

In 1948, the United Nations passed a resolution, according to which Pakistan was supposed to withdraw its forces first (as it acted as an aggressor), while India was to maintain a minimum military presence until an independence referendum was held to let Kashmiris decide their own future. However, neither India nor Pakistan abided by that resolution.

Then in 1965, the Pakistani military launched a secret mission called Operation Gibraltar which involved military officials infiltrating the valley and attempting to engineer a rebellion from within by mixing themselves with the locals.

The calculations by General Ayub Khan, the Pakistani dictator who was in power at that time, were that since India had just been exhausted by the Sino-Indian War of 1962, there was a good opportunity to take New Delhi by surprise. However, Operation Gibraltar failed to rouse the local population, and instead India launched a counter-offensive, forcing Pakistan to retreat.

Paradoxically, every year on September 6, Pakistan marks its "victory" over the Indian army attacking its territory in 1965. The official narrative does not mention Operation Gibraltar which effectively triggered the conflict.

Then in the aftermath of the 1987 election in the valley, which was widely perceived as rigged, massive agitations broke out in Indian-administered Kashmir, which Pakistan supported. In the wake of these protests, Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) had taken centre stage and become the leading voice for Kashmir's armed resistance.

A few years later militants based in Pakistan headed towards Kashmir and started to target and kill the leadership of pro-independence groups like the JKLF, leaving behind mostly pro-Pakistani militancy in the region.

Then in 1999, Pakistan once again attempted to infiltrate the valley using its military in what came to be known as the Kargil War.

In the following two decades, Pakistan-based groups have been repeatedly accused of carrying out terrorist activities, not just in Kashmir but also in mainland India. From the 2001 attack on the parliament in New Delhi to the Mumbai attack in 2008, to recent attacks in Pathankot and Pulwama, these aggressive tactics have sealed India's perception of the Kashmiris through the lens of its historic confrontation with Pakistan.

With its past actions and hesitancy to crack down on militant groups in its territory, Pakistan has given India repeatedly the opportunity to present the unrest in Kashmir to the world as nothing more than a Pakistan-backed insurgency. This has effectively undermined the struggle of the local population of Indian-administered Kashmir.

At home, Pakistan has also not been too keen to accommodate Kashmiri people political rights and has targeted pro-independence group like JKLF.

In Pakistani-administered Kashmir, no political parties can contest the general elections if they do not agree to an accession agreement to Pakistan. Because of that, only Pakistan-based political parties end up participating and winning elections in the region.

Also, most of the bureaucracy and civil service is controlled by Islamabad, and a body called the Kashmir Council headed by the Pakistani prime minister oversees all government affairs. Moreover, Pakistan has made efforts to absorb the region into Pakistan by carving out parts of its territory - the Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) region - and by creating a separate entity for it in the 1970s.

The Pakistani authorities took away GB's special status and until today it is mostly governed by Islamabad directly.

If Pakistan is sincere about the Kashmir cause and cares for the wellbeing of its people, then it must first demonstrate its commitment at home. It can do so only by putting an end to rights abuses and letting Kashmiris decide their own fate. Only then will the world take Pakistan's concerns about Kashmir seriously.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Taha Siddiqui
Taha Siddiqui is an award-winning Pakistani journalist living in exile in France.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/pakistan-friend-kashmir-190911133539203.html

These pseudo liberals funded by their western masters always fail to mention below;
1. In that era (1950-1990) conflict and proxies in disputed territory was not brought to mainland.
2. In 1962 why India did not attack China's mainland and war was limited to disputed territory and Tibet issue?
3. China /USSR helped Korea/Vietnam did US attack them? In 1980s US/West helped Afg Mujahedeen did USSR attack USA? Same for CUBA
4. Lastly, India has funded terrorism in Sri Lanka (Tamil) and Pakistan interference in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afg, problem with Rohingya refugees. India always try to bullie weaker and small neighbors and nations.

 

[Imad.Khan]

That part of post was totally nonsensical so I emphasized on it

Mate read the whole post, the reasons for what i said are provided above it