The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[Xeric]

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.

Not exactly.

i am more interested in the forced/unilateral/illegal accession of the State by india by just fiddling with its constitutions, as if the world was run the the indian constitution.

That's what we consider as being 'over-ruled'. How can you take a decision once we all (to include the world) recognize the issue as DISPUTED?! Jungle raj?

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.

Pakistan didnt exactly do the same. Just because you wanted to keep your bite tightened on that part of Kashmir sure would imply that you wanted to uphold your interests, even at the cost of over-ruling the resolution.

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.

A civil forces against well armed regular troops. That's where common sense comes into play. We all know what the demands were on both the sides, but then one needs to be careful of not crossing the threshold of absurdness and idiocity and not to present nonsensical and cockeyed demands.

 

[Xeric]

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

^^ Allow me yo skip the remainder of your yapping and stick to this one line of yours. Well, in actuality the US just exempted itself from becoming a mediator between Pakistan and india and you think we have lost the support.

Too much extrapolation, i would say.

Halbrook's statement doesnt suggest that india can over-rule the UN resolution, instead he talks about the connection between Kashmir and Afg (as all indians have been connecting the two, as if the day US would leave Afg, all the talibans would pack up and rush towards srinagar..), he indeed tells us that Kashmir has nothing to do with Afg and india should get over with the obsession, no Pathan is going to Kashmir as there are already enough local freedom fighters to make india kneel.

BTW, Karan, you missed this statement from the US:

Not to mediate on Kashmir issue: US - GEO.tv

"We understand the importance of the Kashmir issue to both Pakistan and India, and it is something that we do discuss with both countries," state department spokesman PJ Crowley told reporters Thursday when asked to comment on such a suggestion by Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari.

"But obviously, at the end of a process that has to be something that is resolved ultimately between Pakistan and India with the active involvement of the people of Kashmir."


Perhaps he was again referring to the right of self-determination a.k.a UN resolution?!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A quick blurb on the issue of 'constitutional restrictions' that prevent India from applying any meaningful solutions to resolving the dispute - India still officially claims all of J&K as its territory. Chidambaram just reiterated that.

That being the case, for those who argue that the constitution is an obstacle, the Indian constitution would not allow India to accept the status quo as a solution either. So the constitution as a pretext for not holding a plebiscite is a poor excuse, since the constitution would only be satisfied if India were able to militarily wrest all of J&K from Pakistan or Pakistan just hand it over.

 

[karan.1970]

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

^^ Allow me yo skip the remainder of your yapping and stick to this one line of yours. Well, in actuality the US just exempted itself from becoming a mediator between Pakistan and india and you think we have lost the support.

Too much extrapolation, i would say.

A country comes out and says that we will not interfere in the issue to the extent that we will not even utter the word Kashmir and you think you still have their support.. Dont know who is extrapolating. .

Halbrook's statement doesnt suggest that india can over-rule the UN resolution, instead he talks about the connection between Kashmir and Afg (as all indians have been connecting the two, as if the day US would leave Afg, all the talibans would pack up and rush towards srinagar..), he indeed tells us that Kashmir has nothing to do with Afg and india should get over with the obsession, no Pathan is going to Kashmir as there are already enough local freedom fighters to make india kneel.

Talk about extrapolating... you converted this to above
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

BTW, Karan, you missed this statement from the US:


Perhaps he was again referring to the right of self-determination a.k.a UN resolution?!!

We think he was refering to the participation in the electoral mandate of National and state elections ..

 

[Xeric]

We think he was refering to the participation in the electoral mandate of National and state elections

Another of your la la land stories nothing else. God! more inglish!

 

[karan.1970]

A quick blurb on the issue of 'constitutional restrictions' that prevent India from applying any meaningful solutions to resolving the dispute - India still officially claims all of J&K as its territory. Chidambaram just reiterated that.

That being the case, for those who argue that the constitution is an obstacle, the Indian constitution would not allow India to accept the status quo as a solution either. So the constitution as a pretext for not holding a plebiscite is a poor excuse, since the constitution would only be satisfied if India were able to militarily wrest all of J&K from Pakistan or Pakistan just hand it over.

A very good point Agno.. However a small issue with the same..

Treatment of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Northern areas is like a territory lost in war. There is not much India can do about it short of waging a war. And the constitution does not require the GoI to continuously wage a war to win back lost territory.

However it does prohibits the govt to handover a part of existing territory to another country or hold polls that do not comply with the writ of election commission of India..

Having said that, as I said in my earlier post too , "Constitution can always be ammended but going by the sentiments in India, any political party that even mentions the amendment to give away territory, will get lynched publically by the population".

Giving up Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as a part of the solution will be no cake walk either for the GoI with opposition baying for their blood, just as the same problem will be there for GoP if they go down the path of giving up their 60 year old Kashmir policy. But there in is the difference between Political risk and Political suicide.

 

[karan.1970]

We think he was refering to the participation in the electoral mandate of National and state elections

Another of your la la land stories nothing else. God! more inglish!

As promised, in response to a rant

talk to the hand

 

[Xeric]

^^ Gosh! i never knew inglish was racist!!

i never knew you are one of those who signed the petition against the hindu jihaniyat comment by Asif

See i told ya, you seriously need lessons in inglish, you proved that again.

 

[karan.1970]

^^ Gosh! i never knew inglish was racist!!

i never knew you are one of those who signed the petition against the hindu jihaniyat comment by Asif

See i told ya, you seriously need lessons in inglish, you proved that again.

Ok.. My bad.. didnt know about Inglish project..

Though in New England area, Connecticut Inglish is a term at times used derogatorily for the incorrect English spoken by Indians..

 

[toxic_pus]

Not exactly.

i am more interested in the forced/unilateral/illegal accession of the State by india by just fiddling with its constitutions, as if the world was run the the indian constitution.

That's what we consider as being 'over-ruled'. How can you take a decision once we all (to include the world) recognize the issue as DISPUTED?! Jungle raj?

Pathetic attempt to deflect. What you wrote earlier was

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

Pakistan didnt exactly do the same. Just because you wanted to keep your bite tightened on that part of Kashmir sure would imply that you wanted to uphold your interests, even at the cost of over-ruling the resolution.

On another thread AM is arguing that the whole thing was subject to negotiation and Pakistan had the right to be satisfied before making any move. Given that Pakistan hasn't made any move till date, it would appear, to a person with even average intellect, that Pakistan wasn't satisfied. And continues to be not satisfied. 'At the cost of over-ruling the resolution'.

A civil forces against well armed regular troops. That's where common sense comes into play. We all know what the demands were on both the sides, but then one needs to be careful of not crossing the threshold of absurdness and idiocity and not to present nonsensical and cockeyed demands.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Do you?

'Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.' (Part II, A.3 of Truce Agreement)

The demand that India made was in respect of 'the local authorities' with respect to which Pakistan was supposed to have no locus standi. I suggest you start reading the UN resolutions, explanatory notes to the resolutions, letters between commission and the both countries and finally the reports.

 

[EjazR]

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?

Well I'm not sure if you have read my port afterwards. What I said was the people in the valley (about 5.5million - the total J&K population is 11million) have around 70% populace who desire an INDEPENDENT J&K. That means Pakistan will ALSO lose its part of J&K including Northern Areas. Is the GoP ready to accept this? Obviously not. Since it was the GoP in the 1948 sponsored resolution for the plebiscite that asked for the removal of the independence option citing Mountbattens plan to ask all kingdoms in British India to choose either of the two dominions India or Pakistan.
More recently it was Pakitani based groups that assassinated secular pro-independence groups and leaders of the JKLF to undermine the pro-Independence group.

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.

I did not address you specifically but I did mention that if you think this is prejudiced, you can check the history of the organisation. They have done peace polls in many conflict areas. And for comparison check out the Israel Palestine poll.

Moreover, there are the UNHCR reports, the recent EU parliament report on Kashmir all that indicates the similar findings. I can give you anecdotal info as well of what many of Kashmiri neighbors and friends have said to me that confirm a similar on ground situation as these reports and polls mention.

Like I mentioned earlier, we can't deny consultation and discussion to the Kashmiri people in the political process to resolve this issue. But they should be able to decide this in a honest environment free from fear and also with full knowledge of what is the respective stands of GoP and GoI. Because, there is a small but significant section who don't even know that GoP is against Independence of Kashmir and that its not an option in the plebiscite either. They are thus made fools by bested separatists politicians who take advantage of their ignorance.

 

[thebrownguy]

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

just a question .. wat do u think .. by "azaadi" does he mean joining pakistan?... be honest..

 

[Abhiras]

its ironic that Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is called Azad Kashmir

 

[Omar1984]

its ironic that Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is called Azad Kashmir

Unlike Inda Occupied Kashmir, I dont see any protests or anyone demanding to get away from the country their land is made a territory of in Azad Kashmir.

You can not compare the things that happen in India Occupied Kashmir to Azad Kashmir. Almost everyone in India Occupied Kashmir want either independence or want Kashmir to merge with Pakistan. In Azad Kashmir, no one wants to be part of India most want to stay with Pakistan and a few want total independence.

 

[super_star]

Unlike Inda Occupied Kashmir, I dont see any protests or anyone demanding to get away from the country their land is made a territory of in Azad Kashmir.

You can not compare the things that happen in India Occupied Kashmir to Azad Kashmir. Almost everyone in India Occupied Kashmir want either independence or want Kashmir to merge with Pakistan. In Azad Kashmir, no one wants to be part of India most want to stay with Pakistan and a few want total independence.

Thats your perception. I heard that there is no democratic election to choose the leader in P O K. Please conduct free and fair election under no media restriction and let us know.