Possible Solution of Kashmir issue...Your Opinion

[aman_rai]

Azad Kashmir regiment stays along with all heavy weapons. They are natives of the land. You will also need to call an international force which will be allowed in to oversee things.

According to my understanding...(I may be wrong plz correct me )
The whole Kashmir on Pakistani side need to be demilitarized....
And India Pakistan agreed to solve things bilaterally(Shima agreement)

 

[oOo]

Allama Iqbal was, being a Kashmiri. He stated quite clearly that Pakistan was the destiny of the Muslims, at least of Northwest British India. He never planned for Bengal to be in Pakistan.

Besides Quaid e Azam, the leaders of Pakistan over the last 70 years have made terrible blunders which have caused Pakistan to lose our potential. The situation is not helped by a villainous and spiteful India, ready at any time to inflame our problems.

However now I think as a nation Pakistan finally is able to understand how much wickedness India is really capable of.

I agree, leaders of Pakistan have done terrible blunders. Here are few -

1- Imposed war on India multiple time. Even when Indian leaders were engaged in peaceful diplomacy.
2- Let the army rules Pakistan for 50% of the time directly and rest indirectly.
3- Gave birth to jihadis - Afghan war.
4- Took a clue from Afghan war and thought militants can get them Kashmir.
5- Let sectarian rift widen.
6- Deny legitimate democratically elected leader Mujib his right to rule Pakistan.
7- Genocide

At last, you guys gives India more importance than we deserve. Truly Indian masses are sissies and thus peace loving.

You can do better if you focus within yourselves.

Azad Kashmir regiment stays along with all heavy weapons. They are natives of the land. You will also need to call an international force which will be allowed in to oversee things.

Incorrect. There was no local militia participation.

Infact locals were allowed to be recruited by Indian forces if they deem fit to maintain law and order. As civilian, offcourse, they were allowed to stay.

 

[aman_rai]

I know but unlike India in Pakistan we had leaders like Liaquat who was just puffed hot air. After having ran away from Hindus in India and safe in Pakistan he began to show his fists. All he seemed to be concerned was his kith/kin left behind in Utter Pradesh. And we lost Kashmir when Pakistan should have done exactly what India did with Hyderabad - declare police action and invade with regular army. Job done in 48 hours. Integrate Kashmir into Pakistan. End off.

However it ws our misfortune that Jinnah was past his prime and slowly dying. The men around him mostly from what is now India seemed to be more occupied by Junagadh, Hyderabad, Delhi, Utter Pradesh then Kashmir. I read a book on Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul. The founder was British/Australian officer and he writes that his first batch of cadets were caught scheming to take over Liaqat's government in a army coup because they felt he and his administration had betrayed Kashmir. This was the first record of a military coup in the offing soon after independence in 1948. Gen. Akbar the heroe of the liberation war also felt the same way. All this has been erased from Pakistani history books but this is the truth.

And the UN resolution that Pak signed was a sellout. Pakistan gave India Kashmir it is as simple as that. Most of these kids here have not even taken the time to read it. It was a sell out. The biggest fraud and betrayal in Pakistan's history.

Liaqat got his desserts soon after. Here is the funny thing. A certain lobby have made Liaquat into Quaid-e-Millat. Every traitor and robber in Pakistan walks away with a stupid title in Pakistan and the ignorant masses lap it up like sheep.

I have no right to comment on internal matter of Pakistan

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

And Pakistan was sending flowers and candy our way all this time? Get real mate, both countries pounced on every opportunity they got to damage each other and neither were afraid to play dirty. If you don't have any results to show for it, that's a testament to your incompetence, not our wickedness.

Unfortunately, Pakistan has always been the gentleman in this regard.

Foolishly, we didn’t take Kashmir in 1962 when China gave it to us on a silver platter. In 1971, we found out just how conniving India could be. Yet still Benazir gave the names of all Khalistan movement fighters to India.

After 2001, Musharraf invaded Pukhtoon areas and wrecked havoc, also expelling international Islamic students from pakistan cutting us off from the Muslim world and in turn weakening/isolating us.

Meanwhile, Nawaz and Zardari invested heavily in India and had good relations with India, even when our soldiers were dying at the Western and Eastern borders.

All that however is over, Pakistanis have taken enough kicks to realize who is the enemy within and without and we will take all precautions against our enemies, with full support of our next government and our army.

 

[waz]

Incorrect. There was no local militia participation.

Infact locals were allowed to be recruited by Indian forces if they deem fit to maintain law and order. As civilian, offcourse, they were allowed to stay.

What? It's a well known fact that nearly 100,000 men who served in the British Army revolted and attacked the Dogra well before the tribal fighters came. Why don't you even ask Joe who served in the Indian forces. Better still try reading Christopher Snedden's work The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir, a respected and scholarly study of the region.
My entire elder generation fought in that war.
It will be the AJK regiment and an international force. Indian troops will never be allowed onto AJK soil.

According to my understanding...(I may be wrong plz correct me )
The whole Kashmir on Pakistani side need to be demilitarized....
And India Pakistan agreed to solve things bilaterally(Shima agreement)

That's right but you can't demilitarise the natives.

 

[itsanufy]

@aman_rai, @Iqbal Ali, @war&peace
Here is the original UN agreement.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/47(1948)

@waz, there was a member known fauzihistorian, perhaps a Think Tank. He wrote some good points on this subject. But couldn't find them.

 

[oOo]

What? It's a well known fact that nearly 100,000 men who served in the British army revolved and attacked the Dogra well before the tribal fighters came. Why don't you even ask Joe who served in the Indian forces. Better still try reading Christopher Snedden's work The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir, a respected and scholarly study of the region.
My entire elder generation fought in that war.
It will be the AJK regiment and an international force. Indian troops will never be allowed onto AJK soil.



That's right but you can't demilitarise the natives.

Quote the resolution then.

If you can quote anything regarding international forces in state of J&K, I will simply apologize and retreat.

Militarised natives were not supposed to administer and have control. Prove otherwise.

 

[waz]

Quote the resolution then.

If you can quote anything regarding international forces in state of J&K, I will simply apologize and retreat.

Militarised natives were not supposed to administer and have control. Prove otherwise.

• In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
• In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.

AJK milita were not Pakistani nationals or tribesman, and this has been proven in many historic accounts. One of which I gave to you and you still ask the same thing.
You will also have to send your army out, you don't need soldiers for 'law and order' local Kashmiri police can do that.

LOCAL PERSONAL =AJK

 

[oOo]

• In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
• In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.

AJK milita were not Pakistani nationals or tribesman, and this has been proven in many historic accounts. One of which I gave to you and you still ask the same thing.
You will also have to send your army out, you don't need soldiers for 'law and order' local Kashmiri police can do that.

LOCAL PERSONAL =AJK

1- India was supposed to get max of its army out, and keep minimum forces to maintain law and order. Pakistani forces and its tribals were supposed to get out of state of J&K.
2- LOCAL PERSONALS = J&K . Again recruited by commission and commanding Indian forces. Not rogue militias.
3- I never said AJK as Pakistanis, why would I defeat my own argument. Not sure why you are harping on same.
4- There were no Foreign troops sanctioned. NEVER.
5- Resolution never talk about AJK in isolation. Its always J&K.

Which of the above point you have difficulty with?

 

[waz]

1- India was supposed to get max of its army out, and keep minimum forces to maintain law and order. Pakistani forces and its tribals were supposed to get out of state of J&K.
2- LOCAL PERSONALS = J&K . Again recruited by commission and commanding Indian forces. Not rogue militias.
3- I never said AJK as Pakistanis, why would I defeat my own argument. Not sure why you are harping on same.
4- There were no Foreign troops sanctioned. NEVER.
5- Resolution never talk about AJK in isolation. Its always J&K.

Which of the above point you have difficulty with?

India gets all its forces out. The only ones who stay are police.
Local forces are not to be recruited by India, you can police the valley with them if you want.
Rouge militia, what? They are natives!!! Don't you understand this?
Yes I know what the resolution talks about and I agree with it, it's just your take on it is pure insane.

 

[aman_rai]

@aman_rai, @Iqbal Ali, @war&peace
Here is the original UN agreement.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/47(1948)

@waz, there was a member known fauzihistorian, perhaps a Think Tank. He wrote some good points on this subject. But couldn't find them.

I have read it...
However there are some so called senior member who needs to read it...
Thanks for mentioning

India gets all its forces out. The only ones who stay are police.
Local forces are not to be recruited by India, you can police the valley with them if you want.
Rouge militia, what? They are natives!!! Don't you understand this?
Yes I know what the resolution talks about and I agree with it, it's just your take on it is pure insane.

India is allowed to have a minimum number of forces in order to defend against any Pakistani aggression also...

 

[oOo]

India gets all its forces out. The only ones who stay are police.

Your wish and imagination.

"India need to progressively reduce its forces to min level needed to support civil forces"

Local forces are not to be recruited by India, you can police the valley with them if you want.

To your dislike, recruitment of locals is documented under section A-2 "Government of India should". Recruitment was supposed to happen under min forces from India and UN commission supervision.

Rouge militia, what? They are natives!!! Don't you understand this?

Ohh, so if a person is native, he cant be term as militia. Pakistani definition it seems.

UN definition is, if you are not state authorized, you are militia if if carry arms and use them for any other purpose than self protection. Being local doesn't legalize you.

Yes I know what the resolution talks about and I agree with it, it's just your take on it is pure insane.

I am yet to see the foreign troops part.

 

[waz]

Your wish and imagination.

"India need to progressively reduce its forces to min level needed to support civil forces"

It's my wish and that of my people.

To your dislike, recruitment of locals is documented under section A-2 "Government of India should". Recruitment was supposed to happen under min forces from India and UN commission supervision.

UN supervision, then I have no issue. But we still won't give up our arms.

Ohh, so if a person is native, he cant be term as militia. Pakistani definition it seems.

UN definition is, if you are not state authorized, you are militia if if carry arms and use them for any other purpose than self protection. Being local doesn't legalize you.

They're called defence forces for us. The UN made no reference to local fighters, show me where it does.
Also don't become insulting with your 'Pakistani definition' stuff, I'm speaking respectfully to you. If not then I'll take it from there.

I am yet to see the foreign troops part.

So you honestly think under UN supervision you will not see any troops? Please do tell me where have you ever seen the UN in any war zone without the escort of UN troops?

 

[fitpOsitive]

Make Kashmir a free state.

 

[Corona]

Make Kashmir a free state.

If it could've happened, it would've happened by now.