What's new

The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

Isnt UN resolution regarding the complete princely state of Kashmir as it stood on 15th Aug 1947? Werent the Northern areas a part of it.?
i think we 'won' some Kashmir from you people or perhaps you are still in the state of denial?

About gifting into independent states, lets leave that aside as that will degenerate quickly into a tit-for-tat mud sling fest with the whole BLA, TTP stuff coming in.

Well when some mirror is shown you start squealing. BTW, BLA and TTP are incompatible to 220 Districts, or so you want to believe?
 
.
i think we 'won' some Kashmir from you people or perhaps you are still in the state of denial?



Well when some mirror is shown you start squealing. BTW, BLA and TTP are incompatible to 220 Districts, or so you want to believe?

Yes in 1948, PA captured the area of Kashmir that is currently with Pakistan. That included the so called Azad Kashmir and the Northern areas of G&B. The UN resolution covers it all. Not just the valley of Kashmir

About we squealing; well, the shrillness of posts of most Pakistani members about UN resolutions suggest otherwise.

The Taliban situaltion is surely incomptible to the 220 districts. The 1st one is an organized global terrorism factory based out to NWFP regions of Pakistan and is a global headache(migraine)

The 2nd is a law and order problem which has assumed immense proportions due to neglect and political posturing of corrupt Indian politicians
 
.
Well people, the above quoted post is an empirical evidence of 'sane' thinking.

And on a second note, suggesting to convert LoC into IB and at the same time also advocating the UN Resolution on Kashmir - nothing can be more saner, right?

U din understand my post eh..?.thought so.

All im saying is u guys have lost the moral credibilty to ask for plebiscite wen u urself violated the UNSC resolutions by unilaterally gifting a part of the princely state of Kashmir to China.


And as for 'gifting' something to China, well it is only the (lame) indians who consider our Northern Areas as part of Kashmir and unnecessarily take tension when we deal with our internal issues. i would suggest you to mind your 220 districts, coz we wont say a thing (or get tense) when they would get gifted into an independent state!

Oh wat can i say abt u brilliant one.:lol:
The whiole world including the UN believes that the Northern Areas are disputed and they are a part of the historic pricely state of Jammu and Kashmir.
If u think other wise i say "Grow Up". :lol:

i think we 'won' some Kashmir from you people or perhaps you are still in the state of denial?

The correct word would be "Illegally Occupied".
BTW if u think u won a part of Kashmir..then there is nothing wrong in us thinking we sucessfully defended a large portion of Kashmir.
So by ur genius logic the Kashmir with India is India's internal problem and so the purpose of this thread is zero.
 
.
U din understand my post eh..?.thought so.

All im saying is u guys have lost the moral credibilty to ask for plebiscite wen u urself violated the UNSC resolutions by unilaterally gifting a part of the princely state of Kashmir to China.
So now you would shift goal posts..

You started with LoC into IB and now you are trying to become a champion of UN Resolution. Bravo!


Oh wat can i say abt u brilliant one.:lol:
The whiole world including the UN believes that the Northern Areas are disputed and they are a part of the historic pricely state of Jammu and Kashmir.
If u think other wise i say "Grow Up". :lol:
i would love to see who all form part of this 'whoile' world that you say consider NA as part of Kashmitr today. Links would prove uselfull, provided they dont come from Bharat rakshat or some india drools.



The correct word would be "Illegally Occupied".
BTW if u think u won a part of Kashmir..then there is nothing wrong in us thinking we sucessfully defended a large portion of Kashmir.
So by ur genius logic the Kashmir with India is India's internal problem and so the purpose of this thread is zero.
Pot calling the kettle black?

It's like the US saying, hey we didnt occupy Iraq or Afghanistan, they just fell in our laps.

Hey kiddo, you need to do better than this.
 
Last edited:
.
So now you would shift goal posts..

You started with LoC into IB and now you are trying to become a champion of UN Resolution. Bravo!

I stand by my words.Moreover from this post I can understand u din read my first post fully.

I said converting LOC into IB is the only possible solution because the UN resolutions are invalid since Pakistan itself has violated them (read gifting of land to China)


i would love to see who all form part of this 'whoile' world that you say consider NA as part of Kashmitr today. Links would prove uselfull, provided they dont come from Bharat rakshat or some india drools.

Instead asking me go ask ur govt why they consider NA as a part of Kashmir and hence a disputed area.It would do u a world of good. :lol:

However let me give u 1 sample link:

Proof - Click Here

Pot calling the kettle black?

It's like the US saying, hey we didnt occupy Iraq or Afghanistan, they just fell in our laps.

Y dont u answer my question of "If u think u won a part of Kashmir..wats wrong in us thinking we sucessfully defended a large portion of our Kashmir and hence its an internal issue" instead of posting some illogical words..


Hey kiddo, you need to do better than this.
I dont need to prove anything to u oldie. :lol:
 
Last edited:
.
I stand by my words.Moreover from this post I can understand u din read my first post fully.

I said converting LOC into IB is the only possible solution because the UN resolutions are invalid since Pakistan itself has violated them (read gifting of land to China)
i dont blame you of your lack of interpretation. Infact you have shifted your posts so much that you yourself cant find its actual location. Here is what you said initially which started this entire debate:
Scenario 7: There is no provision for piece-by-piece settlement/accession of Kashmir.
According to existing UN resolutions,If Kashmir tomorrow joins either India or Pakistan it should join as a single entity (Jammu,Kashmir Valley,P-O-K,Northern Areas,Ladakh,Area gifted to China all combined) and not as Valley going to Pak,Jammu and Ladakh going to India....That is not allowed.:disagree:


So only feasible solution where both India,Pak happy - Convert LOC into IB. :agree:
This post contains no reference to volition of UN resolutions. But as you are infected with intuitions and dont digest facts you changed your sole stance, shifted your posts and lead on to the illogical, rhetorical and baseless (as you couldnt prove that the 'whiole' world consider NA as a part of Kashmir) argument that we contradicted the UN by resolving an issue between Pakistan and China (read 'gift).

If you would keep jumping from one argument to another as if you still go to kindergarten, seriously i cant help it.

Harness your intuitions and stop oscillating between one absurd argument to another illogical one.

Instead asking me go ask ur govt why they consider NA as a part of Kashmir and hence a disputed area.It would do u a world of good. :lol:
Ok, why do you consider Mumbai as part of Maharashtra?

See, i am going 'absurd' by your absurd counter arguments.


Y dont u answer my question of "If u think u won a part of Kashmir..wats wrong in us thinking we sucessfully defended a large portion of our Kashmir and hence its an internal issue" instead of posting some illogical words..
Illogical words requires and answer in illogical paras.

Dont worry, you wont understand that now, coz you still need to think straight.



I dont need to prove anything to u oldie. :lol:
Guess what, you already did prove something to all of us :)
 
.
However let me give u 1 sample link:

Proof - Click Here

:lol:

What is this, a joke?

No about us, no names, no agency, (The Kashmir Study Group includes academics and foreign policy specialists with length professional experience with South Asian issues, and prominent U.S. legislators.)just a map showing whatever suit ones intent. What a load of proof. :rolleyes:

It looks to me like some fan boy on youtube beating it chest to Ghazwai Hind and Greening the indian map with a Crescent and Star! :D
 
.
i dont blame you of your lack of interpretation. Infact you have shifted your posts so much that you yourself cant find its actual location. Here is what you said initially which started this entire debate:

Originally Posted by Karthic Sri
Scenario 7: There is no provision for piece-by-piece settlement/accession of Kashmir.
According to existing UN resolutions,If Kashmir tomorrow joins either India or Pakistan it should join as a single entity (Jammu,Kashmir Valley,P-O-K,Northern Areas,Ladakh,Area gifted to China all combined) and not as Valley going to Pak,Jammu and Ladakh going to India....That is not allowed.
So only feasible solution where both India,Pak happy - Convert LOC into IB.

This post contains no reference to volition of UN resolutions. But as you are infected with intuitions and dont digest facts you changed your sole stance, shifted your posts and lead on to the illogical, rhetorical and baseless (as you couldnt prove that the 'whiole' world consider NA as a part of Kashmir) argument that we contradicted the UN by resolving an issue between Pakistan and China (read 'gift).

See the bolded part....I ve clearly mentioned according to UNSC resolutions if at all a plebiscite is consucted it should be conducted keeping the princely state of J&K as a whole not on a piecemeal basis.
So if u cant understand my argument the burden lies on u to read it twice or thrice to understand it rather than rambling.



Ok, why do you consider Mumbai as part of Maharashtra?

how does this relate to NA which is an internationally recognised disputed area.
Ur analogy of Mumbai mayb correct if i bring in FATA or Balochistan not Northern Areas.


See, i am going 'absurd' by your absurd counter arguments.

U didn go absurd just because of my arguments.U went absurd because u couldn logically counter my logically.



Heck even this thread starter(Bezerk) thinks that NA is a part of princely state of kashmir and given 7 solutions based on that.
 
.
Heck even this thread starter(Bezerk) thinks that NA is a part of princely state of kashmir and given 7 solutions based on that.

Dude, it was not Bezerk who AGREED with it. he is just the thread opener. Moreover these 7 solutions were not coined by him, these already exist. If you would have seen i have also posted a few more (almost similar) solutions in the same thread.

i wonder if you cant understand the difference between agreeing to something and merely posting it over the internet, how can we even discuss something?

----


Here you go:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/348959-post368.html

These solutions also mentions the LoC into IB thingy, but does that mean i would accede to it?

Grow up!
 
Last edited:
.
The JKLF young men I have been corresponding with since 9/11 on the Internet have suggested to me, and I have advocated with my Members of the US Congress and both our two US Senators that the ANDORRAN MODEL might work.

President Musharraf defacto seemed to advocate and prefer the Andorran Model, too, from what I read at the time.

The Andorran Model, which settled the 700+ year old dispute between France and Spain, would do the following for the THREE PARTS of Kashmir:

1. It would leave international relations and national security control respectively in the hands of Pakistan, India, and Chinia "as is" in terms of boundaries. A never before thought of but perhaps sound idea which could emerge might be a Mutual Defense Pact between Pakistan, India, and China against both "internal and external" terrorism which would help end the outsider violence coming out of the Stans and other related bordering nations where law and order as understood in a \"civilized sense" is lacking.

2. It would allow for election of a unified, single Parliament of Kashmir which could initially meet on a rotating basis in the current territorial capitals of PAK; IAK; and CAK (A= Administered in all cases).

3. Domestic laws, public education, commerce, housing, public health, etc. would be nationally unified via the Parliamentary laws to be enacted by the single Kashmiri Parliament.

4. I would throw in that freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion, the right not to be coerced into any faith system one does not subscribe to, would be a good touchstone to a unified Kashmir future Constitution arranged in this loose Confederation style.

One of the major worries between [mainly] Pakistan and India has been water sources control/ownership to include present and proposed dams. The existing water treaty and agreements would be ruled on by the Parliament of Kashmir in terms of revenues from Pakistan and India, and China if appropriate, to fund the Parliament and internal operations of the government of Kashmir, housing, schools, etc, etc.

A rough cut idea but is most likely to win the support and agreement from Pakitan, India, and China, in my humble view.

Uniquely the JKLF have said via e-mails over recent years to me that this is the most likely to be accepted by the people inside Kashmir whom they and the JKLF regularly deal with, directly.

Thank you for allowing this outsider to offer an input which in fact originates from the JKLF folks I have gotten to know via e-mail over the past 9 years. Understand that I only listen to the JKLF because they and their primary leader in recent years have renounced violence.

George L. Singleton, Colonel, USAF, Retired
USA
 
.
I am giving my solution which No one will like neither my indian brothers nor pakistani friends:-
Because Partition was not complete. So we should complete the partition now. According to mr. Jinnah "Hindu and Muslim can't live together". So Muslim majority area of Jammu and Kashmir ,i.e Kashmir valley should be given to pakistan but on one condition which is "complete the partition according to mr. jinnah theory which is stated above". i.e completely transfer of all hindu and sikh population of pakistan to India and completely transfer of all muslims of India to Pakistan.
Sorry Brothers If You don't like it.

Sardar patel and Nehru's family will tell you how they divide india,,,,,read jaswant singh book of MR. Jinnah...
 
.
If anything, I would as an outside obesver who served inside Pakistan (West, 1963-1965) and has been an interested observer ever since, especially since our new alliance in the war on terrorism since 911...I would recommend the extreme opposite...reunited both Pakistan and India into one nation, merge the military into a larger single outfit. Draw lots for the very top slots but allow for at least second in command to be from the loser in each lot drawing, etc, etc.

Right now India has more Muslims than all of Pakistan.

The original Constitution of Pakistan was not a "religious one" in the sense it has so become today. The changing in the 1950s of the Pakistan Constitution may have been a move in the wrong direction toward what has become a theocratic state, whereas a secular nation would still be a safer way to go in terms of protecting the rights of all Pakistanis, not just some Pakistanis.

Sincere religious beliefs are fine, confined to one's mosque and family without being forced on anyone else.

Various sects of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Zorastarian beliefs, etc. are all fine and all should be allowed inside Pakistan to practice their personal faith in peace without fear of attack or harm, which clearly is not currently the case.
 
.
The JKLF young men I have been corresponding with since 9/11 on the Internet have suggested to me, and I have advocated with my Members of the US Congress and both our two US Senators that the ANDORRAN MODEL might work.

President Musharraf defacto seemed to advocate and prefer the Andorran Model, too, from what I read at the time.

The Andorran Model, which settled the 700+ year old dispute between France and Spain, would do the following for the THREE PARTS of Kashmir:

1. It would leave international relations and national security control respectively in the hands of Pakistan, India, and Chinia "as is" in terms of boundaries. A never before thought of but perhaps sound idea which could emerge might be a Mutual Defense Pact between Pakistan, India, and China against both "internal and external" terrorism which would help end the outsider violence coming out of the Stans and other related bordering nations where law and order as understood in a \"civilized sense" is lacking.

2. It would allow for election of a unified, single Parliament of Kashmir which could initially meet on a rotating basis in the current territorial capitals of PAK; IAK; and CAK (A= Administered in all cases).

3. Domestic laws, public education, commerce, housing, public health, etc. would be nationally unified via the Parliamentary laws to be enacted by the single Kashmiri Parliament.

4. I would throw in that freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion, the right not to be coerced into any faith system one does not subscribe to, would be a good touchstone to a unified Kashmir future Constitution arranged in this loose Confederation style.

One of the major worries between [mainly] Pakistan and India has been water sources control/ownership to include present and proposed dams. The existing water treaty and agreements would be ruled on by the Parliament of Kashmir in terms of revenues from Pakistan and India, and China if appropriate, to fund the Parliament and internal operations of the government of Kashmir, housing, schools, etc, etc.

A rough cut idea but is most likely to win the support and agreement from Pakitan, India, and China, in my humble view.

Uniquely the JKLF have said via e-mails over recent years to me that this is the most likely to be accepted by the people inside Kashmir whom they and the JKLF regularly deal with, directly.

Thank you for allowing this outsider to offer an input which in fact originates from the JKLF folks I have gotten to know via e-mail over the past 9 years. Understand that I only listen to the JKLF because they and their primary leader in recent years have renounced violence.

George L. Singleton, Colonel, USAF, Retired
USA


First, there is no such thing called Chinese Kashmir. China has nothing to do with Kashmir. China is illegally occupying Kashmir. Before proceeding to any solution China has to first vacate the part of Kashmir that it is occupying. I sincerely doubt whether China is ever going to vacate

Second, I think, having international relations and national security controlled by the respective countries but having domestic laws, public education, commerce, housing, public health having controlled by the entity is too fuzzy a concept and may not work properly in subcontinent context. We believing in mixing everything.

Third, Kashmir being a land locked entity; it would be hard for it to actually raise finance for its day to day operations. It has to rely very much on the India and Pakistan.

Fourth, I think, this arrangement instead of solving anything would invite more competition and more problems between India and Pakistan for influence on the unified entity

Fifth, JKLF is not the only group that exists in Kashmir. There are pro India parties, separatists and militants. These groups may have a different Idea.

Sixth, there is a sharp polarization of opinion based on the region. A unified entity may not be possible and may lead to balkanization of Kashmir, and in turn leading to unintended consequences.

Seventh, why should Kashmir trade water, after all it would require water for its own development.

Lastly, what is there for India and Pakistan in such solution?
 
Last edited:
.
If anything, I would as an outside obesver who served inside Pakistan (West, 1963-1965) and has been an interested observer ever since, especially since our new alliance in the war on terrorism since 911...I would recommend the extreme opposite...reunited both Pakistan and India into one nation, merge the military into a larger single outfit. Draw lots for the very top slots but allow for at least second in command to be from the loser in each lot drawing, etc, etc.

Right now India has more Muslims than all of Pakistan.

The original Constitution of Pakistan was not a "religious one" in the sense it has so become today. The changing in the 1950s of the Pakistan Constitution may have been a move in the wrong direction toward what has become a theocratic state, whereas a secular nation would still be a safer way to go in terms of protecting the rights of all Pakistanis, not just some Pakistanis.

Sincere religious beliefs are fine, confined to one's mosque and family without being forced on anyone else.

Various sects of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Zorastarian beliefs, etc. are all fine and all should be allowed inside Pakistan to practice their personal faith in peace without fear of attack or harm, which clearly is not currently the case.

Mr. Singleton, this is much much more difficult than even solving Kashmir. :cheers:
 
.
Perhaps it is much more difficult.

But if something along the lines of the Andorran solution for Kashmir is up front, formally agreed to, some of the other problems you allude to without specifics will start to diminish.

You have to start somewhere, why not the most visible excuse in the past to fight each other...fixing Kashmir?

I actually not only served in Pakistan (West) but for several years thereafter was an International Banking Officer in NYC dealing, among other places, with all the Indian subcontinent in a "banking" sense.

My reserve work ended up with me being defacto chief of computerized wargamming, worldwide, for HQ US Special Ops Command. I headed in the 1980s until about 1991 an all reservist team of wargammers for the USAF; Army; Navy; Marines; and the Coast Guard, both for Special Operations Command and a similar team for HQ US Atlantic Fleet under the CIC Admiral Kelso, USN, who is now retired.

Of course I didn't then or now ever "know it all" but I do understand many of the beneath the surface problems. It is always important to note that more Muslims exist in India today, as a democracy, than in Pakistan, which is a theocracy.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom