The Future of Kashmir? "Seven" Possible Solutions!

[AliFarooq]

hmm.kashmir....All indians want scenario 3. ..lol...does any pakistani agree with this...NO Never...!! Both countries wont be ready to loose land what ever the resolution or ppl say about. So LOC is the international border. Let the violation happen...we are there to fight and we will.....
Now its upto ppl to decide where they want to be.....if they live in the place where they dont want to be better they packup!

tbh, i dnt think the kashmiris want to be part of india, its going to create for problems for india...

 

[afriend]

Thank you roopesh for answering. I have read your post three times and I cannot see that you answered why not allow a UN plebiscite process? If india has done so much for many or all of the Kashmiri's and parts of Kashmir, wouldn't they be grateful and vote to stay in India? Why not hear their voice. If they are ungrateful for all you help, let them be damned and go to Pakistan.

Accordning to me, plebiscite cannot be held.. because

1. India agreed to plebiscite only if the pakistani troops withdrew completely from the state of kashmir, which it never did.. and in current situation a plebiscite is irrelevant due to cross border terrorim. And moreover as per shimla agreement i belive both countries have agreed to settle their disputes through bilateral discussions.

2. Loosing kashmir would fuel the other seperatist movment going on in the other parts of india(northe east,except mizoram/arunachal/Tripura).

3. As i said majority in india belives the issues in kashmir is majorily fueld by pakistan, and are aware of the every trick in the book applied by pakistan to get the kashmir out of indian federation. India cannot allow its land to be lost to the tricks played by pakistan.

Hence i support status quo, more autounmy under indian union or complete kashmir under indian union. As i think a kashmir would be well off under a secular india and india is better equipped to support kashmiries.

 

[roopesh]

Dear roopesh, Your post is as stupid as is expected from an Indian member on this topic.:

Thanks.
On UN resolution: Lets assume UN elections happen. There are not many ppl in northern kashmir so getting that land as per me is out of question. China occupation is out as no one talking about. Thousands of hindus are vacated the kashmir valley due to the attack. We cant just accept the ppl who live right now. If any chance lets say Indian land goes to pakistan..do you think terrors will stop.

Its nonsense to believe cross border terrors are coming to fight for Kashmir. its a attack on our land. Its same as today pakistan facing from Taliban. Its foolishness to allow these ppl closer to india. No country would do that.

Second the Kashmir weather. The land is perfect for limitary land defence to fight terror. India wont loose such a place.

If pakistan doenst want water or land why do you worry about ppl who doenst want to come to your country? Today lacks of ppl in Iraq and other places are dieing. Misusing ISLAM by pakistan is not acceptable. In this forum alone you can see how many threads against hindus. Spreading anti hinduism by pakistan terrors is never acceptable by a country like India. Pls understand how difficult it is to manage the violations

Azad kashmir is a joke. If India comes to Azad Kashmir why will it become violation to pakistan territory? Pakistan wants to support terror ppl living there. WHY CANT PAKISTAN STOP MILLITANTS TO CROSS BORDER ON THE FIRST PLACE? clearly indicates it wants ppl to come inside india. Ofcourse to kill ppl.

If Inida released water to create flood its most crual by india. Its against all human rules. I stronly hate their decision. I know the value of water as my village struggles with flood. What i feel is if india wants the water for its betterment i definitely want to use the water as its ours.

The Indians wont respond to your question because they know if a plebiscite is held no matter what the Kashmirirs choose atleast they wont choose the option of remaining with India.

I was on phone call with my family...still with PDF so....

Again this thread getting some intersting....Lets make it a point to agree on something by end of the thread folks...accpetable to everyone...lets see TRUTHSEEKER suggests...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

1. India agreed to plebiscite only if the pakistani troops withdrew completely from the state of kashmir, which it never did.. and in current situation a plebiscite is irrelevant due to cross border terrorim.

Incorrect - the UN resolutions (see this link: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...es/7904-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.html) asked for Pakistan to start withdrawing troops, upon which India would also withdraw her troops to certain levels.

UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952

Pakistan agreed with the proposals, and Liaquat Ali Khan the then Pakistani PM agreed with the UNCIP chief representative on the plan. It was the negotiations the UNCIP official carried out with India that proved to be the stumbling block, with the GoI insisting on keeping an additional 3,000 troops over and above the existing already superior troop numbers (relative to Pakistan) it had been allowed in the UNSC resolutions.

In fact, after the UNCIP official's failure in talks with the GoI, this letter was written by him:

UNCIP representative: "in the end I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."
UNCIP chief representative

Why India put up roadblocks in the implementation of the UNSC resolutions and a referendum can also be gaged by Nehru's (the Indian PM at the time) comments, quoted below:

"Perhaps, you have noticed that at no time have I said that under no circumstances will there be a plebiscite. What I have said is that a plebiscite is not a feasible proposition after all that has happened, and that Pakistan has not fulfilled the conditions necessary for it. When I have been asked if we will be agreeable to a plebiscite if every condition was fulfilled, my answer has been that this is a hypothetical question which can only be considered when such a situation arises.

"I know that you and Pantji and some others have often said that there can never be a plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir State. I think that that kind of a statement is not helpful at present, certainly from the point of view of people in the outside world, though it may be helpful in Kashmir." Do what you will inside Kashmir but be smart enough to cover up for "the outside world". Union Home Minister G.B. Pant could not have ruled out plebiscite in Srinagar on July 7, 1955 without Nehru's prior approval.

On April 2, 1956, he himself had made statements at a press conference, which suggested that he had, indeed, ruled out a plebiscite. A question was put to him: "An inference has been drawn that you do not want now any plebiscite to be held in Kashmir. Is it correct?" Nehru replied: "Largely so; I shall explain myself. What I have said was that we have tried and discussed the question of plebiscite for six or seven years, but the preconditions have not been fulfilled. Meanwhile, other things have taken place, like the military aid etc., which have increased tremendously the difficulties of this problem. It is not that I am not willing to discuss this problem still further. But as a practical person I say this leads to a blind alley. We have, therefore, to discuss it from another point of view in regard to conditions that have arisen now and try to come to an agreement."

Offer of a settlement on the basis of the ceasefire line was the logical corollary. Nehru made this offer while addressing a public meeting in New Delhi on April 18, 1956. "I am willing to accept that the question of the part of Kashmir which is under you should be settled by demarcating the border on the basis of the present ceasefire line. We have no desire to take it by fighting."

It is obvious that Nehru had no intention of holding a plebiscite, and the highlighted quote only illustrates the charade played out for the world by the Indian government.

So blaming Pakistan on the basis of spurious and distorted information (not deliberately, this is the propaganda fed to you guys in India, to demonize Pakistan) for a failure to implement UNSC resolutions is disingenuous and unjustifiable.

And moreover as per shimla agreement i belive both countries have agreed to settle their disputes through bilateral discussions.

That is also incorrect.

The first clause of the Shimla agreement states this:

(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

That is a clear indication that the UNSC resolutions clearly apply, since the 'principles and purposes of the UN charter' indicate clear obligations of member states when it comes to binding UNSC resolutions, especially when they have been agreed to by all parties.

2. Loosing kashmir would fuel the other seperatist movment going on in the other parts of india(northe east,except mizoram/arunachal/Tripura).

This is a pretty sad reflection on the state of India, as you seem to imply, that India is so weak, so consumed by turmoil and ethnic hatred and differences, that it will splinter into pieces if India resolves a territorial dispute with Pakistan according to a method she herself agreed to, and suggested by the UN.

The fact of the mater is that your analogy of Kashmir with those other states is flawed, since none of those states are internationally recognized territorial disputes with other nations, that have UNSC resolutions recommending solutions agreed to by all parties.

3. As i said majority in india belives the issues in kashmir is majorily fueld by pakistan, and are aware of the every trick in the book applied by pakistan to get the kashmir out of indian federation. India cannot allow its land to be lost to the tricks played by pakistan.

Thats just more ranting against Pakistan, not a justification for not implementing the binding UNSC resolutions.

As i think a kashmir would be well off under a secular india and india is better equipped to support kashmiries.

If that is true, then you are welcome to sell your nation's case to the Kashmiris and they can decide between the pluralistic society and economic miracle that is India - and the "violence wracked, Islamic terrorist, failed state, hell hole" that is Pakistan, in a fair and neutral referendum.

Should be an easy, easy choice for the Kashmiris and an easy, easy win for India.

 

[roopesh]

All pakistani ppl want UN and elections

Yes India is ready for elections. BUT NOT WHEN THERE IS VIOLATIONS. First let Kashmir come under peace. Let ppl migrated from Kashmir for security reason return to kashmir. Lets have elections. There shount be any terror activities in kashmir, no cross border terrors.

Forget about any thought about resolving kashmir before this. If pakistan thinking in this direction we can talk..otherwise its same same story from 60 years and it will continue...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

All pakistani ppl want UN and elections

Yes India is ready for elections. BUT NOT WHEN THERE IS VIOLATIONS. First let Kashmir come under peace. Let ppl migrated from Kashmir for security reason return to kashmir. Lets have elections. There shount be any terror activities in kashmir, no cross border terrors.

Forget about any thought about resolving kashmir before this. If pakistan thinking in this direction we can talk..otherwise its same same story from 60 years and it will continue...

The insurgency exists because India not only refuses to implement the UNSC resolutions and plebiscite under the instrument of partition, but because India refuses to even consider the territory disputed!

If India were to declare that yes, it is committed to holding a referendum to determine final status, and that will be its official position, but that it can only do so after say 10 years of peace and laying down of weapons by the insurgents, and it agrees to do so under a binding international commitment, then there is no reason why all interested parties would not oblige, and it would give Pakistan a reason to dismantle all camps.

Unfortunately, like I said, the GoI refuses to even consider the issue a dispute, so 'peace' is being held hostage only because of India's refusals. We have already seen India back out of international commitments under the UN as I explained in my post above, there needs to be some very strong and binding commitment made by India towards holding a referendum now.

 

[ANDUBYLL]

The insurgency exists because India not only refuses to implement the UNSC resolutions and plebiscite under the instrument of partition, but because India refuses to even consider the territory disputed!

If India were to declare that yes, it is committed to holding a referendum to determine final status, and that will be its official position, but that it can only do so after say 10 years of peace and laying down of weapons by the insurgents, and it agrees to do so under a binding international commitment, then there is no reason why all interested parties would not oblige, and it would give Pakistan a reason to dismantle all camps.

Unfortunately, like I said, the GoI refuses to even consider the issue a dispute, so 'peace' is being held hostage only because of India's refusals. We have already seen India back out of international commitments under the UN as I explained in my post above, there needs to be some very strong and binding commitment made by India towards holding a referendum now.

Agnostic

The UN resolution of 1948 is non binding, that is it depends on the affected parties to cooperate to resolve their dispute. A binding commitment like East Timor was never implemented.
At the end of the day, its all between India, Pakistanis and Kashmiris on both sides to resolve it in the best interest of anyone.

 

[roopesh]

then there is no reason why all interested parties would not oblige, and it would give Pakistan a reason to dismantle all camps. .

Fist take out all the terror camps! Stop cross border terros. Bring peace to Kashmir. This is the first gift to kashmir from pakistan. Pakistan is supporting all these camps. its open truth. Nothing to denie. How can india trust pakistan now with this situation and commit on anything??

If the kashmir issue after peace is in Indias interst definitely it will resolve the issue without fail. How can a country give assurance now ? It cant unless peace is maintained for suffienent time to trust pakistan.

If pakistan believes supporting the camps or seperate movement going to put pressure on Indam poletically might be,,but resultwise it will delay. All the 60 years proved nothing but fighting against terrors...if terrors continue for another generation then it will continue for ever.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Fist take out all the terror camps! Stop cross border terros. Bring peace to Kashmir. This is the first gift to kashmir from pakistan. Pakistan is supporting all these camps. its open truth. Nothing to denie. How can india trust pakistan now with this situation and commit on anything??

If the kashmir issue after peace is in Indias interst definitely it will resolve the issue without fail. How can a country give assurance now ? It cant unless peace is maintained for suffienent time to trust pakistan.

If pakistan believes supporting the camps or seperate movement going to put pressure on Indam poletically might be,,but resultwise it will delay. All the 60 years proved nothing but fighting against terrors...if terrors continue for another generation then it will continue for ever.

Read my last post again instead of reiterating the same thing, I pointed out clearly my objections, and as is usual, you have not answered a single point but just gone on another rant.

India does not even consider Kashmir disputed, and it has walked out of commitments made under the UN already, and Nehru's facade and twisted psyche has been exposed in his own words.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agnostic

The UN resolution of 1948 is non binding, that is it depends on the affected parties to cooperate to resolve their dispute. A binding commitment like East Timor was never implemented.
At the end of the day, its all between India, Pakistanis and Kashmiris on both sides to resolve it in the best interest of anyone.

The Pakistani view on this:

However, two of these, adopted on August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949, are binding in character as India and Pakistan negotiated bilaterally to give them the shape of a treaty. This was acknowledged by Krishna Menon, then Indian foreign minister, who described these resolutions as being in the nature of an “international agreement”. The acceptance of their binding character by the Indian permanent representative to the UN during the 1957 Security Council debate on Kashmir further confirmed this.

and (initially posted by UnitedPak).

By Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

08 January, 2008
Countercurrents.org

If promises are made to be broken, then Kashmir may be summoned to prove the treacherous proposition. Broken promises haunt Kashmir's history, and explain its tragedy.

The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed a resolution on January 5, 1949 wherein it was agreed that “the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.” The resolution was negotiated with both India and Pakistan and accepted by all five members of the Commission, Argentina, Belgium, Columbia, Czechoslovakia and the United States. Professor Joseph Korbel, father of Dr. Madeleine Albright was the Chairman of the Commission at the time.

Sir Benegal Rama Rau, the Indian delegate spoke during the 399th meeting of the Security Council on January 13, 1949, “On behalf of my Government, I can give the assurance that it will not only cooperate to the utmost with the Commission itself towards a settlement in Kashmir, but also with the United Nations in securing peace everywhere, because it believes that this organization offers the only hope for peace for future generations, on a secure basis.”

Sir Rau further said at the Security Council on March 1, 1951, “The people of Kashmir are not mere chattels to be disposed of according to a rigid formula; their future must be decided on their own interest and in accordance with their own desires.”

Mr. Setalwad, another Indian delegate spoke during the 572nd meeting of the Security Council on January 31, 1952, “I was the first to declare that the people of Jammu and Kashmir should freely decide their own future.”

India, however, was soon undeceived of its delusions over Kashmir's political yearning. Recognizing that its people would never freely vote accession to India, it contrived excuse after excuse to frustrate a plebiscite.

With the lapse of British paramountcy on August 14, 1947, broken promises over Kashmir came not like single spies but in battalions, to borrow from Hamlet. Princely states enjoyed three options: accession to India, accession to Pakistan, or independence. But the choice, according to India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and tacitly endorsed by the British, was to be made by popular referendum in cases where the creed of the ruler varied from the religion of the majority. That fundamental democratic principle had been sternly applied by Nehru with military means in Hyderabad and Junagadh where the rulers were Muslim but their inhabitants largely Hindu. Kashmir presented a converse case: the Maharaja was Hindu but the majority subscribed to Islam.

On November 2, 1947, Prime Minister Nehru reiterated, “We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given and the Maharaja supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it."

In recent past, Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India and General Pervez Musharraf, the President of Pakistan agreed at the United Nations on September 24, 2004 “to explore all the possible options to settle the issue of Kashmir.” Then exactly one year later, Prime Minister said at the United Nations on September 16, 2005, “What I do believe, I have also said that borders cannot be redrawn but we must work together to make borders irrelevant.” One fails to understand how can you explore all possible options when the only option available is to make borders irrelevant (status quo).

On September 5, 2005, Dr. Manmohan Singh promised Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Chairman, All Parties Hurriyet Conference that India will have zero tolerance on the human rights violations in Kashmir. Then he responded while replying to a question during a press conference in New York that “The fact that there is so much of violence (in Kashmir), the fact that cross border infiltration continues, the terrorists are active, does impose some burden on the ordinary citizens.”

The train of broken promises over Kashmir might be forgiven if the consequences were innocuous or inconsequential. But I submit the opposite is the case. India exerts an iron-fisted rule over Kashmir. With approximately 700,000 military and paramilitary troops in the territory, gruesome human rights violations are perpetrated with. Torture, rape, plunder, abduction, arson, custodial disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and ruthless suppression of peaceful political dissent have become commonplaces.

Let us hope that the last promise over Kashmir has been broken.

The United Nations, India And Kashmir By Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai[/quote]

Lastly, the UN resolutions were all passed unanimously and with clear agreement and consent from all five powers and India and Pakistan.

By agreeing to them both nations agreed to a mechanism for resolving the dispute, and India violated it, while their government connived to deceive the world.

I fail to see how any other agreement with India can be expected to be honored when they cannot even abide by something so clear cut as this. The UN resolutions calling for a referendum remain the only unanimously agreed upon mechanism to resolve the dispute.

 

[roopesh]

Read my last post again instead of reiterating the same thing, I pointed out clearly my objections, and as is usual, you have not answered a single point but just gone on another rant.

India does not even consider Kashmir disputed, and it has walked out of commitments made under the UN already, and Nehru's facade and twisted psyche has been exposed in his own words.

Yes recognising Kashmir is disputed is against indias claim that entire kashmir belongs to India. So it cant accept till it gets decided oneway or other. Second Pakistan should stop any actiivies which will create violation in Indian side. Its not their business. Why do you promote violation???

First why should India call international forum to discuss this??? Whats international help in kashmir now. Do they fund us to fight? If pakistan takes money from US to run its show YES THEY HAVE to report. India is not doing any such. Till it gets any help why the hell it has to report.
Who is this Obama today to commnet? Will he come to our help if there is blast in kashmir??? India would tell the same to him .Ask pak to stop cross border terrorism first

Once we ensure the terrors are completely gone and no thret to India defenitely we will decide what to do NEXT depending on kashmir ppl wish without PAKISTAN influence. If they select to go let them with their land too.....till then pakistan has to wait and HELP HELP kashmir ppl to maintain peace

So please help kashmir. its in your hand. Nothing to do with india which is struggling

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes recognising Kashmir is disputed is against indias claim that entire kashmir belongs to India. So it cant accept till it gets decided oneway or other. Second Pakistan should stop any actiivies which will create violation in Indian side. Its not their business. Why do you promote violation???

First why should India call international forum to discuss this??? Whats international help in kashmir now. Do they fund us to fight? If pakistan takes money from US to run its show YES THEY HAVE to report. India is not doing any such. Till it gets any help why the hell it has to report.
Who is this Obama today to commnet? Will he come to our help if there is blast in kashmir??? India would tell the same to him .Ask pak to stop cross border terrorism first

Once we ensure the terrors are completely gone and no thret to India defenitely we will decide what to do NEXT depending on kashmir ppl wish without PAKISTAN influence. If they select to go let them with their land too.....till then pakistan has to wait and HELP HELP kashmir ppl to maintain peace

So please help kashmir. its in your hand. Nothing to do with india which is struggling

Stop ranting please and logically answer the questions raised. Otherwise I am deleting your posts.

This is all you have left after your arguments have been morally and legally been shot down, and India's leadership exposed as a lying pack of jackals.

 

[roopesh]

Stop ranting please and logically answer the questions raised. Otherwise I am deleting your posts. This .

You are a super mod... I am putting my views..if you dont like what I can do.. or i cant write something to convenice you right....

You can delete my thread...Deleting my thread has no influence on anyone...or keeping it also....

This is all you have left after your arguments have been morally and legally been shot down, and India's leadership exposed as a lying pack of jackals.

How abt pak leadership!!

NO COUNTRY DOES ANYTHING WHICH IS AGAINST ITS INTERST. ONLY IF IT FEELS ITS GOING TO HELP, IMPROVE THE COUNTRY ONE WILL ATTEMPT. THIS IS THE BASELINE.

same logic applies to kashmir too. Nehru said something keeping indias interst. if today its not then its not. India's interst is most imp. If situation favours indias interst yes it will happen. otherwise NO.

I am out of this thread till someone post something intersting to debate on.....

 

[duhastmish]

sir
there is no solution to Kashmir, for India its not just about land and people and respect but also biggest is the control the water. And same goes for Pakistan as well. its a land full of resources. there is no place like Kashmir ( i am a Kashmir born ). the biggest problem is crpf and certain bsf people earlier.
i tell you things have changed for some time with media given power. and sneak into Kashmir, its coming to democracy and people are getting some opportunity. but the process is too slow and to tell you truth there is no solution to Kashmir only way out is accept what it is or fight logically for their right! i accepted my self to be Indian because this is the country which have given me everything, and i love and live for it.And no body can tell me to do otherwise. things were hard for a Kashmiri but hard work does pay up.

people of Kashmir don't want Pakistan , they don't want India, they don't want independent state , they just want to progress and have a happy life, which they deserve!!!!!

 

[afriend]

.

Thanks for the post brother it was absolutely loaded with information. However we understand the resolutions are in place in UN which requests(not enforcing) both parties to conduct plebiscite in kashmir, however we also understand that the resolutions was passed as per certain conditions and situations of that time. Now the question is Why india never impelmented the resolution, on searching the net i came across some interesting piece of information, i would like to get your comments on the below.

The irrelevance of the 1948 and 1949 resolutions to the contemporary situation was highlighted by the President of the Security Council, Gunnar Jarring in his report to the Council in 1957 when he said ".. 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.."

Dr. Frank Graham, the UNCIP’s representative stated in March 1958 ".. the execution of the provisions of the resolution of 1948 might create more serious difficulties than were foreseen at the time the parties agreed to that. Whether the UN representative would be able to reconstitute the status quo which it had obtained ten years ago would seem to be doubtful.....".

If, in 1957 and 1958, Mr. Jarring and Mr. Graham felt that the resolutions of 1948 and 1949 could not be implemented because of the changed situation, the sheer implausibility of these resolutions having any meaning today is self-evident. The State of Jammu and Kashmir to which these resolutions applied does not exist any longer with a part of the territory having been handed over to China by Pakistan and demographic changes having been effected in Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas.

.

From the above what i understand is, with massive demographic changes in azad kashmir and northern areas, and with fueling of the extrimists from accross the border... conducting a plebsicte in kashmir would be a irrelevant. However as per article 370 of indian constituion jk enjoys sepcial status and people from outside can't buy land in kashmir, this shows clear intend of india to honour the aspirations of kashmiries but within the constituion of india.