NationStates Jolt Archive

The Indian Subcontinent. Its has been embroiled in 3 wars in the last 60 years(4 if you count the Kargil Conflict) and almost gone to war as many times. Two Nuclear powers, each with mighty militaries and mighty allies, share a border and the worlds highest battlefield(Kashmir). Although since the 1800's the people of this continent wished for a united India, certain elements have made sure that hasn't happened. Instead, in the end it became one of the most volitile areas in the world. It may be peaceful now, but if a radical change comes, World War III will be on our doorstep(or at least the world's first Nuclear war).

So, on to the question: What do you think of the idea of a united Indian subcontinent? If the nations of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh joined together into one state? (I know Nepal and Bhutan are technically part of the Sub-continent, but they are radically different and I don't think they'd ever join anyhoo).

Poll up soon.

I'd like it, but only if it were secular.

There is too much religious tension for it to be one state unless said state was secular.

I'd like it, but only if it were secular.

There is too much religious tension for it to be one state unless said state was secular.

Exactly, that's why I put it :)

But of course, some people would only like it if it were a certain religion(A la BJP).

A United subcontinent Why do you want to do that?

If they do go to war, there be less poor people. :D j/k

Not gonna happen. A united subcontinent would make a killer cricket team, though. ;)

Pakistan's whole identity is based on "we are not India !". It is found on the basis of the "Two-nation theory" which says that muslims and hindus are seperate nations, that even though a muslim is born in India, he cannot live with a hindu and needs a seperate nation to be a muslim.

This ideology will make sure that India and Pakistan are always in conflict.

This ideology will also make sure that Pakistan can never be a secular or moderate country as Musharraf blabbers when he is on tour in a western country.

I am not too hopeful of the peace process. The current process is there because Pakistanis have tried everything and currently have no better option and are staring at the bottom and not because they have realised the folly of their ways.

Pakistan sees Kashmir as an "unfinished" business. According to their ideology, Kashmiris are muslims and muslims cannot live with hindus in India ergo Kashmir should join Pakistan. It is their minimalist position. They do not even debate on making the LoC as international border. Any such suggestion is immediately shot down as being treason and betrayal of the ideology of Pakistan. Naturally India won't agree to that and the peace process will eventually fail. Until then enjoy the show and drama.

Note: By Pakistan and Pakistanis, I mean the establishment and the elite, which is made up of mostly the Punjabis. Not the Sindhi or Balochi. They don't have any particular hatred towards India.

But of course, some people would only like it if it were a certain religion(A la BJP).

BJP does not believe in uniting with Pakistan. They have this "you there, me here, you don't bother us, we don't bother you" kind of thing.

You are talking about RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal and they are not political parties.

and what jedi mind trick are you going to use to get moslems and hindus to stop hating each other?

you may as well suppose that nepal, bhutan and sri lanka are going to join up too its all equally unlikely

and what jedi mind trick are you going to use to get moslems and hindus to stop hating each other?

you may as well suppose that nepal, bhutan and sri lanka are going to join up too its all equally unlikely

If Hindus and Muslims hate each other so much, then why are there more Muslims in India than in Pakistan...

If Hindus and Muslims hate each other so much, then why are there more Muslims in India than in Pakistan...

We hate Pakistan. not muslims. But since Pakistan constantly claims as the spokesperson for muslims and calls itself the fortress of islam, it does appear that we hate muslims.

Reg population, well, technically Pakistan now has more muslims than India by a few millions, but yes, you are correct since muslim minority population has grown in India from 8 % after partition to approx 13% now while in Pakistan non-muslim minority has plummeted from 20% before partition to 3% now. (details of ethnic cleansing (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-2/sridhar.html) )

We hate Pakistan. not muslims. But since Pakistan constantly claims as the spokesperson for muslims and calls itself the fortress of islam, it does appear that we hate muslims.

Reg population, well, technically Pakistan now has more muslims than India by a few millions, but yes, you are correct since muslim minority population has grown in India from 8 % after partition to approx 13% now while in Pakistan non-muslim minority has plummeted from 20% before partition to 3% now. (details of ethnic cleansing (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-2/sridhar.html) )

You hate Pakistan? Dude, that's rougher than I thought. I know plenty of Pakistanis(I have lived there, btw. As well as in Bangladesh, and I've been to India), and I've seen many people on all sides who want there to be peace. When you talk to the average Pakistani, they no longer say "Death to t3h Indiansz0rz!!11!1!!11!1". They say "I hope we have another cricket match, they are fun to watch!" Many Pakistani's I know say that they want nothing more than peace. Someone seems to like to watch nationalist propaganda :p. Also, it is hardly "ethnic cleansing". It's just that Pakistan defines itself as a Muslim nation. India doesn't define itself as a Hindu nation(although the BJP, these Hindu nationalists them, want it to be). Sure, they are both "secular"(Pakistan is much more secular than one would think), but Hindu's just feel uncomfortable there. So they left. The government didn't stop them, and why should it have? It doesn't even stop Muslims from leaving the country(see: Pakistani workers in Arabia)

I, personally, think that with time, South Asia can achieve a union. First it will take time for the peace to heal. Uber-nationalists on both sides will need to be dealt with. (Peacefully, of course :D). Then, they can work on increasing trade, etc. Pakistani's and Indians are, essentially, the same people. Urdu and Hindi are basically the same(minus the writing system, of course :D). They wear the same clothes, eat the same food(except for when their religion says "No no"), have the same culture, hell, they even listen to the same music(Junoon, anyone?) The people of both nations have basically realised this, it's just political leaders haven't.

Eventually, I think the sub-continent will be re-united. Just like many other countries that the British screwed up in their last moments as an Empire, they will eventually achieve a union. Sure, the Hindus will have to get rid of that silly caste system, and radical muslims will have to be sent back into Afghanistan from whence they came, but there will be a union in India once again.

Of course, we will all be long dead by then :D

bumpo!

I'm the only one who choose one of the "I'd hate it, but only..." options?!

You hate Pakistan? Dude, that's rougher than I thought.
Yeah it's a shame. I know. How idiotic of us to hate a country that started three wars on us and an ongoing jihad that took around 40,000 lives.

I know plenty of Pakistanis(I have lived there, btw. As well as in Bangladesh, and I've been to India), and I've seen many people on all sides who want there to be peace.

I am sure some Pakistanis that you have met are the most wonderful people on earth. Some of them do retain some of their Indianness still. ;)

When you talk to the average Pakistani, they no longer say "Death to t3h Indiansz0rz!!11!1!!11!1".

That's the problem, right there. You say no longer. How sure are you? Can you make a visit to the Muridke HQ of LeT , just 20 odd miles near Lahore and tell me the Pakistanis there do not wish the death of me? They too are Pakistanis, not just the Pakistanis you met who blew you away with their Mehrbaani. I am a wee bit concerned about the kind in Muridke who blow us away with IEDs.

They say "I hope we have another cricket match, they are fun to watch!"

And then they turnaround and donate to the Kashmir "freedom fighting".

Sure, they are both "secular"(Pakistan is much more secular than one would think)

Pakistan can NEVER become secular.

A secular Pakistan = India.

The immediate question would be " then why Pakistan ?". So Pakistan can never be secular.

I, personally, think that with time, South Asia can achieve a union. First it will take time for the peace to heal.

The two-nation theory , the whole ideological foundation of Pakistan, states that Kashmir has to join Pakistan. There won't be any lasting peace when Pakistan defines its ideology based on the Two-nation theory. And two-nation theory is the only glue that is capable of holding the country together. So the peace process is bound to fail. It failed in 1947, even when INC agreed for the partition. It failed in Shimla even when we agreed to let go of their 93K POWs . It failed in Lahore when Musharraf stabbed us in the back with Kargil intrusion. It failed in Agra. Let's see where this one goes. I am very sceptical though. It is fairly simple to deduce where this one is heading.

LoC = IB is our minimalist position. Indian public will settle for that and nothing else. We are the status quo power. We have no reason to settle for anything to our disadvantage. No more partition is our slogan. Besides, the wily Narasimha Rao, passed a resolution on the accession of Kashmir which can only be amended by 2/3 majority. Any territorial adjustments require an amendment and there is no way anybody can muster support in the Parliament for selling the nation.

And Pakistan cannot settle for that without severely compromising its two-nation theory ideology and any compromising on that will lead to the demise of the state of Pakistan. Atleast that's what the Paki establishment fears. Musharraf has made clear that LoC = IB is not acceptable to him and so has the religious parties and pretty much everyone in Pakistan.

So the peace process is bound to fail.

Ask any Pakistani, not those who live in the west as permanent citizens, they have no stake in this, but those who live in Pakistan or have immediate family there. Ask them if LoC = IB is acceptable to them. You will hear all sorts of but yaar ..no yaar..

Junoon, anyone?

Junoon is good. I like Junoon. But the funny thing is they are not welcome in some parts of their own country. And the really funny thing is that in parts of the NWFP, music is banned.

Adnan Sami , a Pakistani singer, had to come to India and is now an Indian. Meera, a Pakistani actress kissed an Indian in a movie and the whole Pakis esablishment was going bonkers with the mullahs demanding fatwas and the army putting an enquiry on this etc and everybody getting their pants into knots.

Sure, the Hindus will have to get rid of that silly caste system, and radical muslims will have to be sent back into Afghanistan from whence they came, but there will be a union in India once again.

What has caste got to do with this? If you think the silly caste problem is the thing obstructing peace, then I dunno what to say. FYI, Pakis also have castes. Ashrafs, Choudhrys, Wadhera, Rajput apart from the tribal divisions into mazari, afridi, waziri etc. And what is a tribe if not a caste? You can only be born into the tribe. You look upon other tribes as inferior and other tribes are not welcome amongst you. That right there is also casteism.

Yeah it's a shame. I know. How idiotic of us to hate a country that started three wars on us and an ongoing jihad that took around 40,000 lives.

What would the Mahatma say to you, eh? You guys did not help the situation at all when Hindus started murdering Muslims in the streets right after independence.


I am sure some Pakistanis that you have met are the most wonderful people on earth. Some of them do retain some of their Indianness still. ;)

No, they have retained their humanity, as have many other Pakistanis.



That's the problem, right there. You say no longer. How sure are you? Can you make a visit to the Muridke HQ of LeT , just 20 odd miles near Lahore and tell me the Pakistanis there do not wish the death of me? They too are Pakistanis, not just the Pakistanis you met who blew you away with their Mehrbaani. I am a wee bit concerned about the kind in Muridke who blow us away with IEDs.

Sure, some Pakistanis are crazy idiots. As are some Indians, some Frenchmen, etc.

[quote]And then they turnaround and donate to the Kashmir "freedom fighting".

No, they don't. Once again, the crazy lunatics in the NWFP do, but the majority of Pakistani's want peace. You can only fight your brothers for so long until you realise that fighting will not answer it. Of course, crazy hindu nationalists decided to kill the only person who could have stopped the conflict from escalating...



Pakistan can NEVER become secular.

A secular Pakistan = India.

The immediate question would be " then why Pakistan ?". So Pakistan can never be secular.

But it is. Sure, it still keeps some muslim things in its government(as in it's offical name used on maps, but the Government uses Federal Republic more), but seeing how the army has ruled Pakistan for god knows how much of it's history(seeing how some of it's neighbors didn't feel like helping the democracy movements), the country has become more secularized.

The two-nation theory , the whole ideological foundation of Pakistan, states that Kashmir has to join Pakistan. There won't be any lasting peace when Pakistan defines its ideology based on the Two-nation theory. And two-nation theory is the only glue that is capable of holding the country together. So the peace process is bound to fail. It failed in 1947, even when INC agreed for the partition. It failed in Shimla even when we agreed to let go of their 93K POWs . It failed in Lahore when Musharraf stabbed us in the back with Kargil intrusion. It failed in Agra. Let's see where this one goes. I am very sceptical though. It is fairly simple to deduce where this one is heading.

LoC = IB is our minimalist position. Indian public will settle for that and nothing else. We are the status quo power. We have no reason to settle for anything to our disadvantage. No more partition is our slogan. Besides, the wily Narasimha Rao, passed a resolution on the accession of Kashmir which can only be amended by 2/3 majority. Any territorial adjustments require an amendment and there is no way anybody can muster support in the Parliament for selling the nation.

And Pakistan cannot settle for that without severely compromising its two-nation theory ideology and any compromising on that will lead to the demise of the state of Pakistan. Atleast that's what the Paki establishment fears. Musharraf has made clear that LoC = IB is not acceptable to him and so has the religious parties and pretty much everyone in Pakistan.

So the peace process is bound to fail.

Ask any Pakistani, not those who live in the west as permanent citizens, they have no stake in this, but those who live in Pakistan or have immediate family there. Ask them if LoC = IB is acceptable to them. You will hear all sorts of but yaar ..no yaar..

There will be peace. Listen, before all these events, neither nation was a nuclear power(with the exception of Kargil, which didn't escalate for precisly that reason). Although you may not be willing to admit it, Pakistan is ready to negotiate. Many have said that they wouldn't mind if Kashmir would be split along the LoC. As long as it brought peace.



(Will finish laterz)

I am sorry for interjecting, before you finish your post. But I feel there are many discrepancies in what you said. Maybe we can settle them first before this become a long "I quote, you quote, who quotes" thing..

What would the Mahatma say to you, eh? You guys did not help the situation at all when Hindus started murdering Muslims in the streets right after independence.

The Mahatma tried everything to avoid partition. He did ask Jinnah to be the Prime Minister of India, inspite of Jinnah having done nothing for India's independance. Jinnah did not even go to jail once in the independance struggle. But Jinnah and the Muslim League kept insisting on seperate electorates for the muslim and non-muslim population and insinuated civil war if their demands are not met. So a reluctant Gandhi agreed to the proposal.

But after the partition was done, and Kashmir was invaded by Pakistani tribals + regulars, Gandhi was in favor of a decisive action to push them back. Unfortunately he died. The Mahatma would have mobilised opinion to take back PoK. That's what he would have done. The Mahatma has also clearly said that he preferred violence to cowardice although he preferred non-violence to violence. So there.

And of course you won't be remembering the call for mayhem from the muslim league which resulted in Direct Action Day. It was the starting point of the violence which quickly spiralled into revenge killings and 5 million people ended up dead- hindu, muslim and sikh. The piece is written by M.J.Akbar of the Asian Age.

needs registration. Its free.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=&section=&issue=2005-08-06&id=6452
The demand for Pakistan was accompanied by the rhetoric of a simulated jihad. A jihad is valid if Muslims are denied the right to practise their faith, or against the invasion of a Muslim’s homeland. And so Muslims were warned that in post-British India mosques would be destroyed and the call to prayer forbidden, and they must resort to violence if necessary to protect their separateness. A typical pamphlet, circulated after the Muslim League announced a ‘Direct Action Day’ on 16 August 1946, said, ‘The Bombay resolution of the All-India Muslim League has been broadcast. The call to revolt comes to us from a nation of heroes ...The day for an open fight which is the greatest desire of the Muslim nation has arrived. Come, those who want to rise to heaven. Come, those who are simple, wanting in peace of mind and who are in distress. Those who are thieves, goondas (thugs), those without the strength of character and those who do not say their prayers — all come. The shining gates of Heaven have been opened for you. Let us enter in thousands. Let us all cry out victory to Pakistan.’ The themes are immediately recognisable, with Heaven, as usual, playing a prominent part.

Yeah, it is all the fault of the "caste" hindus and sikhs in not lying down and accept the massacre.

Sure, some Pakistanis are crazy idiots. As are some Indians, some Frenchmen, etc.

Oh, please. 40% of Pakistanis admire Osama as per the Pew poll. Vast majority support the Kashmir jihad.

And how many Indians train themselves in terrorist camps and cross over the Radcliffe line and bomb Pakistanis? For that matter, how many Frenchmen do that?

No, they don't. Once again, the crazy lunatics in the NWFP do,

Actually I like the NWFP people. Very simple people. Give them a goat and that's all they need to get on with life. Atleast they are honest with their hate.

But you are wrong in asserting "secularity" of Pakistan. Pakistan's secularity is like Henry Ford's policy. They are OK with any religion as long as it is islam. Better make it Sunni sect actually. Since the sunni orgs like the Sipah e Sahaba and Lashkar e Janghvi make it a habit of bombing shia mosques and targetted killings of shia scholars and professionals. And then there are the ahmediyas / Qadianis who are the most hapless in Pakistan. Scroll down to the end where the applicant has something to declare
http://www.pakmission.ca/Forms/Passport.pdf

The buggers drove away Dr.Abdus Salam, the ONLY Nobel prize winner from Pakistan. He died a bitter man in another country, where they have an institution named after Dr.Abdus Salam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4131624.stm
Pakistani authorities have closed down the offices of 16 publications run by followers of the Qadiani sect in the central Punjab city of Jhang

Yeah man, Pakistanis are secular. If you say so.

but the majority of Pakistani's want peace. You can only fight your brothers for so long until you realise that fighting will not answer it. Of course, crazy hindu nationalists decided to kill the only person who could have stopped the conflict from escalating...

The conflict was due to the Two Nation Theory. It was inevitable that there will be escalation after that. There was nothing that Mahatma could have done to prevent it.

My brothers...lol...man...when I see a Pakistani categorically saying that the Kashmir jihad is wrong with no ifs and buts, I will accept him as brother.


But it is. Sure, it still keeps some muslim things in its government(as in it's offical name used on maps, but the Government uses Federal Republic more),

Where?

It is still called Islamic republic of Pakistan. Recently they passed a bill to include the identification of religion in the Pakistani passport. I believe it is the only passport which identifies religion of the in the whole world.

but seeing how the army has ruled Pakistan for god knows how much of it's history(seeing how some of it's neighbors didn't feel like helping the democracy movements),

I am not God but I know. From 88 to 98 , 10 years with BB and NS. And some 3/4 years with ZAB and Junejo etc and that's about it. Rest were all under military rulers from Ayub to Yahya to Zia to Musharraf..


OK man, now I have seen it all. I don't think even the Pakis blame India for them suffering the military rule. You are putting the cart before the horse. Why the heck would India feel like helping their democracy movements?

You mean by not giving Kashmir on a platter , India helped in prolonging the military rule.

You are joking right? Since when did land for peace worked ?

There will be peace. Listen, before all these events, neither nation was a nuclear power(with the exception of Kargil, which didn't escalate for precisly that reason). Although you may not be willing to admit it, Pakistan is ready to negotiate. Many have said that they wouldn't mind if Kashmir would be split along the LoC.

Show me ONE mainstream opinion stating that LoC = IB is acceptable for Pakistan. ONE would do. Feel free to scour Jang, The Friday times, Nawa-i-waqt, the nation etc....

If LoC = IB was acceptable to Pakis, there would have been peace in 1947 itself.

I think a United Subcontinent is unlikely. What I would like to see is for the Kashmiri people to get to decide for themselves what they wish their status of their homeland to be. This whole nightmare started becasue India refused the UN resoulution ( I forget the number) demanding the Kashmiri people get a referendum to decide which country to join, which India has always opposed considering the Kashmiri poupulation was, and has always been muslim majority. I think now a plurality supposedly favor independence from either country.

An independent Kashmir where power is shared by Muslims and Hindus might hopefully helpfully set a postive example for India and Pakistan. I think the best possible outcome would be a Supranational South Asian entity like the EU between India, Pakistan, an independent Kashmir, and maybe some of the other smaller countries like Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and maybe some of the Central Asian states eventually.

A United subcontinent Why do you want to do that?

If they do go to war, there be less poor people. :D j/k

Very cruel comment

You mean by not giving Kashmir on a platter , India helped in prolonging the military rule.

You are joking right? Since when did land for peace worked ?



(I have little time, responding to this one now)

I never said land for peace. India has 150 million Muslims. You could easily have tried to support democrat movements from the inside. But did you? Noooooo. You decided it would be better if Pakistan became a military dictatorship. Not smart.

What I would like to see is for the Kashmiri people to get to decide for themselves what they wish their status of their homeland to be.

Define "kashmiri people".

Does that include the Mirpuris, you know, the people who are living in "azad" kashmir / Pakistan Occupied Kashmir?

Those people are also Kashmiris and don't they need self-determination ?
http://www.krrc.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=138
But it is important to look at the
salient points of the 'INTEREM CONSITUTION OF AZAD KASHMIR ACT, 1974'
generally known as Act 74, under which the territory of Azad Kashmir is
ruled.

v No one can contest elections of any kind in AK without taking oath of
allegiance to Kashmir's accession to Pakistan. If someone refuses to sign
this allegiance, his nomination would be rejected for not filling in
accession to Pakistan oath document.

v Similarly no Minister, Prime Minister or President in AK can assume office
unless he takes the oath of Kashmir's accession to Pakistan. In other words if you want a job of any kind in AK you have to sign oath of allegiance.

Section 7.2 of the Act 74 clearly says: "No person or political party in
Azad Jammu&Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against, or take part in
activities prejudicial or detrimental to, the ideology of the state's
accession to Pakistan".

Section 21 explains about the Azad Jammu&Kashmir Council:

There shall be an Azad Jammu&Kashmir Council consisting of:

a) the Prime Minister of Pakistan;

b) the President (AJK)

c) five members to be nominated by the Prime Minister of Pakistan from
time to time from amongst federal ministers and members of Parliament;

d) the Prime Minister of Azad Jammu&Kashmir or a person nominated by him;
and

e) six members to be elected by the Assembly from amongst State Subjects in
accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the
single transferable vote.

2) f) Prime Minister of Pakistan shall be the Chairperson of the Council.

One can see how Azad is Azad Kashmir government, the Chair of the AJK
Council is a Pakistani Prime Minister, and five members are appointed by
him/her. The Assembly members who elect six more members have already signed allegiance to Pakistan.

Moreover to make sure that AK governments does not make any 'silly' move,
Pakistan has ensured that all high ranking officers like Chief Secretary,
Finance Secretary, Inspector General Police etc for AK are sent by Islamabad
government. One wonders what is the difference between IHK and AK? But the story does not end here, section 31.3 states that AJK Council and the
Assembly does not have power to make any laws concerning the following:

v The defence and security of Azad Jammu&Kashmir;
v The current coin or the issue of any bills, notes or other paper currency;
v The external affairs of Azad Jammu&Kashmir including foreign trade
and foreign aid.

And Section 35 further degrades the AK Constituent Assembly, which says:

v Bills passed by the Council shall not require the assent of the President
( AJK ) and shall, upon its authentication by the Chairperson of the
Council, become law and be
called an act of the Council.(Please remember that the chairperson of
the Council is always the Prime Minister of Pakistan).

v Please note that according to ACT 74, there are more than 55 important
matters concerning Kashmir, which are not under the jurisdiction of the AK
President, Prime Minister and the Legislative Assembly. Some important
matters are listed below:

1) Nationality, citizenship and naturalisation, migration from or into Azad
Jammu&Kashmir, admission into, and immigration and expulsion from
AJK including in relation there to the regulation of the movements in AJK;

2) Post and Telegraphs, including Telephones, Wireless Broadcasting
and other like forms of Communications; Post Office Saving Bank;

3) Council public services and Council Public Service Commission;

4) Administrative Courts for Council subject;

5) Mineral resources necessary for the generation of nuclear energy;

6) Aircraft and air navigation; the provision of aerodromes;
regulation and organisation of air traffic and aerodromes.

7) Copyright, inventions, designs, trade marks and merchandise marks.

8) Banking, that is to say, the co-ordination with the Government of
Pakistan of the conduct of banking business;

9) The law of insurance and the regulation of the conduct of
insurance business;

10) Stock-Exchange and future markets with objects and business not
confined to Azad Jammu&Kashmir;

11) Planning for economic co-ordination, including planning and
co-ordination of scientific and technological research;

12) Railways;

13) Mineral oil and natural gas; liquids and substances declared by
law made by the Council to be dangerously inflammable;

14) Development of industries, where development under Council control
is declared by law made by the Council to be expedient in the public
interest.

15) Removal of prisoners and accused persons from Azad Jammu&Kashmir
to Pakistan or from Pakistan to Azad Jammu&Kashmir;

16) Population planning and social welfare;

17) Electricity;

18) State Property in Pakistan;

19) Curriculum, syllabus, planning, policy, centres of excellence and
standards of education;

20) Sanctioning of Cinematography films for exhibition;

21) Tourism;

22) Duties of customs, including export duties;

23) Taxes on income other than agricultural income;

24) Taxes on corporations.

9. Conclusion

We have habit of calling areas under Pakistani control as Azad Kashmir, and
areas under India as occupied, but in reality there is not much difference
as far as the legal and administrative structure is concerned. We have
looked at the above points and it is very clear that AK is not Azad at all,
therefore it has no role to play in the freedom movement, as it cannot
function independently.

Let us look at the oath which rulers of AK take and compare it with the
oath, which is taken by the rulers of Kashmir on the Indian side. AK rulers
solemnly declare,

"That as a President of Azad Jammu&Kashmir I will remain loyal to the
country and to the cause of accession of the state of Jammu&Kashmir to Pakistan" :confused:

Now let us look at the solemn declarations made by rulers on the other
side - occupied side:

"........That I will faithfully execute the office of Governor of
Jammu&Kashmir and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and
defend the constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the
service and well being of the people of the State".

And then what about the Gilgitis and Baltistanis, you know, the shia and ismaili majority community living in the areas of Gilgit and Baltistan provinces.

You DO know that they have already been absorbed into the federal structure of Pakistan as "Northern areas", meaning that Pakistan has annexed those areas that belong to the original unified Jammu and Kashmir state, don't you?

And did the Pakistanis have any referendum or plebiscite of those people for annexing them? No.

But hey according to the logic here, it is the fault of India that Pakistan is a dictatorship.

And does your self-determination package include the Aksai Chin area occupied by the Chinese invasion in 1962?

Does that include the Shaksgam area of northern Kashmir which Pakistan gifted / illegally ceded to China ?

I guess no. I guess you are not even aware of these complexities and events.


This whole nightmare started becasue India refused the UN resoulution

BS. The whole mess started with the imposition of economic blockade on Kashmir by Pakistan and the invasion of a then independant J&K state by the Pakistani rebel army.

Of course you would not happen to know that won't you?

demanding the Kashmiri people get a referendum to decide which country to join, which India has always opposed considering the Kashmiri poupulation was, and has always been muslim majority

LOL. read up on the resolutions.

here's a site which carries all documents related to the dispute

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/sasia.htm

particularly
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/uncom1.htm
(1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir
constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of
Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its
troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the
State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein
who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

Which of course never happened. On the contrary, the Pakis have been settling non-kashmiris in their side of Kashmir. A tactics learned from their masters the Chinese, who settled the Han in Tibet.

Call me when the Pakis vacate their occupation.


An independent Kashmir where power is shared by Muslims and Hindus might hopefully helpfully set a postive example for India and Pakistan.

If power sharing between Indian muslims and Indian hindus in India is not setting a postitive example, what makes you think that it would "help" if Kashmir is shared.

Btw, what is this "independant kashmir" that you speak of?

Does that include the Jammu-ites (including the Jammu muslim), who have no issues in living within the Indian union? Does that include the Ladakhis (Buddhist) who have no issues either? Does that include the Kargil Shias who have no issues either? Does that include the Kashmiri Gujjar community who have no issues either?

Why is the valley sunni minority assumed to be speaking for all of Kashmir and why is a minority amongst that sunni community (along with the Paki sunnis from Mirpur and Punjab) participating in jihadic terrorism assumed to be a "freedom struggle" of all Kashmiris ?

Please tell me why?

(I have little time, responding to this one now)

I never said land for peace. India has 150 million Muslims

Excuse me, but that is what you are saying.

Give Kashmir to Pakis and have peace.

Tell me how that is not "Land for Peace" ?

You could easily have tried to support democrat movements from the inside. But did you? Noooooo. You decided it would be better if Pakistan became a military dictatorship. Not smart

Hey, we DID support democracy movements in Pakistan. See Bangladesh, a country which we liberated from Pakistan. They are a democracy !

Besides India is not the US to go around spreading democracy ? ;)

You are asking us to be lenient and friendly towards a country whose whole basis of existence is " We are not India and we hate Indians and that's why we seperated from them".

Let us examine Pakistan track record of democracy, shall we.

After independance, Jinnah the father of Pakistan (mother was Churchill (http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=75870) ) opted to become the Governor General of Pakistan instead of Prime Minister because, under the Constitution, Governor General could give instructions to the Prime Minister. Jinnah, after becoming Governor General, not only appointed the Prime Minister but himself chose and appointed all the members of the Cabinet. He was the President of Muslim League, and did not relinquish party presidentship even after becoming the Governor General. Thus, Jinnah accumulated all power in him as the leader of the party, head of the administration and the State, a virtual dictator. He even assumed authority to take care of the government's Kashmir and Frontier Departments.

As a Governor General, he caused Legislative Assembly to endorse these additional powers. He even presided over Cabinet meetings, unprecedented in parliamentary democracy. He often, without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, instructed the Provincial Governors, Ministers and Departmental Secretaries. Parliamentary norms were not applicable to Jinnah.

So there. A fine start.

In his speech at the Curzon Hall of Dhaka University, among other things, Mr. Jinnah proclaimed, "Urdu and Urdu shall be the national language of Pakistan." Later he also said that those who put Bengali above Urdu are traitors to the cause of Pakistan, thus sowing the seeds of Bengali nationalism.

Contrast this with the Tamil nationalism movement and how it was handled in India. Hindi was made mandatory in Tamil Nadu , a non-Hindi speaking state. Protests ensued, civil disobedience, rasta roko (sitting in the road and refusing to move or allow traffic) etc. The Tamil nationalist leaders formed a party and demanded seperation from India. The central govt then removed the mandatory laws and made its peace with the nationalists and the seperatism movement faded away. The leader of the seperatists, Anna Durai then became the Chief minister of the state.

let's examine the next "Democratic" leader of Pakistan.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. A virulent India-hater who after the failure of Pakistan to capture Kashmir in the 1965 war (Operation Gibraltar) thundered in the UN in the Security Council that Pakistan would launch a thousand-year war against India. When the Indian delegation walked out in protest, Bhutto said "the Indian dogs are going home".

He did not last long in power. In the general election before the 1971 war, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was elected. The very thought of a "dark, short and non-martial" Bengali being the Prime Minister was so repulsive to the Paki army that they annulled the elections and Gen Tikka Khan (also known as Butcher of Dhaka) imposed martial law on Bangladesh and the Paki army proceeded to kill upwards of 2 million and raped around 100,000 women putting Hitler to shame.

Following the devastating defeat and the humiliating episode of the surrender of 93,000 army men (supposedly "martial" and all) without a fight, did Pakistan introspect and examine its nationhood and vision?

No. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was blamed for the defeat and he was executed by Gen. Zia Ul Haq who used the slogan , what else, "Islam is in danger and I will get you Kashmir..". He ruled for more than a decade and died sometime in 1988 in a plane crash done by the Shia airmen of the plane in revenge for the anti-shia pogroms of Zia.

After Zia, Benazir Bhutto came to power. She had no power at all in these matters. The army would not even allow her, the Prime Minister, to visit the nuclear facilities of Pakistan. She made the usual noises about peace and plebiscite and thats it.

In the next elections , Nawaz Shariff came to power. The poor guy did not even knew that the military was plotting the Kargil intrusion behind his back. He, the Prime Minister, was under the impression that it is the usual illegal infiltration and not an attempt to change the status quo by holding on to the peaks. Kargil was a disaster and then Musharraf came to power claiming that Nawaz has betrayed Pakistan and the Kashmir cause. That was his claim to power.

And given this history, you accuse India of not helping the democracy of Pakistan.

LOL.

Every peace process started by India failed due to the intransigence of the Pakistanis. Lahore was replied with Kargil. Agra was replied with Kaluchak and Nadimarg. This one is also doomed to fail, despite the efforts of US.

There will be "peace", as in , no overt war between India and Pakistan. But that jihad will go on and the Kashmiri will be still killed. That is not peace.

PS: you don't have to answer, right now. Nothing is going to go away. India wil be there. Pakistan will be there. Kashmir will the there and the jihad will also be there. So no worries. Take your time.

The union of the subcontinent is pure bogus. The partition did more good to India. For instance, in Bangladesh, during 1947, the number of Hindus were around 28% but now less than 10%. While in India, the number of Muslims have risen 4% during the same era. In addiiton, in West Bengal, the increase of Muslims were higher. Also, India has had three Muslim presidents but Bangladesh and Pakistan will never ever have a Hindu president on their lands. Therefore, it shows that the Indian government has taken good care of her minorities while her neighbouring states have failed to do so. Therefore, the Indians (Hindus and Muslims) enjoy much more freedom than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Therefore, if these two corrupted nations were united with India, India wouldn't have taken such a moderate approach to its people.

Here is an interesting article.
http://www.mukto-mona.com/human_rights/ethnic_clensing_Bangladesh.html/