Should Kashmir get a chance to decide their future through Referendum?

[livingdead]

Actually there is no such demand from the people, its only from those leaders who have some land and plundered the people there, same in Sindh, if you meet Balochis then you can understand its like some are just brainwashed, they can't give any justification while others they have same problem as we have, Our leaders are corrupt and are doing nothing for the people..

when referendum was declared, 'Yes' was at around 23 percent, it ended at 45 percent.
again, am not comparing balochistan to kashmir or scotland, what I am talking about is a pure moral standpoint, if 'enough' number of people demand to separate which is the best way to settle the issue.

How many is 'enough' is a separate issue, what I understand you are pointing is, kashmir meets the 'enough' criteria and balochistan does not.

I would not like to really judge the people who want separation and decide whether the demand was valid. SNP almost called westminster a den of thieves and crooks, full of vile and corrupt people, and somehow if power moves to edinburgh its all going to be like heaven. Whether it is valid argument or not, has no bearing on the process to settle the dispute.

 

[IND151]

C

Emotions aside, the Indian establishment even if unpopular in Kashmir or any other parts of India, have those areas controlled by its b@lls. Neither Pakistan nor any neighbor of India can invade any part/s of India and retain those part/s. The fact is that the partition of then British India weighed heavily in the current Republic of India's favor. Unwittingly, the Brits left behind the Indian Republic with huge swathes of land, a capable military which grew and evolved into one of the world's most powerful armed forces today and a population size capable of injecting the economy when needed as is evident after 1988. It also more importantly left behind a partitioned country which permitted Muslim nationalism to be separated from a unified state nationalism. Kashmir was an added dimension to what remained of India. Nehru despite his dilly dallying outplayed Jinnah and the new Pakistani establishment when it came to Kashmir. History will reflect that the Indian establishment has continued to outfox Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir. 1947 and India effectively got the lion's share of Kashmir conceding that portion of Kashmir to Pakistan which would in any event been a geographical nightmare for India to administer. 1965 was a disaster for Pakistan which launched a futile, useless, costly military exercise against India with nothing to show for it except Defense Day. Instead of celebrating Victory Day on 6th September, Pakistan celebrates Defense Day. 1971 was likewise a disaster for Pakistan when it signed the Simla Agreement which in effect over rides the UN resolution thus cementing India's hold over Kashmir. 1999 speaks for itself when it comes to Pakistan's expectations of any military victory against India. In a nutshell, any military exercise against India by Pakistan to obtain Kashmir will be futile. Having said that, why would India hand over any part/s of Kashmir to Pakistan or permit Kashmir to obtain independence via a referendum ?

The only manner in which Pakistan can outplay India on the Kashmir issue is for Pakistan to rebuild itself domestically and as a formidable economic player in South Asia, engage with India on trade and diplomacy on a very high level and thereafter engage with India as a respected player on all of its border issues with India. Until then, India regards Pakistan as nothing short of a nuisance neighbor unworthy of engaging on a meaningful level on any issue.

Could not agree more.

 

[The Snow Queen]

Yes...
They should become an independent country and be neither part of India or Pakistan.
Kashimiris have a right for their own existence!

 

[IND151]

Yes do plebiscite in whole Kashmir. If they want their own country, then Give them.

Its pleasant to see members like you who use phrases like whole kashmir.

Many choose the phrase IOK.

 

[Albatross]

OK ..... we will see about that .

Why don't you start by conducting referendums in Gilgit-Baltistan and Ghulam kashmir ??

Is GB and azad Kashmir 90% Hindu?
Was GB and AK became part of Pakistan by same fake instrument of accession done by a Muslim raja?

If the answers to these questions is no then the reply to your query is no too.

 

[Ahmad1996]

when referendum was declared, 'Yes' was at around 23 percent, it ended at 45 percent.
again, am not comparing balochistan to kashmir or scotland, what I am talking about is a pure moral standpoint, if 'enough' number of people demand to separate which is the best way to settle the issue.

How many is 'enough' is a separate issue, what I understand you are pointing is, kashmir meets the 'enough' criteria and balochistan does not.

I would not like to really judge the people who want separation and decide whether the demand was valid. SNP almost called westminster a den of thieves and crooks, full of vile and corrupt people, and somehow if power moves to edinburgh its all going to be like heaven. Whether it is valid argument or not, has no bearing on the process to settle the dispute.

Which referendum are you talking about? I have no problem with referendum as long as people call for it.

 

[livingdead]

Which referendum are you talking about? I have no problem with referendum as long as people call for it.

was talking about the scottish one... (wrt percentage).. anyway I guess we both are saying the same thing..
sadda haq

 

[Ahmad1996]

was talking about the scottish one... (wrt percentage).. anyway I guess we both are saying the same thing..
sadda haq

I guess so, I don't get much in to J&K or Balochistan debates because it should be the people there who should decide not people from other sides deciding. Like the poll here, how many are Kashmiris here? I am guessing almost none.

 

[shuntmaster]

There should be a referendum......










conducted all over India.....










including the state of J&K..

















whether the two nation theory should be implemented in its entirety.....

 

[kurup]

Is GB and azad Kashmir 90% Hindu?
Was GB and AK became part of Pakistan by same fake instrument of accession done by a Muslim raja?

If the answers to these questions is no then the reply to your query is no too.

GB and not so Azad Kashmir are parts of Jammu and Kashmir .

And the referendum which Pakistan cries about every time is supposed to take place in the entire J&K .

Even if India does not adhere to it , what's stopping Pakistan from doing it .

Afterall it will concrete Pakistan's claim on those regions which it is illegally occupying .

 

[Lord ZeN]

View attachment 62438

p.s.

I think Kashmir's case is pretty strong here, they too deserve to decide their future..

UN must implement its decision of referendum in Kashmir.

So I say Yes, they should get a chance.

p.s. If you are answering No, then also explain why not? what other possible solution do you suggest?

..

Why not ? Lets begin with Azad Kashmir. then hold it in Chinese Occupied Ladakh.

 

[ito]

Is Baluchistan 90% Hindu?
Was Baluchistan became part of Pakistan by same fake instrument of accession done by a Muslim raja?

If the answers to these questions is no then the reply to your query is no too.

Plus go n ask millions of balochis who love Pakistan its just a few dozen India paid guys /indian Jewish lobbies who wants to make it an issue on par with disputed Kashmir so that Pakistan stop raising voice against Indian heinous crimes in Kashmir.

I don't see that happening and Kashmir will never be silent unless they have their right of self determination.

if referendum would have been conducted in pre 1947 india...pakistan would not have been created.

 

[Valkyrie]

1) Kashmir isn't Aasam, Bengal, Punjab or any of the pradeshes. The sate of Jammu and Kahmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory unlike the aforementioned states whose affairs lie with in the realm of Indian control, and by all laws and means are an Integral part of India. So, to make any analogy, between Kashmir and any Indian province would be unfair, illogical, dismissive of historical and ground realities and plain stupid

2) It is for that reason that no matter how hard India tries to sell the world it's narrative of Kashmir, it'll never succeed. Being loud-mouthed and persistent in their ill-founded rationale, doesn't make India's claim on Kashmir legitimate, if anything, it reflects how low the government of India is willing to stoop in order to justify it's 66 years old long illegal occupation of a territory whose fate is ought to be decided by it's people through a fair and transparent plebiscite.

3) The hypocrisy in Indian stance on Kashmir is evident from the fact that it internationally acknowledges the decision of Mahraja to join Indian dominion (even though Jammu and Kashmir was a muslim majority) as moral and legally just while at the same time refuses to recognize the decision of ruler of Junagadh (which was a hindu majority state) to merge with Pakistan and invades the state to force it union with India.

 

[IND151]

1) Kashmir isn't Aasam, Bengal, Punjab or any of the pradeshes. The sate of Jammu and Kahmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory unlike the aforementioned states whose affairs lie with in the realm of Indian control, and by all laws and means are an Integral part of India. So, to make any analogy, between Kashmir and any Indian province would be unfair, illogical, dismissive of historical and ground realities and plain stupid

2) It is for that reason that no matter how hard India tries to sell the world it's narrative of Kashmir, it'll never succeed. Being loud-mouthed and persistent in their ill-founded rationale, doesn't make India's claim on Kashmir legitimate, if anything, it reflects how low the government of India is willing to stoop in order to justify it's 66 years old long illegal occupation of a territory whose fate is ought to be decided by it's people through a fair and transparent plebiscite.

3) The hypocrisy in Indian stance on Kashmir is evident from the fact that it internationally acknowledges the decision of Mahraja to join Indian dominion (even though Jammu and Kashmir was a muslim majority) as moral and legally just while at the same time refuses to recognize the decision of ruler of Junagadh (which was a hindu majority state) to merge with Pakistan and invades the state to force it union with India.

And why The Maharaja took that decision?

 

[Valkyrie]

And why The Maharaja took that decision?

Because tribesman had started to kick his tyrannical *** in Kashmir.
Now you might ask, why tribesman entered Kashmir and fought a war that wasn't their's?
Because the sleazy, unpopular ruler of Kashmir, the Mahraja, was an oppressor, someone who did not represent the aspirations of majority of the population, which was Muslim, was an alien to the ways and culture of Kashmir and was imposed over its people courtesy of the British. He had a habit of picking out Muslims for discriminating and derogatory treatment. When he and his dogra army crossed all lines and the news of Muslims' sufferings reached ears of pathans, stirred by the empathy and bounded by the religious brotherhood, they had to come and help their brothers.