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

[IND151]

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.

Its no secret that these tribes got help from PA whcih enabled them to create do or die situation for Maharaja.

Paksiatn's own deed made a room for us to intervene.

 

[scorpionx]

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.

Sir, with all due respect India's official positions on both Kashmir and Junagad are no different. Nehru emphatically declared on 2nd November'47 that when peace and the rule of the law had been established, to have a referendum held under some such international auspices as that of the United Nations. This assurance came on the backdrop of United States of America's official position on the issue that unless by a plebiscite India gets thrown out of the State, the instrument of accession makes India's authority valid and justified.

India never backed out from its commitment for referendum here as we would see in case of Junagad.After restoration of normalcy in Junagad, India held referendum there as per its previous promise. Out of 2,01,457 registered voters 1,90,870 supported the accession of the State by India. So there is no contradiction in India's position here.And this is also to be mentioned that Muslim or Hindu majority concept was applicable only to British provinces, not princely states.

 

[Storm Force]

I feel sorry for you people your talking about pie in the sky subjects like

Referendum
Right to decide

etc.

India is a bully and they have annexded kashmir and saichen AND dont plan to give it back

ITS AL;L ABOUT THE WATER

 

[MandarK]

The result:
1.1948 The Pakistan Army frees half of Kashmir from Indian Army.The Azad Kashmir.So victory for Pakistan in 1948.
2.1965 Won by Pakistan on all fronts from the Navy with the Brave Crew of Ghazi submarine which destroyed many indian vessels to the Brave M M.ALAM Becoming an ACE in 60 seconds.And i also have a concrete proof who won the second biggest Tank battle after WW2.With 200 tanks on Pakistan side and 300 tanks on the indian side.General Musharraf was also involved in this Tank battle.
Battle of Chawinda 1965 ( The Australian).
View attachment 63576
View attachment 63577
3.1971 Won by India backed by West Pakistan along with Russian.And Bangladesh came into being.
4.1999 Kargil war, No one won because Nuclear Weapons were going to be used. So a cease fire was signed.

1. In 1948 you didnot win even an inch of land from India. As a matter of fact we pushed back you from the outskirts of srinagar.

2. You attacked and eneded up defending lahore. No change in ground position.

Neutral assessments
There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

• According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States[73] –

The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

• TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.[74] The article further elaborates,

Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

• Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[75] –

The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

• In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",[76] Gertjan Dijkink writes –

The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

• An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India,[77] summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

• In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote[7] –

India won the war. It gained 1,840 km2 (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2(180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2 (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2 (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km2 (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.

• Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,[78]

Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.


3. Bangladesh Created.

4. Your PM went to US begging him to stop India.

​

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well , the region has no maturity only white people solve their problems with Dialog , it sounds racist but you need to develop a level of "maturity" and intellectual capacity and awareness of your world before you do stuff like vote for independence etc

It also helps their education does not focuses around Religion which makes them rational thinkers

USA - Canada open borders (even when UK burned down Washington president home)
Germany the head of EU , even after the WW2
Gas pipeline between Canada - USA
Open Trade again USA - Canada
Scotland and UK , wars - bloodshed yet living side by side
FULL scale trade germany - europe - north america

*Not to be confused with White vs Non white relations or support of Israel war crimes

I think white people have developed a sense of resolving issues with Dialogue with in their own society and type of people (White dealing with White countries)

This is aided by the education they get and also from a very secular mind set majority of them have which aids them to accept a rational view rather then a view mine or I will destroy the world concept which many south Asian counter parts believe.


South Asian culture is dominated by Sentimental Crap and it can never become aware of simplicity of Referendum, because they view the piece of land as their , mama , cha cha , aba , ma , or brother in law


Referendum , also works when cultures are not dominated by Religious fanatics on either side and who don't view the land as a issue that causes unnecessary rift and its a tool to get votes as well.



INDIA /PAKISTAN , is stuck in Sentimental world a mind set where logic goes , if I can't have the girl I will kill the girl then see her go to another person and this scenario is played out even on smaller scale you hear it in news , that a boy friend killed his girl friend because she decided to get married to someone else - its a CULTURAL mind set which is the problem

Heck the SOUTH ASIAN mind set even kills the daughter or son if they marry outside of their clan , how can people with such limited capacity to be Tolerant can agree to a Referendum
You hear it in news , these Mind sets and views are viewed on smaller scale how South Asians THINK , later also become relevant in how they view the issue of KASHMIRE

These stories are repeated in news on both side of country in daily newspapers or news channels.

When the POLITICAL heads give speeches and talk about KASHMIRE , sometimes their words remind me of that Angry boy friend warning the girl friend , he will not let her be happy
Or that obsessive parent telling his children you will not be allowed to marry outside of clan etc

The disputed land is viewed a PERSON , and which creates this SENTIMENTAL attachment rather then view the problem as a simple case of Referendum

Also note the both Canada / USA share great lakes drinkable water and Niagara Falls


Caption:
#1 PAPA , main ne shadi bahar karni hai mujhe love ho geya hai
#2 PAPA , UN is right we need voting done in KASHMIR

 

[Valkyrie]

Its no secret that these tribes got help from PA whcih enabled them to create do or die situation for Maharaja.

Paksiatn's own deed made a room for us to intervene.

Conspiracy theories and speculations, nothing more.

 

[Valkyrie]

Sir, with all due respect India's official positions on both Kashmir and Junagad are no different. Nehru emphatically declared on 2nd November'47 that when peace and the rule of the law had been established, to have a referendum held under some such international auspices as that of the United Nations. This assurance came on the backdrop of United States of America's official position on the issue that unless by a plebiscite India gets thrown out of the State, the instrument of accession makes India's authority valid and justified.

India never backed out from its commitment for referendum here as we would see in case of Junagad.After restoration of normalcy in Junagad, India held referendum there as per its previous promise. Out of 2,01,457 registered voters 1,90,870 supported the accession of the State by India. So there is no contradiction in India's position here.And this is also to be mentioned that Muslim or Hindu majority concept was applicable only to British provinces, not princely states.

I'm sorry if i'm drawing the wrong conclusion here but you seemed to imply Junagadh wasn't a princely state which is absolutely wrong. The state of Junagadh was ruled by Mohammad Mahabat Khanji III (1911 - 1948) like Kashmir was ruled by Hari Singh (1925-1947).
Now since both Kashmir and Junagadh were princely states, why did India treat each of them differently? If you're state policy is to take the say of rulers of the state to be final, then Kashmir belongs to India and Junagadh belongs to Pakistan. But if you believe that people of princely state should have the right to decide their future then why don't you grant Kashmiris their right of self-determination as you gave this right to people of Junagadh?
See, this is the hypocrisy i'm talking about.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

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.

The maharaja had the right to make his choice- who the hell are you to question that?

 

[scorpionx]

I'm sorry if i'm drawing the wrong conclusion here but you seemed to imply Junagadh wasn't a princely state which is absolutely wrong. The state of Junagadh was ruled by Mohammad Mahabat Khanji III (1911 - 1948) like Kashmir was ruled by Hari Singh (1925-1947).
Now since both Kashmir and Junagadh were princely states, why did India treat each of them differently? If you're state policy is to take the say of rulers of the state to be final, then Kashmir belongs to India and Junagadh belongs to Pakistan. But if you believe that people of princely state should have the right to decide their future then why don't you grant Kashmiris their right of self-determination as you gave this right to people of Junagadh?
See, this is the hypocrisy i'm talking about.

This is exactly what I am saying that the Muslim majority or Hindu majority concept was never applicable to the princely states of Junagad and Kashmir. India accepted Maharajah's instrument of accession but it never backed away from its commitment from holding a referendum in both the states. India never said that Hari Singh's accession was the last words in kashmir.There are certain clauses prescribed by the UN that both the countries have not agreed upon otherwise the Indian leaders back in 47-48 were always open for any UN suggestion. Mountbatten had enormous influence on Nehru and this was staunchly preached by him that India must and must hold a referendum when peace settles down in the valley. India never rejected it.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Conspiracy theories and speculations, nothing more.

it's widely accepted

 

[American Pakistani]

With out any doubt, YES. Why would Pakistanis(Kashmiris) live with India? They've rejected India, the only thing that is making it possible for India to stay there is their 7 lakh Occupier terrorists, who terrorize innocent Kashmiris since 1948.

 

[American Pakistani]

Betaji, why would Hindu Jammu go to Muslim failed state?

Because they are minority and they don't wish to be part of "R" & "P" Republic.

On "Muslim Failed State" - Yesterday in my school they show us pictures of Indian streets & I was like wtf these internet Indians brag about.

 

[Established_1965]

With current economy and terrorist crisis in Pakistan, i don't think Kashmir will be going towards Pakistan.

 

[ranjeet]

Why do People here start whining about Kashmir once a month on a regular basis like it's some sort of a natural cycle.

 

[Valkyrie]

This is exactly what I am saying that the Muslim majority or Hindu majority concept was never applicable to the princely states of Junagad and Kashmir. India accepted Maharajah's instrument of accession but it never backed away from its commitment from holding a referendum in both the states. India never said that Hari Singh's accession was the last words in kashmir.There are certain clauses prescribed by the UN that both the countries have not agreed upon otherwise the Indian leaders back in 47-48 were always open for any UN suggestion. Mountbatten had enormous influence on Nehru and this was staunchly preached by him that India must and must hold a referendum when peace settles down in the valley. India never rejected it.

So India agrees that a referendum must be held in Kashmir?