The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[srijeesh]

srijeesh and kenchabhai, u guys havent read the full story
its not about the elections [which were fixed anyway or a pro-indian party would have never won, also the many voters stated just because they voted doesn't mean they dont want freedom from india] its about india's negligence of the kashmiri people's aspirations and their inhuman acts against them.

evidence that voters still want azaadi

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Unusual rush of voters in Kashmir

One voter, Ali Mohammad, told the BBC: "We support azaadi (independence from India), but elections are important for the day-to-day administration. We need a government."

the elections were free and fair, this was accepted world wide including UN, unlike election in PaOK.

of course, there are STILL lot of kashmiris who may desire azadi, but there has been a remarkable change in the attitude. they are now willing to participate in indian democracy and choose their govt. so, it is proven that when insurgancy and crossborder terrorism are not present, kashmiris are willing to participate in indian democracy. this is a very encouraging situation for india and discouraging for its detractors.
and the fact that ppl chose pro-delhi parties makes the indian view stronger that kashmiris need development and nothing else.

 

[srijeesh]

Also here's another article that supports that

"No, no, I don't accept rule by New Delhi. I will never abandon the dream of azadi. But I am also a citizen. I have basic needs for myself and my family. Will the separatists provide those? Only the government can, so I voted," Jaleel said. [/b]

this is exactly wat india wants. the ppl to realise that separatists are useless when it comes to providing ppl, this can be done only by govt. and this realisation is dawning on them. matter of few more years.

 

[metalfalcon]

this is exactly wat india wants. the ppl to realise that separatists are useless when it comes to providing ppl, this can be done only by govt. and this realisation is dawning on them. matter of few more years.

Read it again "He said he will never drop the demand for Azaadi"

 

[srijeesh]

Read it again "He said he will never drop the demand for Azaadi"

he has accepted that he is a citizen and has recognised that only participating in election is beneficial to him and not boycotting the elections as advised by separatists.
isnt that enough for now.
has for 'demand for azadi', india is happy as long as they keep it with in their heart and work with their head.

 

[UnitedPak]

he has accepted that he is a citizen and has recognised that only participating in election is beneficial to him and not boycotting the elections as advised by separatists.
isnt that enough for now.
has for 'demand for azadi', india is happy as long as they keep it with in their heart and work with their head.

So suffer in silence as opposed to out loud?

 

[srijeesh]

So suffer in silence as opposed to out loud?

they have suffered till now due to terrorism not allowing them to assert their rights in elections. this time they were allowed and they gave the decision. the govt formed is pro-delhi. that speaks for itslef.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

they have suffered till now due to terrorism not allowing them to assert their rights in elections. this time they were allowed and they gave the decision. the govt formed is pro-delhi. that speaks for itslef.

Violence was a result of the Indian occupation and violation of her commitments to Pakistan, the Kashmiris and the international community in teh United Nations and of the Instrument of Partition.

I agree that the Kashmiris shoudl choose peaceful political protest instead of violence, but India should also choose to honor its agreements and obligations and allow a referendum, or is India allowed to commit whatever illegal and immoral crime it wants just so it can hold onto territory? The latter is how criminals and rogue states behave.

 

[srijeesh]

Violence was a result of the Indian occupation and violation of her commitments to Pakistan, the Kashmiris and the international community in teh United Nations and of the Instrument of Partition.

I agree that the Kashmiris shoudl choose peaceful political protest instead of violence, but India should also choose to honor its agreements and obligations and allow a referendum, or is India allowed to commit whatever illegal and immoral crime it wants just so it can hold onto territory? The latter is how criminals and rogue states behave.

yes, protests should be peaceful and not violent, but there was no protest in elections. they chose pro-delhi parties and completely rejected the separatists' call for boycott. so one shouldnt view those elections as violence.

the rest of the post is your opinion and I dont share it. agreements that have no relevance to the situations on ground cant be expected to be followed. and the world has moved on from that situation also. the most recent statement of US saying the kashmir is internal matter of india and not sending envoy there was a good reminder to all concerned.

 

[bushwhacker91]

Violence was a result of the Indian occupation and violation of her commitments to Pakistan, the Kashmiris and the international community in teh United Nations and of the Instrument of Partition.

I agree that the Kashmiris shoudl choose peaceful political protest instead of violence, but India should also choose to honor its agreements and obligations and allow a referendum, or is India allowed to commit whatever illegal and immoral crime it wants just so it can hold onto territory? The latter is how criminals and rogue states behave.

What "commitments" does India have to Pakistan?
UN asked for a plebiscite and not a referendum. Both are bizzarly different. And it also said in 2005 that UN resolution on Kashmir was not binding on India.

I think instead of asking India to fulfill its commitments, Pakistan should show India as well the world on how much it really cares about terror, by destroying the 40+ terror trainind camps in ***.

India allowed to commit whatever illegal and immoral crime it wants just so it can hold onto territory

Atleast we dont sponsor killing of our own Muslim brothers in the name of Islam, by sending in armed rebels.

So suffer in silence as opposed to out loud?

Had Kashmiri's been suffering, and not been granted freedom of speech, you wouldn't have seen the highest voter turnout in Kashmir in 60 years. Most of them know that Indian side of Kashmir is far more developed than Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

Take a look at what Supreme court of Pakistan had to say about Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a stinging broadside of Islamabad’s oppressive, undemocratic and colonial subjugation of the Northern Areas of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, pronouncing “it was not understandable on what basis the people of Northern Areas can be denied the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution” i.e. right to equality before law, right to reside and move freely, right to vote, right to be governed by their chosen representatives, right to form political parties, right to assemble peacefully, right to freedom of speech and expression, right to habeas corpus and against illegal detention, right to acquire, hold and dispose property, and the right to have access to an appellate court of justice for the enforcement of all other rights guaranteed under the latest constitution of the country (since independence, Pakistan has devised and binned three written constitutions and the standing fourth one was drawn up in 1985).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

the rest of the post is your opinion and I dont share it. agreements that have no relevance to the situations on ground cant be expected to be followed. and the world has moved on from that situation also. the most recent statement of US saying the kashmir is internal matter of india and not sending envoy there was a good reminder to all concerned.

What "commitments" does India have to Pakistan?
UN asked for a plebiscite and not a referendum. Both are bizzarly different. And it also said in 2005 that UN resolution on Kashmir was not binding on India.

I think instead of asking India to fulfill its commitments, Pakistan should show India as well the world on how much it really cares about terror, by destroying the 40+ terror trainind camps in ***.

Atleast we dont sponsor killing of our own Muslim brothers in the name of Islam, by sending in armed rebels.

The vast majority of the Kashmirir camps in Pakistan are not 'terrorist camps', they are Freedom Fighters, and the right to fight an occupation is recognized by the world community, so long as innocents are not targeted. When groups like LeT have stepped completely out of line like they allegedly did in Mumbai, we acted against them and shut down their camps. However attacks on Indian occupation forces are not 'terrorism' and completely legitemate, since India is in occupation of the territory in violation of bilateral and international commitments.

On those commitments, call it a plebiscite - the fact is that India, Pakistan and the British agreed in the Instrument of Partition that any disputed accession would be resolved through a plebisicte, and this was explicitly stated in the case of the Kashmir accession. This constitutes a bilateral agreement with Pakistan (or trilateral if you include the British). The international commitments and obligations came about when India accepted in the UNSC, multiple times, the fact that Kashmir was both disputed and to be resolved via a referendum.

India's PM Nehru made several public statements to this effect that he would honor these commitments and a plebiscite would be held, unfortunately, Pakistan believed him and the result was apparent a few years later, when Nehru completely back stabbed Pakistan and unilaterally violated those commitments.

The UNSC resolutions and those commitments are just as valid today, becasue the reality of the situation is that the region remains disputed and under Indian occupation, and to resolve that situation the only fair way is to conduct a plebisicte, in some shape or form.

 

[Contrarian]

Hehe, justify the action all you want guys, but the blatant facts are-the Kashmiri's defied boycott calls of the election called by the Hurriyat leaders. And the Hurriyat leaders were ALL united this time! And this was RIGHT after the Amarnath land row when emotions were charged up.

And compare this with yesteryears, when boycott calls were always succesfull when the Hurriyat leaders were all in different camps/factions, and things had been very peacefull for a long while before the elections.

I'll say something has definitely turned a corner in Kashmir. You can decide your reasons for what happened, but its pretty visible to me!

 

[TheLord]

Violence was a result of the Indian occupation and violation of her commitments to Pakistan, the Kashmiris and the international community in teh United Nations and of the Instrument of Partition.

Repeating the same phrase doesn't make it the truth. Pakistan occupied the independent Kashmir. Instrumentation of accession is not related here. Kashmir decided to remain independent. Pakistan invaded the Kashmir. We were there to throw out the occupying Pakistanis. Still Pakistan is occupying some part of it.

We made a blunder by bringing the UN in to this. That doesn't mean we have to repeat it. The UN resolution is non binding.

 

[dabong1]

yes, protests should be peaceful and not violent, but there was no protest in elections. they chose pro-delhi parties and completely rejected the separatists' call for boycott. so one shouldnt view those elections as violence..

Every single kashmiri that was asked by the international media if there vote was a vote for india was rejected outright by kashmiris.......all agreed that the elections where nothing more then a vote for getting the water and electric sorted out.

You can fool yourselfs into thinking that the kashmiris love india but the kashmiris reject india.

the rest of the post is your opinion and I dont share it. agreements that have no relevance to the situations on ground cant be expected to be followed. and the world has moved on from that situation also. the most recent statement of US saying the kashmir is internal matter of india and not sending envoy there was a good reminder to all concerned.

Pakistan is forfilling its obligations to the peace plan laid out by clinton a decade ago.
Stop cross border movement of fighter.......pakistan has done that.
Elections in IOK take place with no violence....pakistan obliged.

Its your turn to move but now you have the mumbai excuse........it will not last and your going to have to make your move now......otherwise the US will be sending a special envoy

 

[TheLord]

The vast majority of the Kashmirir camps in Pakistan are not 'terrorist camps', they are Freedom Fighters,

If they are freedom fighters, then should have been fighting the Pakistan tribes men and the PA, who invaded the independent Kashmir. Here they are joining hands the occupying forces to fight the liberators. Hence they are traitors and oppressors.

 

[dabong1]

Hehe, justify the action all you want guys, but the blatant facts are-the Kashmiri's defied boycott calls of the election called by the Hurriyat leaders. And the Hurriyat leaders were ALL united this time! And this was RIGHT after the Amarnath land row when emotions were charged up.

And compare this with yesteryears, when boycott calls were always succesfull when the Hurriyat leaders were all in different camps/factions, and things had been very peacefull for a long while before the elections.

I'll say something has definitely turned a corner in Kashmir. You can decide your reasons for what happened, but its pretty visible to me!

Its all part of the clinton plan........pakistan has so far has played ball and followed the plan......its now your turn but the mumbai excuse.