The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[karan.1970]

No problem......lets get the NA-AJK-IOK to have a vote......either freedom...join pakistan or india.......ru guys willing to have a vote under the UN or international observers?

Its like a broken record... Not going to happen... India will not allow pakistan to dictate its policies in a state of India..A 60 year old resolution that even UN does not believe in finds credence only in Pakistan.. Instead of getting into the ideology of right and wrong, its pretty simple.. Pakistan can not enforce this... Rest of the world is not interested...

Pakistan realized this in 1965. Tried to execute a military solution and lost. What ever credibility Pakistan's stance of plebiscite existed before 1965 was lost along with the policitcal objectives of the war. And validation of that can be seen in the fact that since then there have been not a single UN resolution on the substantive aspects of the Jammu and Kashmir issue

 

[karan.1970]

^^ It's funny how these guys rush saving others back.

Didnt I see 3 comments on TP's original??.. hmm...

And Karan, i think you also need lessons in inglish.

I certainly do sir.. Inglish is a language I have not yet learnt..


But if you are referring to the meaning of smarta$$, then dumba$$ is as colloquial as smarta$$, isnt it??

 

[Xeric]

Its like a broken record... Not going to happen... India will not allow pakistan to dictate its policies in a state of India.

We already did, when you came running to us with moo mai ram ram, you forgot your country's U-turn on its rigid stance, boy.

A 60 year old resolution that even UN does not believe in finds credence only in Pakistan.. Instead of getting into the ideology of right and wrong, its pretty simple.. Pakistan can not enforce this... Rest of the world is not interested...

Resolutions doesnt find discredibility in 'years'.

And it is only india that is not interested because it knows it would received a face-palm to it. The world still stands by the resolution, just by someone saying that new option must be sought on Kashmir issue doesnt exactly mean the world is 'not interested'. But still, you may keep on soothing your brains.

Pakistan realized this in 1965. Tried to execute a military solution and lost. What ever credibility Pakistan's stance of plebiscite existed before 1965 was lost along with the policitcal objectives of the war. And validation of that can be seen in the fact that since then there have been not a single UN resolution on the substantive aspects of the Jammu and Kashmir issue

The first resolution stays orphaned and you are expecting more?

It is only this rigidness that india has been displaying that has always hindered the process. Just because india 'thinks' she can do whatever she likes, doesnt necessarily means that it is also right.

Dont worry, we wont be requiring another '65. Hint: india's 'friendship' offer.

 

[karan.1970]

We already did, when you came running to us with moo mai ram ram, you forgot your country's U-turn on its rigid stance, boy.

The stance on Kashmir doesnt change. Post pakistan's multiple requests to resume talks and Pakistan govt's movement on prosecution of some of the 26/11 accused, India has agreed to reinitiate talks about terrorism and water dispute. I anyway dont see much hope for these talks as they will be more of a photo Op than anything else. 25th is really not that far off.. No point in speculating..

Indian offer of limited talks dismays Pakistan - Yahoo! News

Resolutions doesnt find discredibility in 'years'.

And it is only india that is not interested because it knows it would received a face-palm to it. The world still stands by the resolution, just by someone saying that new option must be sought on Kashmir issue doesnt exactly mean the world is 'not interested'. But still, you may keep on soothing your brains.

While resolutions dont find discredibility in 'years' they do lose their practicality. By the way are there any other such resolutions (60 years old) that have neither been fulfilled not been followed up by subsequent resollutions by the UN

The end result does not change no matter how you interpret it. You can not enforce the change you want. You tried once and failed in 1965. Rest of the world is not supporting you to do that anymore beyond a lip service from some Arab countries when your dignitories go visiting..

The first resolution stays orphaned and you are expecting more?

Dead is more like it. btw in UN, resolutions when not fulfilled are generally followed by stricted resolutions and then sometimes sanctions.. See Iran, Iraq, even Israel (221 UNSC resolutions since 1948)..Do you see any regarding Kashmir post 1954 critisizing India ?? Or any resolution at all after 1965??

It is only this rigidness that india has been displaying that has always hindered the process. Just because india 'thinks' she can do whatever she likes, doesnt necessarily means that it is also right.

Xeric, unfortunately the perspectives of both the parties in this issue are with a phase lag of 180 degrees and you are expecting India to go the whole 180 degree shift. I have said it before .. will say it again.. either beat down india militarily or get off the horse of redrawing the boundaries because you will never get the 2nd without the 1st. Any thing inbetween these 2 extremes is definitely solvable by discussions, like the option suggested by All Green

Dont worry, we wont be requiring another '65. Hint: india's 'friendship' offer.

I hope Pakistan has the far sightedness to accept it and India has the statesmanship to not withdraw it.. Will be very happy if it happens but am not too hopeful at this time...

 

[EjazR]

Those advocating a plebescite have still not tried to deliberate on the point I raised earlier. As per the opinion poll, a plebescite will deliver a fractured verdict, with the Pakistani side of GB and Kashmir option of Pakistan, Jammu and Ladakh option of India and the valley for Indepedance.

Then what will the plebescite achieve? Because of the higher population of Jammu and Ladakh combined (including their significant muslim population). It is quite likely that in just a Pakistan India poll, India would win. But does that mean we force the 5 million people living in GB and PAkistani Kashmir to join India? Similarly, can we force Jammu or Ladakh or GB or Azad Kashmir to become independant when they clearly don't want that?

And what about the majority opinion (even in the valley) that the J&K should be secular. Will the Hizb and similar groups or the likes of Geelani agree to that?

Let me quote again from the report summary on the constitutional solution survey

Remarkably, when it came to the critical issues of the constitution the top priority (from a list of 29) was 'J and K should be a secular state' at 68% 'essential or desirable'. And although it will come as no surprise that 63% of Muslims in the Kashmir Valley reject the constitutional status quo of remaining with India as 'totally unacceptable' 69% of that same population also considered a merger with Pakistan to be 'totally unacceptable'. So a UN plebiscite that is limited to these two options (a priority for Muslims at 71% 'essential or desirable') can not solve the problem of Kashmir. The only way forward is negotiation and that is what the people want. Not the corrupt street politics of sectarian division and communal strife.

I personally think that the most practical solution may not be the most ideal. We can't wait or delay to get the BEST solution if we can get a more practical solution pushed forward. And we also have to keep in mind that not everyone will be happy. Some will vehemently oppose it, but staekholders should be broadbased and confident enough to push the solution through.

The closest we have been to getting a solution was during Musharraf-Singh era. If we are to believe the media reports, it was only an announcement away. Then that would probably the most practical solution if both govt. had agreed to it.

 

[Xeric]

The stance on Kashmir doesnt change. Post pakistan's multiple requests to resume talks and Pakistan govt's movement on prosecution of some of the 26/11 accused, India has agreed to reinitiate talks about terrorism and water dispute. I anyway dont see much hope for these talks as they will be more of a photo Op than anything else. 25th is really not that far off.. No point in speculating..

Indian offer of limited talks dismays Pakistan - Yahoo! News

We dont care if fails. That wouldnt be anything new. The only new thing this time being the U-turn by india.

You have been backing out of dialogues on one pretext or the other in the past, i dont mind that doing this time again.

For any dialouge to be successfyl there has to sincerity and seriousness. If the talks are just a drama, as this one is, there's no fun in initiating them. We would love to talk when issues like Water are also solved. Sticking to your side of the story and harping on your own tunes doesnt benefit us. i would once again repeat, the bagal mai chori moo mai ram ram wont work this time. Either india should be dead serious or it else can carry on with it rigidness and we dont seem to be caring

While resolutions dont find discredibility in 'years' they do lose their practicality. By the way are there any other such resolutions (60 years old) that have neither been fulfilled not been followed up by subsequent resollutions by the UN

So here we have a blatant refusal of UN resolutions. Is that your foreign policy or what? How shameless one needs to be to come out in open and declare that they give a tosh to an organizations decisions whom you want to give you a permanent seat?

i find it surprising that none of you have the neutrality to atleast admit that india has negated the resolution which indeed doesnt bore guud on a country's part.

The end result does not change no matter how you interpret it. You can not enforce the change you want. You tried once and failed in 1965. Rest of the world is not supporting you to do that anymore beyond a lip service from some Arab countries when your dignitories go visiting..

Why dont you take back what you lost in 47-48?

The end result would ofcourse not change, you dream of eating Kashmir wont last much longer and you know that and that's why we see so much movement within your establishment.

You probably are mistaken that the world doesnt support us, you probably have not gone through: DAWN.COM | World | Why India came back to the negotiating table

It is this 'support' of the world in general and the US in particular that you have have come running up to us. You need to get out that little hole that you have cuddled up in and think big.

Dead is more like it. btw in UN resolutions when not fulfilled are generally followed by stricted resolutions and then sometimes sanctions.. See Iran, Iraq, even Israel (221 UNSC resolutions since 1948)..Do you see any regarding Kashmir post 1954 critisizing India ?? Or any resolution at all after 1965??

So now you compare us with Iran, great!

No stricter resolutions have two reasons to it; one, UN still holds up its resolution and have not accepted the fringing amendment in your constitution; two, they know soon tides would turn when the US leaves Afg and something would automatically get cooked between the two countries.

So dont jump over your 'victory', it's only short lived.

Xeric, unfortunately the perspectives of both the parties in this issue are with a phase lag of 180 degrees and you are expecting India to go the whole 180 degree shift. I have said it before .. will say it again.. either beat down india militarily or get off the horse of redrawing the boundaries because you will never get the 2nd without the 1st. Any thing inbetween these 2 extremes is definitely solvable by discussions, like the option suggested by All Green

Lolz...we'll beat up india the day Kashmir becomes an indian state, till now we and the world consider it a disputed area, but guess what, you are welcome you live in your la la land and believe that you have annexed the state.

As for the option, well i have already said that the many a options given by Musharraf are viable, we need to get on to any of them and move further, but this stubbornness wont let it work. With guys like you who suggest 'beat us and take it' i dont think we can ever reach an amicable solutions. So stop oscillating between the options. Either agree to have a compromise (both of us) or you are free to harp and yap about Pakistan attacking india and liberating Kashmir.

I hope Pakistan has the far sightedness to accept it and India has the statesmanship to not withdraw it.. Will be very happy if it happens but am not too hopeful at this time...

The issue was sent to the background since 9/11 but guess what, it has resurfaced. Just wait and see. The signs have already started showing when india ate its own words and more would be shown with the passage of time. And we are waiting as the time elapses!

 

[Xeric]

Ejaz

Even before i read through your entire post i would like to say, just because the results would not be india's favor or what india have desired doesnt mean that the 'plebiscite would achieve nothing' You people have known from the start that a free and fair plebiscite would make you lose almost everything there, so what's the roar about?

i have given the reasons over that poll which none of you have countered, let me assure you in actuality the results would be different if not opposite. If you are actually so much for the people's voice and choice, let it happen, and the world would see it for itself.

 

[toxic_pus]

So here we have a blatant refusal of UN resolutions. Is that your foreign policy or what? How shameless one needs to be to come out in open and declare that they give a tosh to an organizations decisions whom you want to give you a permanent seat?

i find it surprising that none of you have the neutrality to atleast admit that india has negated the resolution which indeed doesnt bore guud on a country's part.

Since UN is divine, here is what Gunnar Jarring, had to say about the resolutions, in his report to the Council in 1957. This might give you an indication of what karan meant by 'lose their practicality'.

'In dealing with the problem under discussion as extensively as I have during the period just ended, I could not fail to take note for the concern expressed in connection with the changing political, economic and strategic factors surrounding the whole of the Kashmir question, together with the changing pattern of power relations in West and South Asia.(para 20)

The Council will, furthermore, be aware of the fact that the implementation of international agreements of an ad hoc character, which has not been achieved fairly speedily, may become progressively more difficult because the situation with which they were to cope has tended to change. (para 21)'

Also, since the resolutions are under Chapter VI, these are merely 'recommendatory' and is nowhere close to being 'binding'. Additionally, Pakistan's naked aggression in 1965 has officially made the resolutions defunct.

 

[Xeric]

^^ If it's actually for you to understand that a yap from J & K State Government means nothings more than a localized move and not an international decree, you must wonder why didnt the UN retract the resolution at the first place.

 

[toxic_pus]

...why didnt the UN retract the resolution at the first place.

I am not sure if there is any legal provision for UN to retract any resolution once it is passed. Or if there is one, under what circumstances can it be done.

Besides the resolutions have lost their practical application not their legal existence.

 

[Xeric]

I am not sure if there is any legal provision for UN to retract any resolution once it is passed. Or if there is one, under what circumstances can it be done.

Besides the resolutions have lost their practical application not their legal existence.

Hmm..so now you are getting into legalities... i like that.

Ever wondered under what 'legality' did india over-ruled the damn resolution? The puppet J&K govt perhaps, right?

 

[toxic_pus]

Hmm..so now you are getting into legalities... i like that.

Ever wondered under what 'legality' did india over-ruled the damn resolution? The puppet J&K govt perhaps, right?

India didn't 'over-rule' any damn resolution. Not one. If you are by any chance referring to not holding of plebiscite, then it was not held because the preconditions to the plebiscite were not fulfilled.

Isn't it fun to go in circles.

 

[Xeric]

You should have also mentioned the reasons to why those conditions were not fulfilled, perhaps it would get you out of the circles.

Hint: india didnt agree over the number of troops, whereas it suggested to stay there with its boots and bought this part of the resolution hook, line and sinker!

 

[toxic_pus]

You should have also mentioned the reasons to why those conditions were not fulfilled, perhaps it would get you out of the circles.

Hint: india didnt agree over the number of troops, whereas it suggested to stay there with its boots and bought this part of the resolution hook, line and sinker!

Firstly it is irrelevant why those conditions were not fulfilled in the context of determining whether not holding of plebiscite was a 'violation' of UN resolution. The fact is that the conditions were not fulfilled. Hence there was no 'over-ruling' or 'violation' of UN resolutions.

Secondly, it is called negotiation, not dictation. India was within rights not accept what India perceived to be detrimental to its interest. Pakistan did the same.

Thirdly, regarding that generous 'hint' of yours, what you don't know is that even Pakistan didn't agree to the numbers when it mattered. While India demanded that after the demilitarization, she should be allowed to retain 21,000 of her troops together with armour, and Azad Kashmir should be left with a civil force of 4,000 troops of which 2,000 should be unarmed, Pakistan on the other hand demanded that 4,000 troops shall remain on either side, but agreed a 'slight disparity in favour of India'. (refer Dr Graham's 5th Report)

Pakistan agreed much later when she had already reinforced Azad Kashmir force.

 

[karan.1970]

We dont care if fails. That wouldnt be anything new. The only new thing this time being the U-turn by india.

You have been backing out of dialogues on one pretext or the other in the past, i dont mind that doing this time again.

For any dialouge to be successfyl there has to sincerity and seriousness. If the talks are just a drama, as this one is, there's no fun in initiating them. We would love to talk when issues like Water are also solved. Sticking to your side of the story and harping on your own tunes doesnt benefit us. i would once again repeat, the bagal mai chori moo mai ram ram wont work this time. Either india should be dead serious or it else can carry on with it rigidness and we dont seem to be caring

So this time around IMO there will be no holding back on any issue from India except Kashmir.. I mean IWT, Saichin, Sir Creek etc will all be on the table along with cross border terrorism from Pakistan. If Pakistan will be willing to proceed with the agenda, the talks will move forward, else they will fizzle out but at least deny Pakistan the high moral ground of showing that India is not accepting its offers of talks.. On U turn, its really not an ego war.. The only thing that should be prime is the national interest.. They dont call Diplomacy the patriotic art of lying for one's country for nothing..

So here we have a blatant refusal of UN resolutions. Is that your foreign policy or what?

On Kashmir, Yes

How shameless one needs to be to come out in open and declare that they give a tosh to an organizations decisions whom you want to give you a permanent seat?

Anything for national interest. C'mon Xeric, if one can die for his country, being shameless is not even in the same league

i find it surprising that none of you have the neutrality to atleast admit that india has negated the resolution which indeed doesnt bore guud on a country's part.

How many times have I said in this thread itself that India and its leaders have negated this resolution from 1954 onwards. The chapter was closed anyway 1965

Why dont you take back what you lost in 47-48?

Because we understand that its niether practical nor desirable at this time. It will result in more national loss (can lead to nuclear war as well) than is acceptable. The day Pakistan realizes the same, the problems in S Asia will get over.. Dont see hope for that in near future though..

The end result would ofcourse not change, you dream of eating Kashmir wont last much longer and you know that and that's why we see so much movement within your establishment.

We dont eat our states.. As far as movement is concerned, we are a very dynamic country.. Something or the other is always on the move.. Some time good, some time bad

You probably are mistaken that the world doesnt support us, you probably have not gone through: DAWN.COM | World | Why India came back to the negotiating table

It is this 'support' of the world in general and the US in particular that you have have come running up to us. You need to get out that little hole that you have cuddled up in and think big.

Yeah! Indian media is unreliable and I will take a report in Dawn as an indiacation of world's support to your lost cause??
Well, here is the view from the other side of the border

US ties India-Pak talks to Afghanistan - India - The Times of India

I will replicate a statement from US (who supports you as you say on Kashmir)

While some US analysts have suggested resolving the Kashmir issue is central to US success in Afghanistan, Holbrooke declined to endorse the line of thinking, in keeping with the counter-view that Kashmir was just a symptom of Pakistan dysfunction, not the cause. Asked how important Kashmir is for reducing tension between
India and Pakistan, Holbrooke dismissed the issue from the US agenda while declining to even mention the K-word at a time when Pakistan is poised to put it back on the front-burner.

''On the specific you talked about, we are not going to negotiate or mediate on that issue. And I'm going to try to keep my record and not even mention it by name, Holbrooke said, adding, “But I want to be clear that anything that the two countries do to reduce tensions or improve relations will be something we would applaud and encourage.”

“But we are not going to act as intermediaries between Islamabad and New Delhi. That is not what we are here to do. I'm not just talking about myself,” Holbrooke maintained, suggesting that it was broadly the policy of the Obama administration and a continuation of the Bush White House’s policy of not highlighting the Kashmir issue

So now you compare us with Iran, great!

No stricter resolutions have two reasons to it; one, UN still holds up its resolution and have not accepted the fringing amendment in your constitution; two, they know soon tides would turn when the US leaves Afg and something would automatically get cooked between the two countries.

No I dont compare you with Iran at all. It is a much larger economy. The point was with examples that when a UNSC resolution is not executed and the UN thinks its sufficiently important and the situation is not right, UN follows up with multiple resolutions (stricter every time) to enforce the original resolution which you do not find in this case. I am not saying that makes the 1948 resolution defunct, but it certainly shows how the world percieves it..

So dont jump over your 'victory', it's only short lived.

If you say so.. Let me know when its life is over..

Lolz...we'll beat up india the day Kashmir becomes an indian state, till now we and the world consider it a disputed area, but guess what, you are welcome you live in your la la land and believe that you have annexed the state.

all the best for that...

As for the option, well i have already said that the many a options given by Musharraf are viable, we need to get on to any of them and move further, but this stubbornness wont let it work. With guys like you who suggest 'beat us and take it' i dont think we can ever reach an amicable solutions. So stop oscillating between the options. Either agree to have a compromise (both of us) or you are free to harp and yap about Pakistan attacking india and liberating Kashmir.

And most of Musharraf's solutions did not require the boundaries to be redrawn. And those are the kind of solutions that will work. And my statement of beat us and take it only applies where you talk of plebiscite and Pakistan taking Indian part of Kashmir. Compromise is always good, but by definition it has to be both ways.. Just like India is not asking Pakistan to return the areas captured by it in 1947-48, Pakistan should also forget about territory transfer and focus on how given the territorial stand of both nations, situation can be made better for the residents of the state..

The issue was sent to the background since 9/11 but guess what, it has resurfaced. Just wait and see. The signs have already started showing when india ate its own words and more would be shown with the passage of time. And we are waiting as the time elapses!

pipe dreams...