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

[Pakistani till death]

An honest answer to your last question....India has the capacity to takeover what it feels it is needed for us...We only faltered in Kashmir becoz of idiotic Nhru...Otherwise..even Kashmir would have clean merger like other states...Who cares about treaties and rules above your national interest?..

I cant say much but thank you for the answer atleast someone replied to it

 

[janon]

1) For point one i must remind you that the mujahideen attacked not pakistan army our army came way after in the war.
2) Points 2, 3 and 4 are totally wrong but i wont comment on them for obvious reasons now a bonus point
3) Kashmir banega pakistan
4) now just answer this question that why is it that the hindus of junagadh get a referendum of choosing countries and the muslims of kashmir dont get it?
J

1)Yea, the same old "non state actor" BS. Nobody blieved that in '48, nobody believed it in '99. You cannot simply disown all responsibility for every war you lose and blame it on "non state actors". Do you really expect us to believe that Pashtun tribals just happened to be wandering in Kashmir and decided to wage war in a land that was not theirs? The Pashtun marauders were brought in by the Pak army, and the PA also joined - only when the PA reached an important airport did the IA step in and halt their advance and push them back.

2) The "obvious reasons" you won't comment on 2,3 and 4 are that there is nothing to comment. I was right.

3)

4) Jinnah created Pakistan on the pretext that hindus and muslims could not live together. India asserted that they could, and we have shown it as well. When Pakistan tried to claim hindu majority Junagarh after seperating from India because they couldn't live with hindus, India rightly called out Pak's hypocrisy. Either Pakistan's very reason for existence was a lie, or they had no right to claim a hindu majority region. India on the other hand never said that muslims cannot live with hindus, so Kashmir being hindu majority or muslim majority was irrelevant to us. They could be Pastafarians for all we care - when their ruler acceded to India and begged us to stop his people being butchered by PA and uncouth tribesmen from far away, we did the right thing.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

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

--
sure
can you just post FULL geography of J-K?

For point one i must remind you that the mujahideen attacked not pakistan army our army came way after in the war.
Points 2, 3 and 4 are totally wrong but i wont comment on them for obvious reasons now a bonus point
Kashmir banega pakistan now just answer this question that why is it that the hindus of junagadh get a referendum of choosing countries and the muslims of kashmir dont get it?
J

--
again read history.. mujahid concet came soivet-afg time... not in 1948 -65-71
--
pint 2
why you was defeding lahor when objective of taking j-k ?
--
point 3
if we were wrong on p2, 3,4
can you correct please
--
its not muslim of kashmir alone .. its pandits , other people too...
---
if relgion was biding nation.. there would not be pak,sa,iran and never alquaida, let, jiash , isis
---

 

[PlanetWarrior]

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.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

1)Yea, the same old "non state actor" BS. Nobody blieved that in '48, nobody believed it in '99. You cannot simply disown all responsibility for every war you lose and blame it on "non state actors". Do you really expect us to believe that Pashtun tribals just happened to be wandering in Kashmir and decided to wage war in a land that was not theirs? The Pashtun marauders were brought in by the Pak army, and the PA also joined - only when the PA reached an important airport did the IA step in and halt their advance and push them back.

2) The "obvious reasons" you won't comment on 2,3 and 4 are that there is nothing to comment. I was right.

3)

4) Jinnah created Pakistan on the pretext that hindus and muslims could not live together. India asserted that they could, and we have shown it as well. When Pakistan tried to claim hindu majority Junagarh after seperating from India because they couldn't live with hindus, India rightly called out Pak's hypocrisy. Either Pakistan's very reason for existence was a lie, or they had no right to claim a hindu majority region. India on the other hand never said that muslims cannot live with hindus, so Kashmir being hindu majority or muslim majority was irrelevant to us. They could be Pastafarians for all we care - when their ruler acceded to India and begged us to stop his people being butchered by PA and uncouth tribesmen from far away, we did the right thing.

--
cool

 

[Kaniska]

I cant say much but thank you for the answer atleast someone replied to it

Let us be honest..Do you think it is practically possible for India to allow Hyderabad as a state of Pakisan in the middle of India..See what you have done to BD...BD was a bigger territory...But you could not retain it...Same goes for Hyderabad too...Of course i agree..Kashmir based on Muslim majority can be part of Pakistan...But you guys faltered...Pakistan always focous too much on military power than diplomatic power...So you guys faltered in Kashmir..That is reality...It is easier for India to buy time in Kashmir as it will make it stand more stronger...And again, Pakistan could not stablize itself after independence...So your diplomatic clout is diminished to make any headway in Kashmir..

 

[Pakistani till death]

Let us be honest..Do you think it is practically possible for India to allow Hyderabad as a state of Pakisan in the middle of India..See what you have done to BD...BD was a bigger territory...But you could not retain it...Same goes for Hyderabad too...Of course i agree..Kashmir based on Muslim majority can be part of Pakistan...But you guys faltered...Pakistan always focous too much on military power than diplomatic power...So you guys faltered in Kashmir..That is reality...It is easier for India to buy time in Kashmir as it will make it stand more stronger...And again, Pakistan could not stablize itself after independence...So your diplomatic clout is diminished to make any headway in Kashmir..

I fully agree with you pakistan failed in bd and would have failed in hyderabad but lets look at other reasons for bd leaving just to make it short lets take the mujibur rehmans 6 points. He basically through them wanted east pakistan to become a separate country just have the same name. East and west pak were never one the bengalis only joined us as they thought they would completely rule themselves which was not the case

 

[genmirajborgza786]

And how can we trust indians with that after all you betrayed us in the past when we agreed to a ceasefire when nehru told us india would hold a referendum. Did india hold it?

look if you were so serious to resolve the Kashmir issue then, after Atal bihari Vajpayee visited Lahore, & agreed to talk on all out standing issues including Kashmir , that was the first time India agreed to talk on Kashmir after 1971 ! for 26 years they refused to even talk about Kashmir that was a no go area, & the Indians agreed to discuss the issue, & there was hope that a settlement might be possible heck even BBC was coming with possible solutions to the problem this was not some stone hearted Indira Gandhi but a humble old man Atal bihari Vajpayee who him self came to Lahore in a bus to make peace, if you were so serious & burdened by the suffering of the Kashmiris then you should have grabbed that opportunity with both your hands, & hold it tight , that should have been your course of action shouldn't it ? if you were so serious about resolving the Kashmir dispute, then you should have done everything in your power, to see that the atmosphere remains as cordial as possible. isn't it ? so that the issue could have been resolved, & the suffering of the Kashmiris that you are so concerned about, could have ended , but instead of doing that, what did your army do, do you realise what have your army done ? , right after Vajpayee's Lahore visit & the Lahore declaration where Kashmir was agreed to be discussed, for the first time in history after the Shimla agreement ! . your army attacked India in kargil ! & by doing so, your army had killed the Kashmir cause for good, they killed it with their own hand, it was over after that, the international community till then was sympathetic & even supportive towards the Kashmir cause , but after kargil , they turned their face away , the blunders made in the cold heights of the kargil misadventure, was more destructive to the Kashmir cause, then the entire freaking 700,000 troops of India in Kashmir , the only thing that one can say to your army regarding the kargil war is

my son , what have you done !

 

[gtrr]

All Kashmir (both sides) should get a vote & end this matter once & for all & move on .
Having no vote is having no voice .

title makes me laugh

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

Source: Should Kashmir get a chance to decide their future through Referendum? | Page 5

Indians voting No LOL but Kashmiris cant vote

 

[Kaniska]

I fully agree with you pakistan failed in bd and would have failed in hyderabad but lets look at other reasons for bd leaving just to make it short lets take the mujibur rehmans 6 points. He basically through them wanted east pakistan to become a separate country just have the same name. East and west pak were never one the bengalis only joined us as they thought they would completely rule themselves which was not the case

Yeh I agree with you..It is nice to have a rational and cool headed discussion with you on this Friday morning...Even i feel that initial days most of the Jammu and Kashmir muslims might be thinking to be with Pakistan..but i think situation is different now..They might be against India to some extent...but i doubt they would like to go with Pakistan...And again, because India and Pakistan has a trust deficit, so India will not even allow Kashmir valley to be a independent nation too...

 

[SR-91]

Those who want to align themselves with Pakistan, should be allowed to do so. But they have to leave India.

You guys needs to understand one thing, Pakistan was CREATED by DIVIDING India. There was no Pakistan before so called independence (by the way, you should celebrate Pakistan birthday, not independence day.). Now back to subject, if there are people who want to governed by pakistan, we have no problem sending them your-way.There should be no dispute relating to Kashmir.India gave you land, u guys just want more. We already lost a lot of land between Pakistan, Bangladesh and China. We will not give away our land anymore.

 

[scorpionx]

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.

This part I beg to differ with, sir. We, Indians with all our conscience alive, awarded Gilgit (Northern Areas) to Pakistan. According to Alastair Lamb " Pakistan would retain a direct territorial contact with China to be of immense geo-political significance in years to come. India would not acquire the direct territorial contact either with Afghanistan or with the NWFP and thus miss the consequent opportunities for intrigues with Pathans both in and outside Pakistan to the detriment of that country's integrity. It was a failure of India which would unquestionably contribute towards the survival of West Pakistan in future years."

Our failure to secure our command over the Mintaka pass which is considered to be the main artery to Central Asia was a grave mistake or fatal negligence and lack of strategic foresight which can not never be compensated by any means.

 

[thesolar65]

Nothing to write here..all discussed. Just came here to read and refresh my mind.

 

[Screambowl]

Independent Kashmir is not feasible.

 

[kaykay]

Kashmir is a very different issue than Scotland. Referendum is not an option and never will be.