What happens if any indian govt agrees to cede Kashmir?

[Nasr]

In a thread here on pdf pakistanis are rejoicing the killing of indian soldiers by what they call mujahideens. One poster was suggesting that if india agrees for a plebiscite and let go of kashmiris all this violence will end and both countries can have economic progress .
I know there is no way it can happen..but just for hypothesis..what would happen if in future congress or any non bjp party agrees to such proposal?
What I feel is as soon as the govt accepts the idea of plebiscite , india would go up in flames....people will be on streets..army will topple the govt and will wreak havoc in kashmir in the absence of govt in Delhi....lakhs of hindus ftom across india will take up arms and run wild in kashmirThings will settle only when some other political party forms govt...this idea of plebiscite is neither practical nor feasible.
The only solution to this problem is agreeing to have LOC as international border or for pakistan to become so strong that it could defeat india in a war and take kashmir.. but the problem here is india is a nuclear power...if it senses that it is losing kashnir, it will use its nuclear weapons...
Another solution is that india should become so powerful that it can guard its borders from infiltrators with advanced technology.
Or else india should open its markets for pakistan so that pakistan also benefits from it and it can boost its economy...when you have your economy dependent on another country ,its not so easy to indulge in activities that harm that country.
I feel this last idea of mine that is opening up trade with pakistan(which Imran khan also advocates) is the most realistic approach to solve this problem...it also alleviates the ill feelings of people for each other.
What do you think guys?

When Kashmir is liberated, either peacefully via a plebescite, or through indigenous armed struggle. For Pakistan, a free Kashmir which has no political influence of india, is a win/win. If Kashmir chooses to join Pakistan, then it is welcome, but for Pakistan there but two priorities when it comes to Kashmir, one being it's liberation and the other being securing the water ways from the Karakorum Range into it's territory. As for relations with india, yes there will be peace and there wouldn't be any attempts by Pakistan to challenge it's neighbor. However any sort of friendship with india is totally out of the question. Peace, trade .... yes. Friendship .... hell no!

 

[xeuss]

It is India's problem. And India is not seeking Pakistani help. India is solving it. With new residency laws in place, give it a few decades and you will see non-traditional 'Kashmiris'.

India is on its way to solve this problem once and for all.

But is that what Kashmiris want?

That is the crux of the problem. The solution is an imposed one, without consultation of the local population.

 

[Zhukov]

That's India's problem.
Plebiscite is the main, best way possible and forward, for Kashmir, from Pakistan's stance. Otherwise you can expect war at any point, at some point, in the future.

Another solution, which could work is a unified Kashmir wherein there is no border between Pakistan and India, the citizens can choose to have either Pakistani or Indian citizenship, and likewise the Government is a joint Government, and it is administered jointly with free crossings. Since Kashmir is the core of all problems between Pakistan and India, it will bring an end to trouble.

I don't see anything else. Some people say that declaring the current boundaries as international border is a solution. I don't think it is. It doesn't solve the problem in essence at all, that is who Kashmir belongs to.

That is never going to happen provided the narrow minded extremist mindset of subcontinent people. This problem might be resolved after a 100 years and people become open minded like east Europeans did.
I mean these people don't even know if basic healthcare and free education is more important or far fetched Ideological argument and Piling up Imported weapons to kill each other.

When Kashmir is liberated, either peacefully via a plebescite, or through indigenous armed struggle. For Pakistan, a free Kashmir which has no political influence of india, is a win/win. If Kashmir chooses to join Pakistan, then it is welcome, but for Pakistan there but two priorities when it comes to Kashmir, one being it's liberation and the other being securing the water ways from the Karakorum Range into it's territory. As for relations with india, yes there will be peace and there wouldn't be any attempts by Pakistan to challenge it's neighbor. However any sort of friendship with india is totally out of the question. Peace, trade .... yes. Friendship .... hell no!

Are you sure if Kashmir chooses to neither join India nor Pakistan, It will become another Afghanistan for Pakistan? Afghanistan is also a Muslim majority Country. LOC becomes another durind Line and Srinagar based independent Kashmir claims AJK and GB and all that BS and Headache we face from Afghans?
Why do we always assume having a Muslim Country at our border will be a defacto friend of ours?. We have Iran And Afghanistan as example

 

[Robbie]

But is that what Kashmiris want?

That is the crux of the problem. The solution is an imposed one, without consultation of the local population.

That's a fair argument. If we go by that, a larger question comes to play. At what point does a democracy become fruitless. Let me elaborate.

Non-Kashmiris (rest of the Indians), by virtue of holding a larger number of seats in Parliament, are implementing enhanced residency laws in J&K. Clearly the Kashmiris don't want that.
Kashmiris, by virtue of holding a larger number of seats in J&K Assembly, implemented a system that people of Jammu did not want.
Kashmiris, by virtue of holding a larger number of seats in J&K Assembly, implemented a system in which Laddakh was forcibly kept in J&K that Laddakhis did not want.

So at what point does a democracy become non-kosher? Should the Indian Parliament, which is the ultimate collective expression of India, not have the right to decide what happens in Kashmir? If so, then why do Kashmiris get to decide what happens in Jammu and Laddakh?

Kashmiris had no problem accepting dominion over Jammu and Laddakh but dislike it when the shoe is on the other foot. These are important questions to be answered and without it, choosing one over the other is wrong.

 

[Lincoln]

It is India's problem. And India is not seeking Pakistani help. India is solving it. With new residency laws in place, give it a few decades and you will see non-traditional 'Kashmiris'.

India is on its way to solve this problem once and for all.

Then war.

 

[Robbie]

Then war.

Sure. Its been nearly a year since India removed A370 and integrated J&K as a state of India. Hoping Pakistan decides to do it sooner than later. Write to your local MNA or garrison commander.

 

[Lincoln]

Sure. Its been nearly a year since India removed A370 and integrated J&K as a state of India. Hoping Pakistan decides to do it sooner than later. Write to your local MNA or garrison commander.

Don't worry, take it 50 years, 100 years. It will come.
Meanwhile have fun trying to take care of the local resistance. You will only find Indian heads off if they try to move in. It would be a nice sight, wouldn't it? Already get to see Indian heads off at the LOC.

 

[Robbie]

Don't worry, take it 50 years, 100 years. It will come.
Meanwhile have fun trying to take care of the local resistance. You will only find Indian heads off if they try to move in. It would be a nice sight, wouldn't it? Already get to see Indian heads off at the LOC.

I mean sure, if that makes you happy. It barely affects India.

Now that laws allow for other Indians to migrate, just so you know, the longer you wait, the more there will be new residents of J&K. But if you're okay for 50 or 100 years, sure.

 

[Leviza]

Wow...why wasn't indian army deployed in Kashmir before 1989. Army is deployed due to few arm people in Kashmir.

How many arm kashmiri are fighting against Indian army? It would not be more than 1 or 2 % of total kashmiri.

Being a human, I understand that kashmiri does hate Indian army but also, they have very valid reasons. Even I would never tolerate if army will interrupt me almost on a daily basis and it will affect my daily life.

However, it will be continued till few people will get arms. Also, army is deployed in Kashmir.

Pakistan will never get anything but arm kashmiri will be killed and few Indian police/army will be killed. Again, other kashmiri will join to Indian police and fight against these arm people.

Basically, one kashmiri will kill other kashmiri and it will go on! Moreover, kashmiri will be suffering due to dirty politics in the region.

As I said: one is down.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...iyaz-naikoo/story-DDclNHeKmVxEciyuSUGOkK.html

Are u drunk or is it you typically like this ?
Indian army is deployed from 1948 onwards

no Kashmiri is killing Kashmiri

that’s is your wet dream , time is telling different story
All pictures on terrorist army looks like ppl from south and Hindu

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Are u drunk or is it you typically like this ?
Indian army is deployed from 1948 onwards

no Kashmiri is killing Kashmiri

that’s is your wet dream , time is telling different story
All pictures on terrorist army looks like ppl from south and Hindu

You meant to say, "It's a fake news"................................ OHHHH, Ok I got it. You will say, flase-flag attack as same as Imran Khan claim's.
Tortured and killed: Kashmir's vulnerable policemen
Mohammad Ashraf Dar was killed in his kitchen in front of his one-year-old daughter on 22 August. It was the day of Eid-ul-Adha, a holy Muslim festival.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45365438

 

[xeuss]

That's a fair argument. If we go by that, a larger question comes to play. At what point does a democracy become fruitless. Let me elaborate.

Non-Kashmiris (rest of the Indians), by virtue of holding a larger number of seats in Parliament, are implementing enhanced residency laws in J&K. Clearly the Kashmiris don't want that.
Kashmiris, by virtue of holding a larger number of seats in J&K Assembly, implemented a system that people of Jammu did not want.
Kashmiris, by virtue of holding a larger number of seats in J&K Assembly, implemented a system in which Laddakh was forcibly kept in J&K that Laddakhis did not want.

So at what point does a democracy become non-kosher? Should the Indian Parliament, which is the ultimate collective expression of India, not have the right to decide what happens in Kashmir? If so, then why do Kashmiris get to decide what happens in Jammu and Laddakh?

Kashmiris had no problem accepting dominion over Jammu and Laddakh but dislike it when the shoe is on the other foot. These are important questions to be answered and without it, choosing one over the other is wrong.

Your response contains some historical background, that contains some matters that need clarification, but I am not keen to do that, because anytime a discussion goes down the historical path, events and versions are contested to no end.

In a functioning democracy, rights of minorities are guaranteed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Decisions are made by consulting local stakeholders.

Your response should be taking that into consideration, and not folding your arms and sitting back and saying, in effect, they deserved what they got.

If people of reasonable intellect are going to go down the slippery slope of citing one flawed system as justification for another flawed system, then we have little hope for a civilized society.

 

[Leviza]

You meant to say, "It's a fake news"................................ OHHHH, Ok I got it. You will say, flase-flag attack as same as Imran Khan claim's.
Tortured and killed: Kashmir's vulnerable policemen
Mohammad Ashraf Dar was killed in his kitchen in front of his one-year-old daughter on 22 August. It was the day of Eid-ul-Adha, a holy Muslim festival.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45365438

Get in your senses first
Your response have no direct relation to my comment at all

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Get in your senses first
Your response have no direct relation to my comment at all

You said " no Kashmiri is killing Kashmiri"

And recently, out of 5 indian army martyrs..... one was from Kashmir (sub-Inspector Mohammad Sagier Qazi)

I responded on that one!

 

[Leviza]

You said " no Kashmiri is killing Kashmiri"

I responded on that one!

Yes Indian terrorists army is killing Kashmiri people
You can’t put one off incident to whole of the equation and he could be informer and traitor

that is why I asked u comment when sober , in your drunk state no need to come on pdf

 

[Raj-Hindustani]

Yes Indian terrorists army is killing Kashmiri people
You can’t put one off incident to whole of the equation and he could be informer and traitor

that is why I asked u comment when sober , in your drunk state no need to come on pdf

Leave it!

You people look at one side of coin and we look at other side of coin.

The coin has two sides...
Our side ....Indian army does not kill innocent people in the Kashmir. But only those few people who are doing arm struggle against us.

There are many countries where arm struggle happening or happened. Even in Pakistan, but you will consider them as terrorist.

Finally, I would say that " dekhne ka apna apna nazariya hai, "terrorist or freedom fighter" words change hote hai apne apne sohuliyat ke hisab se.