The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[ejaz007]

This is Indian map as is shown on UN website. Take a close look, Kashmir is disputed territory. If its India's integral part than why does't India object to it.

http://cyberschoolbus.un.org/infonation/maps/india.gif

 

[Omar1984]

Azad Kashmir is a area created by pakistan to send terrors into India. its around 13 thousnad sq km land across border. If you look at the map the kashmir the disputed area is too big compare to azad kashmir. Azad kashmir is financially and defence belongs to pakistan.
Pakistan supporting terrors and escapting from international community that its not responsible for kashmir violation.

How can Pakistan create any area?

You should do a research on different kinds of people living all across Jammu and Kashmir. Theres many variety of people, who speak different languages, have different cultures. People of Northern Areas share no cultural or linguistic characteristics with people of Kashmir so they dont call themselves Kashmiris or their land Kashmir.
Some people of Azad Kashmir are culturally and linguistically same to the people of Kashmir Valley (in Indian occupied Kashmir), and some are culturally and linguistically similar to people of Northern Punjab of Pakistan...they've been living together in their land for thousands of years...they call themselves Kashmiris and call their land Kashmir thats why their land is called Azad Kashmir...they are not terrorists, they are regular people who go to universities, work in banks, work as doctors, lawyers, politicians..have families.

You roopesh are one very ignorant person. It would help to learn about the people that you so dream to rule.

 

[Salahadin]

As the world knows Kashmir is the main cause of contention between Pakistan and India since 1948. Pakistan has always desired to resolve this dispute in-accordance with the UN`s Resolution of 1948 or through bilateral talks on the basis of the `Principle of Division` of 1947, but India always avoided it taking different pleas and excuses which clearly show her disinterest in resolving this issue, hence, contradicting its own stands and pleas, over the period, mentioned as below.
1. Kashmir, Hyderabad (Deccan) and Junagarh were declared as sovereign states at the time of partition in 1947. India took over Kashmir in 1948 taking the plea that Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir, had opted to go by India, although majority of the population of Kashmir, app.85%, consisted of Muslims. But, on the other hand, at the same time India also invaded Hyderabad (Deccan) and Junagarh taking the plea that the majority of the population, of these states, consists of Hindus whereas the Nawabs, of these states, had opted to go by Pakistan, at the time of Partition in 1947. Isn`t it biggest hypocrisy and self-contradiction of India?

2. The late Pundit Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, took the case of Kashmir to UN but did not accept UN`s Resolution for a plebiscite in Kashmir and now India has somersaulted and trying to make it a "bilateral issue". But, whenever there is an indigenous uprising in Kashmir, India always seek help from international community to intervene assuring to resolve the `issue` through `talks`. And when the intensity, in uprising, cools down, India starts avoiding the `talks` and after some time, takes the plea that Kashmir is an `integral part` of India so she cannot discuss this issue, again hypocrisy and self-contradiction of India prevails.

3. India has turned down arbitration offers from at least six heads of state during the last 15 years.

WHY? The answer is simple because her case is too weak to take any stand as if it is decided on merit, by any arbitrator, India is definitely going to lose it. Moreover, logically too, a weaker side will never opt to accept arbitration so does India.

Now again, India did not like US President Barack Obama`s remarks about settlement of Kashmir issue for a perpetual peace in the region. He gave his simple and logical analysis, foreseeing an atomic war between these two countries and the destruction at both the sides, if the issue remains unresolved further more. The appointment of an ambassador, for South Asia by him, is a good step towards resolving this issue, which is also a sort of his efforts for arbitration to resolve the issue amicably but India seemed to be reluctant to cooperate with US President Barack Obama, to resolve this issue.

India also did not like British Foreign Secretary`s remarks about Kashmir and its leaders are perturbed ever since. The pre-partition India was a British colony that is why British Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, feeling the responsibility to get this burning issue resolved which, ultimately, will lead to nuclear war between these two countries if the issue remains unresolved further.

Moreover, the unfortunate people of Kashmir may also be able get a sigh of relief after sacrificing at least 90,000, their near and dear ones, killed so far, since 1989, apart from rapes, burning of houses and shops, mosques and extra judicial killings their young ones which is going on since 1948, to-date, by Indian army and the police. The international community`s `giants` are also feeling to restrain both the nuclear arch rivals before it is too late and, thus, have decided to play an arbitrator`s role to defuse the dangerous situation as both these countries are on the brink of atomic war. If India does NOT obey international consensus, on this issue, then there is every possibility that India will drag Pakistan into an atomic war which will result in an unimaginable destruction on both the sides.

Pakistani government and the people are fully prepared to face "come what may" situation, but NOT prepared to give-up the issue at all. This is a major issue and has to be settled under any circumstances, however, if it is not decided even, through "Tripartite Talks", including the US ambassador for South Asia as a party, then it will be decided after the (nuclear) war which will prove to be horrific and devastating for both and then international community will forcibly intervene to decide it on merit and i.e. to hold plebiscite in Kashmir, in accordance with the UN Resolution of 1948 which, then, India will have to accept it.

Therefore, isn`t it better for India to accept it now, well before the holocaust of the nuclear war? There is no other dispute between Pakistan and India so once this dispute is resolved there will be total peace and harmony in the region. The people, of both the countries, will visit each other freely and it is quite likely that the visa restriction may be relaxed to the extent that it may be available on arrival at the borders. There will be no restriction on Indians to visit Kashmir or any part of Pakistan and the same for Pakistanis.

The trade and industry of both the countries will also prosper and flourish. There will be a boom in the tourism industry as the people of both the countries will throng the tourism spots in both the countries. Therefore, only India holds the key to make it or break it now but if India doesn`t want to give it up now then the (nuclear) war will decide it, as stated before, and then India will be forced to give-up, Kashmir, through international community`s pressure. It is clearly written on the wall but India is ignoring it.

End.

 

[afriend]

THROUGH A propaganda offensive an impression is being sought to be created that most Kashmiri Muslims are for joining Pakistan. To prove the point, the support being received by the pro-Pakistan elements from the people for its calls for bandhs and demonstrations, is being cited. It must be understood that the pro-Pakistan element in Kashmir wield the gun and the gun, as we know, can get the people to do a lot of things, which may not have been possible otherwise.

Without doubt the introduction of violence and the gun makes any movement look much larger than it actually is. Let the pro-Pakistanis drop the gun and show to the world how many Kashmiri Muslims are on their side. But this they obviously cannot do.

Notwithstanding, self-determination as its “rallying cry”, what is going on in Kashmir is Pakistan’s proxy war under the guise of local insurgency. Under this game plan terror must remain an indispensable weapon for garnering people’s support for the dubious cause.


The genuineness of the support of the people for the cause – be it Azadi, self-determination or accession to Pakistan – may be gauged from the fact that the terrorists, (majority of whom are foreigners), have had to kill thousands Kashmiris to subdue their voice and control the situation in Pakistan.


The role of terror in insurgency has been highlighted by numerous experts on the subject. All agree that terror that is employed in urban insurgency is of two types – selective terror and indiscriminate terror.


While selective terror is used to coerce cooperation and to neutralise actual or potential individual enemies, indiscriminate terror is, according to the veteran French fighter and author, Roger Trinquier, a “particularly appropriate weapon” for “bringing the populace under control”.


A shattering effect of indiscriminate terror on the population is caused when, as Trinquier puts it, “in the street, at work, at home, the citizen lives continually under the threat of violent death” and “in the presence of this permanent danger surrounding him, he has the depressing feeling of being an isolated and defenceless target”.

The fact that the public authority and the police are no longer capable of ensuring his security adds to his distress.


Consequently he “loses confidence in the state whose inherent mission it is to guarantee his safety” and gets “more and more drawn to the side of the terrorists”, who alone seem to be able to protect him.

Trinquier also explains, why it is difficult to catch the terrorist. The terrorist, he argues, kills without personal interest and without the motive that could provide the police with leads, while he is surrounded by a vast organisation which prepares his tasks and assures his withdrawal and protection.


To top it all, “he runs practically no risks - neither that of retaliation by his victims nor that of having to appear before a court of justice”; it being “quite easy under the existing laws to escape the police”.

Both selective and indiscriminate killings have, indeed, been carried out in Kashmir as per the text book, not only for silencing dissent but also for ensuring positive support of the intelligentsia for their cause.

Even as there is a long list of intellectuals killed by the insurgents for refusing to follow their dictates, there are a lot more of them, who, though at one time on the hit list of the insurgents, have bought their lives through written assurances of such support as may be demanded of them.

These are the intellectuals in the Valley who speak up for the insurgents and, who, while lending dignity to every insurgent activity, make wild allegations against the government and the security forces; if only for discrediting the two as per dictates of the insurgents.
The fact of the matter is that people, who are faced with terrorism are not so much concerned with ideologies and causes as they are with their security and have a tendency to flock around the side that can ensure this.

When the terrorists have the upper hand they are with them and when the security forces dominate, they switch loyalty towards the government.


Punjab may be taken as a case in point. There was a time when a large majority appeared to be pro-Khalistan, today, when terrorism stands totally eliminated, there is hardly any one, who would appear to be its protagonist.The strong action taken by the state and the centre against the terrorists emboldened the people to veer back to the constitutional authority. Such strong action against the terrorists and their supporters seem to be lacking in Kashmir and, therefore, this apparent support of the people for the militants.
In this connection it would be pertinent to look back into the period between the Pakistani invasion of Kashmir in 1947 and the start of its proxy war in the State in 1989 when the pro-Pakistani element had no guns to support its cause.
While the Kashmiri Muslims largely and unmistakably welcomed the Maharaja’s decision to accede the State to the Indian Union to save them from the Pakistani marauders, masquerading as “liberators”, they gave a befitting rebuff to Pakistan in all the three wars it fought with India over Kashmir during this period.
The refusal of the Kashmiri Muslims to cooperate with the armed infiltrators that Pakistan had pushed into Kashmir during the Indo-Pak war of 1965, for inciting the Kashmiri Muslims to revolt against the so called “Indian occupation” of the State, is considered, in authoritative military circles, as the single major factor that caused the failure of Pakistan’s design to take Kashmir by force.

It is only after 1989, when Pakistan started pushing in armed terrorists into Kashmir that the pro-Pakistan element has been able to raise its head in Kashmir.

Even in context of the present situation in Kashmir, why talk of only those Kashmiri Muslims who are supporting the terrorists whatever the circumstances under which they may be doing so.

What about those, who are bravely standing up to them. It is a fact that behind every success of the Security Forces there is the "tip off", from none other than the Muslims, which continues to flow-in despite the brutality with which even those suspected of having links with the security forces are treated by the terrorists.

Let us also not forget that during the last elections held while Pakistan’s proxy war, (which it has been trying to pass off as local insurgency), was at its height the Kashmiri Muslims went out to vote in face of threats of having their hands and fingers maimed – threats that were not only made, but also carried out a number of times.

May be only 10 per cent went out to vote (as alleged) but then how many other states in India could boast of even this percentage of brave people, who would go to vote under such circumstances. God willing they may even better their showing at the hustings due in the coming months. (AND THEY DID)This is the only way they can cast the yoke of the terrorists from off their backs and breathe free once again.

Kashmiri Muslims not in favour of Pakistan

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes indeed, and what better way to illustrate this than through a plebiscite.

India needs to put its money where its mouth is otherwise this is just nonsense and propaganda to make its citizens feel better about occupying another people and their land.

 

[Beskar]

Well AM, what CAN we expect? On their side of the border, Kashmir is an "Integral part of India" on the map and in their spirits, and Azad Kashmir is Azad Kashmir (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir)

Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. At least they still know how to humour us.

 

[ahmeddsid]

I say, Let the terrorists or so called "freedom fighters" stop getting Zilch support from across the border, and then We can Think Of Plebiscite. Isnt that fair?? How would you feel If some guys came over to ur house and pointed a gun and said "Dont Vote or else we will kill you!" The People voted inspite of that, You know why? Because They know, How much of a special status India gives Kashmir! Oh Come on, Its unfair sometimes because a Kashmiri can come to my state and settle down, But I cant go to his state and do the same! Now arent they getting all the protection from other states people running over their state? Which state has such a rule? Which state has special mention in the Constitution Of India!

I say let Terrorism stop, let all of them lay down their arms, and then We can talk Peace. There is no way Peace can be hammered out under the influence of Guns!

 

[afriend]

Yes indeed, and what better way to illustrate this than through a plebiscite.

India needs to put its money where its mouth is otherwise this is just nonsense and propaganda to make its citizens feel better about occupying another people and their land.

Well from what i read and understood fromt he article was, 10% came voted and author seems to back it, but why the rest didnt turn up he gives his explanations. So do you think it would be a fair deal in conduciting a plebiscite now if majority of india believs what is written in the article is true??? Author wonderfully drew parrellels between khalistan movement and kashmiri insurgency.

From the above article i would say.

1. Forgien militants to lay down the arms(pakistan should give assurance to that).
2. If that promise is full filled and every one is satisfied, Indian army should remove itself from kashmir valley.
3. Integrate Northern Areas,Azad Kashmir and Aksai chin(may be under your control and governce or support as in azad kashmir).
4. Ensure no outside people are in the above integrated entity, pass a law that no pakistani can buy land in these areas.
5. Let the status quo remain for another 10-15 years.
6. Then lets talk about plebiscite.

And i am sure that if such a situation arises india would be confident in conducting UN resolution in kashmir. Peace in kashmir for 10-15 years and then a plebiscite.!!! Wot do you say..????

 

[Omar1984]

You Indians are really thinking out of your back sides. We know some Kashmiris dont want to be part of Pakistan and rather have an independent country, but no way do most Kashmiris want to be part of India. If thats true why dont u indians allow a plebiscite. Why u all went crazy when Obama even mentioned Kashmir.

Independence or be part of Pakistan..we just want Kashmir out of India and thats what Kashmiris want too. Stop posting biased indian articles.

 

[roopesh]

I have beeeeeeeeeen keep telling the same thing.. First peace then we can talk about. Pakistan need to believe in GANDHIIGIRI now and first show how much pakistan wants kashmirs peace on first page rather than attacking.

 

[roopesh]

You Indians are really thinking out of your back sides. We know some Kashmiris dont want to be part of Pakistan and rather have an independent country, but no way do most Kashmiris want to be part of India. If thats true why dont u indians allow a plebiscite. Why u all went crazy when Obama even mentioned Kashmir.

Independence or be part of Pakistan..we just want Kashmir out of India and thats what Kashmiris want too. Stop posting biased indian articles.

Why do u bring OBAMA. Is it his property to give? Go and take. Today US told they dont come between kashmir issue. Why shall india accept what pak wants in its favour on first place? If you ppl are so much intersted in kashmir ppl then first stop supporting terrors. If ur concerned about muslims pls fight of palestine.
IF some one creating a constant threat to india why will idnia honor their request. We need to kill them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

1. Forgien militants to lay down the arms(pakistan should give assurance to that).
2. If that promise is full filled and every one is satisfied, Indian army should remove itself from kashmir valley.
3. Integrate Northern Areas,Azad Kashmir and Aksai chin(may be under your control and governce or support as in azad kashmir).
4. Ensure no outside people are in the above integrated entity, pass a law that no pakistani can buy land in these areas.
5. Let the status quo remain for another 10-15 years.
6. Then lets talk about plebiscite.

I don't think that is a bad compromise - provided we can have ironclad guarantees from both sides that this time one side will not back out (as happened with the UNSC resolutions) and we would need international monitors in AK and IK to verify that the agreement was being adhered to.

India gets peace and development in the valley for 10 - 15 years, and therefore a chance to 'win' the Kashmiris over, and Pakistan gets the same chance plus its demands for a plebiscite ten years down the road.

But a guaranteed plebiscite in 10-15 years needs to be part of the original agreement, not something to 'talk about down the road'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Threads merged.

 

[Omar1984]

Why do u bring OBAMA. Is it his property to give? Go and take. Today US told they dont come between kashmir issue. Why shall india accept what pak wants in its favour on first place? If you ppl are so much intersted in kashmir ppl then first stop supporting terrors. If ur concerned about muslims pls fight of palestine.
IF some one creating a constant threat to india why will idnia honor their request. We need to kill them.

No ones supporting terrors, we are supporting Kashmiri Mujahideens, if you dont know the defination of a Mujahideen ask a Kashmiri brother he will tell you.

We want Kashmiri people to decide what they want for their land, we are not forcing them to be part of Pakistan. We want to hear from the voices of Kashmiri people what they want for their land. If they say they want to be part of India, we will move on and Kashmir dispute is over. Only way to hear their voices is through a FAIR plebiscite.

This Kashmir dispute is a dispute between Pakistan and India, Palestine is not a dispute for Pakistan. Pakistan must work with the indians to solve this dispute, and if india is unwilling...we welcome US to intervene.

 

[afriend]

You Indians are really thinking out of your back sides. We know some Kashmiris dont want to be part of Pakistan and rather have an independent country, but no way do most Kashmiris want to be part of India. If thats true why dont u indians allow a plebiscite. Why u all went crazy when Obama even mentioned Kashmir.

Independence or be part of Pakistan..we just want Kashmir out of India and thats what Kashmiris want too. Stop posting biased indian articles.

OMAR first i would say NOW IS NOT THE TIME. There are two options. Indians either dont want it.. or if it wants EVER LASTING Peace with pakistan india should have meaningful talk with pakistan and settle kashmir issue. This goes both ways..either pakistan wants peace with india, or it kashmir for itself..

Now if you openly support the "SO CALLED FREEDOM STRUGGLE" for which we have another meaning. Then ask us to implement plebiscite, then do you think india would do that..???

As an indian i would say LETS FIRST GIVE PEACE A CHANCE and then implementaiton of UN resoltuion. But for that DIALOGUE IS THE way and dialogue should not be with an objective to get maximum mileage but a decision which keeps in mind the aspiration of kashmiries as well as a decision which satisfies both parties.. And it should be done also with the objective we are going to achieve I.E PEACE WITH PAKISTAN AND INDIA In the years to come, From enimes to Friends. Now think what we can achieve if this is settelled. For that first we should trust each others intentions.

For this if you threaten india and say my version is write and you should keep off from kashmir and vice versa.. we are going to be living in this uncertinity in the years to come and our future generations will be enimes beyond reconciliation.