NationStates Jolt Archive

I am tired of the UN's interference in the Indian-Pakistani conflicts by making the twon share control of Kashmir. Kashmir belongs solely and legally to India. If Pakistan tries to put its filthy hands on Kashmir, the Indians have every right to invade and occupy Pakistan and see how they like it. When the British withdrew from the subcontinent, the region was ruled by several kingdoms. These kingdoms acceded into either India or Pakistan. Kashmir's government went with India. Pakistanis are upset since most of the people in Kashmir are Muslims, and since most Pakistanis are Muslims, their twisted logic is that Kashmir belongs to them on the basis that they are Muslims. If everyone followed this logic, then Miami should be given to Cuba. Quebec should become independent. Kosovo should also become independent. Western Sahara should be legally given to Morroco. See why giving any part of Kashmir to Pakistan based solely on the fact that most are Muslims makes no sense? India was trying to create a secular government. If they had given up Kashmir to Pakistan because of the dominant religion there, then it would be counter-intuitive with their goal of a secular government. If Pakistan insists on continuing to conduct terrorist operations in India, then the UN needs to withdraw and let India defend its rightful land. By allowing Pakistan some control over Kashmir, the UN has rewarded aggression against India, therefore, the UN has allied itself with the terrorists.

Ideally, I think the people living in Kashmir should decide for themselves which country their region should belong to. Unfortunately, that won't be happening.

Why don't they just move all the Muslims in Kashmir into Pakistan and give the land to India? I'm sure that will solve the problem peacefully and finally. After the resulting nuclear exchange there should be no more bickering over Kashmir.

I am tired of the UN's interference in the Indian-Pakistani conflicts by making the twon share control of Kashmir. Kashmir belongs solely and legally to India. If Pakistan tries to put its filthy hands on Kashmir, the Indians have every right to invade and occupy Pakistan and see how they like it. When the British withdrew from the subcontinent, the region was ruled by several kingdoms. These kingdoms acceded into either India or Pakistan. Kashmir's government went with India. Pakistanis are upset since most of the people in Kashmir are Muslims, and since most Pakistanis are Muslims, their twisted logic is that Kashmir belongs to them on the basis that they are Muslims. If everyone followed this logic, then Miami should be given to Cuba. Quebec should become independent. Kosovo should also become independent. Western Sahara should be legally given to Morroco. See why giving any part of Kashmir to Pakistan based solely on the fact that most are Muslims makes no sense? India was trying to create a secular government. If they had given up Kashmir to Pakistan because of the dominant religion there, then it would be counter-intuitive with their goal of a secular government. If Pakistan insists on continuing to conduct terrorist operations in India, then the UN needs to withdraw and let India defend its rightful land. By allowing Pakistan some control over Kashmir, the UN has rewarded aggression against India, therefore, the UN has allied itself with the terrorists.

Your making a lot of claims that have no backing.

Cite some sources, Credible ones.

Ideally, I think the people living in Kashmir should decide for themselves which country their region should belong to. Unfortunately, that won't be happening.

Yeah, that sounds nice.

I'd rather not have a nuclear war myself Kashmir should be under U.N control until Indian and Pakistan can play nice

Ideally, I think the people living in Kashmir should decide for themselves which country their region should belong to. Unfortunately, that won't be happening.

Kashmir chose India in 1948. Pakistan just can't accept that.

Your making a lot of claims that have no backing.

Cite some sources, Credible ones.

Such as?

Kashmir chose India in 1948. Pakistan just can't accept that.

Was it the people or the bureaucrats of Kashmir that made the decision?

I'd rather not have a nuclear war myself Kashmir should be under U.N control until Indian and Pakistan can play nice

The UN is too incompetent to handle Kashmir. All of Kashmir belongs to India. Appeasing terrorists only makes them stronger.

Was it the people or the bureaucrats of Kashmir that made the decision?

It was the monarchy at first, but there was a plebescite later. Even if the people of Kashmir today were to declare their desire to become part of Pakistan, it would still be suicidal to do so. The people of Eastern Ukraine are mostly Russian, and many of them would choose to unite Eastern Ukraine with Russia, but that is not a justifiable reason.

The UN is too incompetent to handle Kashmir.

complete and utter tripe the U.N is more than capable of defending a small area especially one that has been bombed to pieces by Pakistan and India

All of Kashmir belongs to India. Appeasing terrorists only makes them stronger.

let me guess your Indian, "boo hoo teh ebil Pakistanis won't let us have a piece of disputed land" go cry a river somewhere else or at least give some sources

It was the monarchy at first, but there was a plebescite later. Even if the people of Kashmir today were to declare their desire to become part of Pakistan, it would still be suicidal to do so. The people of Eastern Ukraine are mostly Russian, and many of them would choose to unite Eastern Ukraine with Russia, but that is not a justifiable reason.

Why not?:confused:

Kashmir chose India in 1948. Pakistan just can't accept that.
"Kashmir" didn't decide anything. A Hindu ruler of a Muslim country may or may not have decided something, that depends on who you ask. There was no democratic choice.

I say the following needs to be done:
The Militias and terror groups need to be cracked down upon by the Pakistani Government (and fat chance of that happening), and there needs to be an all-inclusive referendum held by the UN, asking the people in Kashmir. Neither government should have a say in this matter, it's up to the people of Kashmir to decide.

Oh, and BBC says that the conflict is good for wildlife: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6169969.stm

The 'Kashmir conflict' refers to the territorial dispute between the China, India and Pakistan over the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent. India, which claims the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, has control of approximately half the region including most of Jammu, Ladakh, and Siachen Glacier. India's claim is contested by Pakistan which controls a third of Kashmir. The Kashmiri region under Chinese control is known as Aksai Chin.


However, the Pakistani theory contests otherwise. It is stated that Indian troops marched towards Kashmir amidst of all the tensions resulting from undecisivie attitue of the Maharajah. This ultimately forced the Maharajah to accede with India. After hearing about the pouring in of Indian soldiers in Kashmir ,Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, ordered the then general of Pakistani army who was an english officer to stop the undemocratic take over of Kashmir by sending his troops to the area. This order was denied by the general on the grounds of no attack motion against his own english counter parts in the indian army. Then after, the tribesmen of NWFP attacked and took control over 1/3rd of Kashmir from the Indian army.

some useful info for NS'ers

Why don't they just move all the Muslims in Kashmir into Pakistan and give the land to India? I'm sure that will solve the problem peacefully and finally. After the resulting nuclear exchange there should be no more bickering over Kashmir.
Pakistanis often "support" fellow Muslims, as long as they don't settle down near them. See the case of the Mohajirs.

Your making a lot of claims that have no backing.

Cite some sources, Credible ones.
He's not wrong, even if biased in India's favour. The Hindu elite of the kingdom that ruled Kashmir chose India, although the mostly Muslim citizens of that kingdom would have probably chosen Pakistan.

The OP seems to be forgetting that the entire reason for the existence of Pakistan/Bangladesh apart from India is because of the Islamic religion of the Pakistani peoples.

Source: Owen Bennet Jones Pakistan: Eye of the Storm (http://www.amazon.com/Pakistan-Storm-Owen-Bennett-Jones/dp/0300097603), 2002

If everyone followed this logic, then Miami should be given to Cuba.

I wasn't aware that either of these places had a majority Muslim population :confused:

I am tired of the UN's interference in the Indian-Pakistani conflicts by making the twon share control of Kashmir.
The UN hardly has to do with anything in Kashmir, since most of the agreements are bilateral between India and Pakistan. All it does is offer a few resolutions recommending more talks and monitoring their ceasefire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2739993.stm

Kashmir belongs solely and legally to India.
That it may be, but the situation now has evolved to a point where looking at Kashmir in absolutes based on something that didn't happen 50 years ago is unwise, at the very least. Kashmir's future should be based on today's situation, not that 50 years ago.

If Pakistan tries to put its filthy hands on Kashmir, the Indians have every right to invade and occupy Pakistan and see how they like it.
What makes you say filthy, out of interest? Although knowing you, it's probably because you don't like Muslims.

When the British withdrew from the subcontinent, the region was ruled by several kingdoms. These kingdoms acceded into either India or Pakistan. Kashmir's government went with India.
The Kashmiri government (kingdom) was Hindu, while it's population is overwhelmingly Muslim. If the Kashmiri government represented its people, chances are it would have gone with Pakistan. What's more, the people in Pakistani Kashmir want to stay in Pakistan. I know. I've been there. However, this does not change the fact that it should be the people's, not India or Pakistan's choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kashmir#1947

Pakistanis are upset since most of the people in Kashmir are Muslims, and since most Pakistanis are Muslims, their twisted logic is that Kashmir belongs to them on the basis that they are Muslims.
Well, it wasn't as if the entire point of creating Pakistan was for the Muslim population, was it?

If everyone followed this logic, then Miami should be given to Cuba. Quebec should become independent. Kosovo should also become independent. Western Sahara should be legally given to Morroco.
If they wanted to leave, why not?

See why giving any part of Kashmir to Pakistan based solely on the fact that most are Muslims makes no sense?
It does make sense. If they are Muslim, they are probably more likely to want to join Pakistan than India, if they were consulted, which they should be.

India was trying to create a secular government. If they had given up Kashmir to Pakistan because of the dominant religion there, then it would be counter-intuitive with their goal of a secular government.
And?

If Pakistan insists on continuing to conduct terrorist operations in India, then the UN needs to withdraw and let India defend its rightful land. By allowing Pakistan some control over Kashmir, the UN has rewarded aggression against India, therefore, the UN has allied itself with the terrorists.
Give me one iota of evidence that the Pakistani government conducts terrorist operations in Kashmir.

I don't know about Kashmir, but Quebec should be bloody cut loose. See if anyone fights over them.

In general I think reacting to terrorist attacks directly is a bad idea because by their nature they are difficult to pin on the state.

The UN is too incompetent to handle Kashmir. All of Kashmir belongs to India. Appeasing terrorists only makes them stronger.


The UN is the only international organisation that seems to be willing and able to step into the mess that is the disputed area of Kashmir. Any UN involvement in Kashmir should not be viewed as a threat to Indian soverignty of the region but a buffer between the two disputing nations.

I would also take exception to the notion that the UN "is too incompetent to handle Kashmir". Firstly the UN may on ocassions lack teeth (due to lack of essential international support) but should not be viewed as incompetent - Secondly it appears that you think that the Kashmiri conflict is more complex than any other one the international community has had to face - This is surely not the case.

Meh. China should whip them both and take over the whole region.

Why not?:confused:

A nation cannot hope to preserve its integrity if it can be so easily dismembered. Abraham Lincoln realized this and responded accordingly when faced with the dismemberment of his nation.

Why don't they just move all the Muslims in Kashmir into Pakistan and give the land to India? I'm sure that will solve the problem peacefully and finally. After the resulting nuclear exchange there should be no more bickering over Kashmir.

Sounds quick and easy doesn't it. I like your style. :p

i had no idea that the people of kashmir had opted to be part of india. if that's the case then every effort should be made to make this clear and acceptable to the pakistani government. if it's not then the obvious conclusion is that kashmir should be included in the pakistani state, at least for now, because this at least brings that region into line with the current politico-religious thinking and would settle things down for the time being. as long as the indian government agrees to this kashmiri self determination can be sorted out later.

Meh. China should whip them both and take over the whole region.

China would get it's ass kicked all over the place inside India or Pakistan. Without any use of nukes.

China would get it's ass kicked all over the place inside India or Pakistan. Without any use of nukes.

Once they occupy Kashmir, they just declare it to be outside India or Pakistan, therefore they won't have their ass kicked. * nods *

I wasn't aware that either of these places had a majority Muslim population :confused:

They don't. My point was that land should not be given away to nations because of purely demographic reasons.

i had no idea that the people of kashmir had opted to be part of india. if that's the case then every effort should be made to make this clear and acceptable to the pakistani government. if it's not then the obvious conclusion is that kashmir should be included in the pakistani state, at least for now, because this at least brings that region into line with the current politico-religious thinking and would settle things down for the time being. as long as the indian government agrees to this kashmiri self determination can be sorted out later.

I apologize for leaving out one important detail that I should have included. Simple oversight. India declared a plebescite, but the UN and Pakistan rejected the idea. Maybe they would have chosen India, or maybe Pakistan. In any case, the self-determination of peoples has proven to be a failed Wilsonian ideal that actually causes more problems than it solves. Hitler used that policy to justify seizing land in Europe.

I don't know about Kashmir, but Quebec should be bloody cut loose. See if anyone fights over them.

In general I think reacting to terrorist attacks directly is a bad idea because by their nature they are difficult to pin on the state.

Quebec has right to leave if they wish(too bad, so sad, don't let the door knob hit you on the way out) but those in Quebec who do not want to leave have a right to stay in Canada if they wish, so a partition would be in order if there are clear geographic patterns(the north and western areas).

Kashmir same......give the people a vote let them choose, if there clear regional differences a partition may be needed....

patriotism/nationalism/imperialism-evil outdated concepts that overrule common sense and democracy.......

FREE TIBET! :eek:

China is also involved in this dispute over Kashmir, but they definitely have no right to it. Neither does China have any legitimate claim to Tibet.

I apologize for leaving out one important detail that I should have included. Simple oversight. India declared a plebescite, but the UN and Pakistan rejected the idea. Maybe they would have chosen India, or maybe Pakistan. In any case, the self-determination of peoples has proven to be a failed Wilsonian ideal that actually causes more problems than it solves. Hitler used that policy to justify seizing land in Europe.

well i think using hitler as an example here is a little erroneous(sp. (i'm drunk)) because he tended to believe what he wanted to believe. but i think a directly democratic decision by the people of a particular region overseen by a non-partisan entity ought to be taken as valid. not that the indian state is a non-partisan entity. perhaps it should be done again and presided over by, oh i dunno, andora or equador or something.

now, i'm assuming a plebiscite is a poll of the general populace of a particular region because i've never seen the word before and dictionary.com seems to be screwed at the mo. please correct me if i'm wrong.

China is also involved in this dispute over Kashmir, but they definitely have no right to it. Neither does China have any legitimate claim to Tibet.
absolutely, positively agree on Tibet....it's annoying watching all the world leaders kiss China's butt so they can make a few$$$$.....it reveals their true interests, it's not the Tibetans.....

now, i'm assuming a plebiscite is a poll of the general populace of a particular region because i've never seen the word before and dictionary.com seems to be screwed at the mo. please correct me if i'm wrong.
There never was one. India refuses to hold one while Pakistan is "occupying" its part.

They did have a parliament session in which they joined India (after the '49 war was over, IIRC). They're also the only Indian region with its own constitution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1766582.stm - about the plebiscite
http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/12/stories/2006121204100100.htm - Pakistan saying it never wanted Kashmir anyways
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=279 - Pakistan saying a plebiscite isn't really necessary

patriotism/nationalism/imperialism-evil outdated concepts that overrule common sense and democracy.......

seconded and thirded and fourthded etc.

i fucking hate this whole bullshit "i identify with that state or the other" bullshit. why can't people just associate with their fellow human and be done with petty differences like beliefs and aesthetics. i just find the whole thought pattern that breeds that kind of xenophobic thinking utterly moronic.

China is also involved in this dispute over Kashmir, but they definitely have no right to it. Neither does China have any legitimate claim to Tibet.

Didn't stop the US from claiming Texas... * shrugs *

While the Indian portion of Kashmir does have a large Muslim population that might support such a move, not all Muslims in the area would like to secede from a secular democracy to a nation ruled by Islamic law under a military general.

According to MORI (Market & Opinion Research International), a British survey research organization, a survey conducted in 2002 claims that 61 percent of Kashmiris in the India-controlled part would wish to remain as Indian citizens, while only 6 percent supported Pakistani control. The rest surveyed voted as either un-decided or for Kashmiri independence. In addition, there is still a significant Hindu and Buddhist community in Indian Kashmir that would vehemently oppose a Pakistani takeover of the state.

I am tired of the UN's interference in the Indian-Pakistani conflicts by making the twon share control of Kashmir. Kashmir belongs solely and legally to India. If Pakistan tries to put its filthy hands on Kashmir, the Indians have every right to invade and occupy Pakistan and see how they like it. When the British withdrew from the subcontinent, the region was ruled by several kingdoms. These kingdoms acceded into either India or Pakistan. Kashmir's government went with India. Pakistanis are upset since most of the people in Kashmir are Muslims, and since most Pakistanis are Muslims, their twisted logic is that Kashmir belongs to them on the basis that they are Muslims. If everyone followed this logic, then Miami should be given to Cuba. Quebec should become independent. Kosovo should also become independent. Western Sahara should be legally given to Morroco. See why giving any part of Kashmir to Pakistan based solely on the fact that most are Muslims makes no sense? India was trying to create a secular government. If they had given up Kashmir to Pakistan because of the dominant religion there, then it would be counter-intuitive with their goal of a secular government. If Pakistan insists on continuing to conduct terrorist operations in India, then the UN needs to withdraw and let India defend its rightful land. By allowing Pakistan some control over Kashmir, the UN has rewarded aggression against India, therefore, the UN has allied itself with the terrorists.

Ha! If you bother to understand the underlying socio-political currents that affect India and Pakistan today, you would understand that assigning Kashmir to India makes less sense than giving control to Pakistan. It is precisely because the majority of Kashmir's citizens are Muslim that it should "belong" to Pakistan. The whole Partition thing, pretty messed up but exactly the kind of evidence that arbitrary dividing lines instituted out of political expedience, without regard for the respective cultures and lifestyles of the millions of people whose lives were devastated does not work. Pakistan was created as a Muslim nation, and it is this religious division--the result of decades of imperial British rule and separation to better govern--that is the crux of the issue. Thus, it makes sense that for a state founded entirely upon the basis of religion should be given a city that is primarily that religion. Yes, Kashmir's government sided with India. But a government is not the people. Particularly when the princely kingdom of Kashmir (a primarily Muslim state) was assigned to a Hindu ruler by the British as a reward for supporting British efforts.

But, this is also where the UN is doing the right thing and should continue to do so. Kashmir, like the India of pre-Partition, belongs to both Hindu and Muslim. Oh yes, and India has taken greater steps toward secularism, but don't deign to suggest that it is a secular nation. It is rather a nation that actively supports all religions (versus the wall of separation of church and state), with very strong Hindu leanings.

China would get it's ass kicked all over the place inside India or Pakistan. Without any use of nukes.

I doubt China is alone in it's inablity to take over all of southern asia seeing as the current militairy superpower isn't able to control an area much smaller than india.

The reverse is also true with India being unable to tackle all of china.

Home teams seem to hold the advantage in the 21st century.

seconded and thirded and fourthded etc.

i fucking hate this whole bullshit "i identify with that state or the other" bullshit. why can't people just associate with their fellow human and be done with petty differences like beliefs and aesthetics. i just find the whole thought pattern that breeds that kind of xenophobic thinking utterly moronic.

I think it is hard wired into humans to be tribal. That extension of that is nationalism. It is part of our animal side. The animal kingdom behaves in virtually the same way. So how do you undo natures doing?

I think it is hard wired into humans to be tribal. That extension of that is nationalism. It is part of our animal side. The animal kingdom behaves in virtually the same way. So how do you undo natures doing?

i dunno, why don't i have that then? i have loyalty only to my friends and my family. i can't imagine associating with something that has nothing to do with who i am.

i dunno, why don't i have that then? i have loyalty only to my friends and my family. i can't imagine associating with something that has nothing to do with who i am.

I would say that not all people experience the same levels of this in their personalities. Just like with alot of other traits.

Ha! If you bother to understand the underlying socio-political currents that affect India and Pakistan today, you would understand that assigning Kashmir to India makes less sense than giving control to Pakistan. It is precisely because the majority of Kashmir's citizens are Muslim that it should "belong" to Pakistan. The whole Partition thing, pretty messed up but exactly the kind of evidence that arbitrary dividing lines instituted out of political expedience, without regard for the respective cultures and lifestyles of the millions of people whose lives were devastated does not work. Pakistan was created as a Muslim nation, and it is this religious division--the result of decades of imperial British rule and separation to better govern--that is the crux of the issue. Thus, it makes sense that for a state founded entirely upon the basis of religion should be given a city that is primarily that religion. Yes, Kashmir's government sided with India. But a government is not the people. Particularly when the princely kingdom of Kashmir (a primarily Muslim state) was assigned to a Hindu ruler by the British as a reward for supporting British efforts.

But, this is also where the UN is doing the right thing and should continue to do so. Kashmir, like the India of pre-Partition, belongs to both Hindu and Muslim. Oh yes, and India has taken greater steps toward secularism, but don't deign to suggest that it is a secular nation. It is rather a nation that actively supports all religions (versus the wall of separation of church and state), with very strong Hindu leanings.

Your point may have had some validity if things had played out differently. Pakistan chose the wrong way to settle this dispute. They attacked India in 3 wars, and when direct war fails, they resort to terrorism. It is absurd to appease terrorists.

I am tired of the UN's interference in the Indian-Pakistani conflicts by making the twon share control of Kashmir. Kashmir belongs solely and legally to India. If Pakistan tries to put its filthy hands on Kashmir, the Indians have every right to invade and occupy Pakistan and see how they like it. When the British withdrew from the subcontinent, the region was ruled by several kingdoms. These kingdoms acceded into either India or Pakistan. Kashmir's government went with India. Pakistanis are upset since most of the people in Kashmir are Muslims, and since most Pakistanis are Muslims, their twisted logic is that Kashmir belongs to them on the basis that they are Muslims. If everyone followed this logic, then Miami should be given to Cuba. Quebec should become independent. Kosovo should also become independent. Western Sahara should be legally given to Morroco. See why giving any part of Kashmir to Pakistan based solely on the fact that most are Muslims makes no sense? India was trying to create a secular government. If they had given up Kashmir to Pakistan because of the dominant religion there, then it would be counter-intuitive with their goal of a secular government. If Pakistan insists on continuing to conduct terrorist operations in India, then the UN needs to withdraw and let India defend its rightful land. By allowing Pakistan some control over Kashmir, the UN has rewarded aggression against India, therefore, the UN has allied itself with the terrorists.

India is illegally occupying Muslim land. And what happens? The US strikes a nuclear deal with India while the US-backed "government" of Pakistan is backing down from its defense of Kashmir. And you know what, the fact that Kashmir is mostly Muslim, does almost by default means they are part of Pakistan. The British created Pakistan and India based on religion remember? Kashmir should NOT be ruled by these polytheists.

Your point may have had some validity if things had played out differently. Pakistan chose the wrong way to settle this dispute. They attacked India in 3 wars, and when direct war fails, they resort to terrorism. It is absurd to appease terrorists.

Oh, I'm not condoning terrorism. I was making the point that it makes more sense for Pakistan to have control of Kashmir, not that they really should beyond the current UN operation.

. . . sittin' in a tree
K
I
S
S
I
N
G
:)

India is illegally occupying Muslim land. And what happens? The US strikes a nuclear deal with India while the US-backed "government" of Pakistan is backing down from its defense of Kashmir. And you know what, the fact that Kashmir is mostly Muslim, does almost by default means they are part of Pakistan. The British created Pakistan and India based on religion remember? Kashmir should NOT be ruled by these polytheists.

Ahh, the British didn't quite make Pakistan and India. That's the result of the political efforts of Gandhi, Nehru, and Jinnah. Rather, the British more or less accepted the general idea after essentially deciding that India should have autonomy--and went along with the plan for a Muslim nation of Pakistan apart from Hindustan. It is, however, a result of years of British imperial control and arbitrary institution of division along religious lines for purposes of governance that laid the foundation for the inevitable Partition.

I am tired of the UN's interference in the Indian-Pakistani conflicts by making the twon share control of Kashmir. Kashmir belongs solely and legally to India. If Pakistan tries to put its filthy hands on Kashmir, the Indians have every right to invade and occupy Pakistan and see how they like it. When the British withdrew from the subcontinent, the region was ruled by several kingdoms. These kingdoms acceded into either India or Pakistan. Kashmir's government went with India. Pakistanis are upset since most of the people in Kashmir are Muslims, and since most Pakistanis are Muslims, their twisted logic is that Kashmir belongs to them on the basis that they are Muslims. If everyone followed this logic, then Miami should be given to Cuba. Quebec should become independent. Kosovo should also become independent. Western Sahara should be legally given to Morroco. See why giving any part of Kashmir to Pakistan based solely on the fact that most are Muslims makes no sense? India was trying to create a secular government. If they had given up Kashmir to Pakistan because of the dominant religion there, then it would be counter-intuitive with their goal of a secular government. If Pakistan insists on continuing to conduct terrorist operations in India, then the UN needs to withdraw and let India defend its rightful land. By allowing Pakistan some control over Kashmir, the UN has rewarded aggression against India, therefore, the UN has allied itself with the terrorists.

I can tell from your post that you hate Pakistan.

Your point may have had some validity if things had played out differently. Pakistan chose the wrong way to settle this dispute. They attacked India in 3 wars, and when direct war fails, they resort to terrorism. It is absurd to appease terrorists.

Besides, giving India control of Kashmir would only heighten Pakistani (Muslim) dissatisfaction and result in even greater drives to seize Kashmir. Terrorism is wrong, but the UN efforts are the best thing we've got at the moment.

Maybe if Bangledesh didn't split up, then Pakistan would be happier.

If everyone followed this logic, then Miami should be given to Cuba. Quebec should become independent. Kosovo should also become independent. Western Sahara should be legally given to Morroco.

I could live with that.

And don't let the yanks in on this, if they find out the UN is supporting the same country they do, they wont know what to do.

Your making a lot of claims that have no backing.

Cite some sources, Credible ones.

you always demand sources, and yet when they get posted everybody complains about how biased they are. I'm just gonna pring a big rubber stamo next time that says:

FACT


to stamp things that are simply true, like the sky is blue or that there was a holocaust...

you always demand sources, and yet when they get posted everybody complains about how biased they are. I'm just gonna pring a big rubber stamo next time that says:

FACT


to stamp things that are simply true, like the sky is blue or that there was a holocaust...

He claimed that Pakistan wanted Kashmir simply because they were muslim. He claimed Pakistanis had "filthy" hands. He claimed that Pakistan is controlled by terrorists, and that the UN was siding with these terrorists. He claimed that India had the right to invade and annex Pakistan.

Quite a few dubious claims that are in need of support.

If you would like to see an example of how to correctly make the case for India controlling Kashmir, see Aryavartha's post below:

"Kashmir" didn't decide anything. A Hindu ruler of a Muslim country may or may not have decided something, that depends on who you ask. There was no democratic choice.


ummmm.....Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession - a legally binding document - acceding to India - which was accepted by Lord Mountbatten - AFTER which India sent its soldiers to Kashmir.

There was no democratic choice to any kingdom.

If we are going to take up the case of one king (Kashmir) acceding to India on the basis of it being a non-democratic choice, then I demand that we do that same with Balochistan - the Khan of Kalat was forced to sign the IoA under coercion and a show of force by the Pakistani army.

and there needs to be an all-inclusive referendum held by the UN,

No can do.

Pakistanis have changed the demographics on their occupied part by settling Punjabis there. And Pak-backed jihadis have driven out 300,000 hindu Kashmiri Pandit community from Kashmir - changing the demographics in Indian administered Kashmir too.

The window for a plebiscite/referendum is not open anymore.

The Pandit plight is an unknown one and a very sad case. Many of them are still languishing as refugees - refugees in their own fucking country.

A video by a Pandit

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=842219646390515565&q=kashmiri+pandit



http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jan/19kanch.htm
19/01/90: When Kashmiri Pandits fled Islamic terror

January 19, 2005

Srinagar, January 4, 1990. Aftab, a local Urdu newspaper, publishes a press release issued by Hizb-ul Mujahideen, set up by the Jamaat-e-Islami in 1989 to wage jihad for Jammu and Kashmir's secession from India and accession to Pakistan, asking all Hindus to pack up and leave. Another local paper, Al Safa, repeats this expulsion order.

In the following days, there is near chaos in the Kashmir valley with Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah and his National Conference government abdicating all responsibilities of the State. Masked men run amok, waving Kalashnikovs, shooting to kill and shouting anti-India slogans.

Reports of killing of Hindus, invariably Kashmiri Pandits, begin to trickle in; there are explosions; inflammatory speeches are made from the pulpits of mosques, using public address systems meant for calling the faithful to prayers. A terrifying fear psychosis begins to take grip of Kashmiri Pandits.

Walls are plastered with posters and handbills, summarily ordering all Kashmiris to strictly follow the Islamic dress code, prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks and imposing a ban on video parlours and cinemas. The masked men with Kalashnikovs force people to re-set their watches and clocks to Pakistan Standard Time.

Shops, business establishments and homes of Kashmiri Pandits, the original inhabitants of the Kashmir valley with a recorded cultural and civilisational history dating back 5,000 years, are marked out. Notices are pasted on doors of Pandit houses, peremptorily asking the occupants to leave Kashmir within 24 hours or face death and worse. Some are more lucid: "Be one with us, run, or die!"

He claimed that Pakistan wanted Kashmir simply because they were muslim. He claimed Pakistanis had "filthy" hands. He claimed that Pakistan is controlled by terrorists, and that the UN was siding with these terrorists.

Quite a few dubious claims that are in need of support.

FACT

hey, I just said I wanted a stamp, not that you were wrong:D

although I think he is right. Kashmir is being fought over because Pakistan does indeed want it. Pakistan IS controlled by fundamentalists--which is why they are having so much trouble fighting them off. And terror IS being supported by Pakistan. It's a shame that a secular minded country has been eaten up by loons, but with afghanistan right next door what did they expect? If you smoke crack you can expect pinhole burns in your shirt.

The Hindu elite of the kingdom that ruled Kashmir chose India, although the mostly Muslim citizens of that kingdom would have probably chosen Pakistan.

coulda woulda shoulda...

Explain why the most popular leader of Kashmir of that time - Sheikh Abdullah - supported Hari Singh's decision to sign the IoA.

Explain why the first elected assembly ratified the same.

Explain why in every election people turn up to participate in elections with turnouts comparable to the rest of the country - despite intimidation from terrorists.

Pakistan IS controlled by fundamentalists--which is why they are having so much trouble fighting them off. And terror IS being supported by Pakistan. It's a shame that a secular minded country has been eaten up by loons, but with afghanistan right next door what did they expect? If you smoke crack you can expect pinhole burns in your shirt.

I think Pakistan is controlled by a military dictator named Pervez Musharraf. I think the terrorists in Pakistan are allowed to roam freely, unchecked because they are not threatening Musharraf's power. They aren't after him, we should he do anything to stop them? Such is the thinking of dictators, they care only about their own power. I don't see what we can do to halt Pakistan's terrorists, besides a full-scale military invasion.

Give me one iota of evidence that the Pakistani government conducts terrorist operations in Kashmir.

lol. You gotta be kidding me.

There never was one. India refuses to hold one while Pakistan is "occupying" its part.

errrrr...that's because the UN resolution for plebiscite calls for Pakistani withdrawal from its occupied Kashmir to pre-1947 borders, AFTER which India was to hold a plebiscite.

Since the former never happened, the latter never happened. Pakistan had no intention of facilitating a plebiscite. Until 1971 - it believed that it can wrest the region militarily. When conventional military approaches failed in 47 and 65, and after the disaster of 71 - it then took the proxy war approach buoyed by its success in the Afghan jihad. When even that failed to get results, it tried Kargil.

Given this history from one side, it is unreasonable to expect the Indians to hold up to their end of the promise.

Ha! If you bother to understand the underlying socio-political currents that affect India and Pakistan today, you would understand that assigning Kashmir to India makes less sense than giving control to Pakistan. It is precisely because the majority of Kashmir's citizens are Muslim that it should "belong" to Pakistan.
...
Pakistan was created as a Muslim nation, and it is this religious division--the result of decades of imperial British rule and separation to better govern--that is the crux of the issue. Thus, it makes sense that for a state founded entirely upon the basis of religion should be given a city that is primarily that religion

Hey, the majority of residents in my street are muslim. I suppose because they are muslim, the street should be declared part of Pakistan.

By the same token, would you agree that because Israel was formed as a state for Jews, the Arab muslims have no place in Israel?

Also, how do you decide who is majority in where?

Buddhists are a majority in Ladakh - they want to be with India. Hindus are majority in Jammy - they want to be with India.

The Gujjars of Kashmir want to be with India. The Pandits of Kashmir - want to be with India.

Only a section of sunni Kashmiris - who themselves do not constitute a majority in the unified state of Jammu&Kashmir are supportive of secession. Even they are divided into pro-independence group and pro-Pakistan group.

So we are to hold the entire region hostage to the aspirations of these minority groups just because they have guns and are willing to inflict terror on others?

Oh yes, and India has taken greater steps toward secularism, but don't deign to suggest that it is a secular nation. It is rather a nation that actively supports all religions (versus the wall of separation of church and state), with very strong Hindu leanings.

Yes, we in India see secularism = all religions are equal, not as a separation of state from "church".

India is illegally occupying Muslim land. And what happens?

Idiot.

Hari Singh signed Instrument of Accession - a legally binding document. If that is not legal, then the entire Independence act of India is illegal.

And you know what, the fact that Kashmir is mostly Muslim, does almost by default means they are part of Pakistan.

You know what, the fact that Bangladesh is mostly muslim, does almost by default means that they are part of Pakistan.

Except, they are NOT. Because of the small matter of Pakistani army killing 3 FUCKING MILLIONS of Bangladeshis.

Oh, I forget, it does not count when it is done by muslims. Silly me.

Kashmir should NOT be ruled by these polytheists.

Your monotheist mouth can kiss my polytheist ass for all I care.:)

No can do.
Sure it can. There's people who live there, and you ask them their choice.

Who knows, maybe the choice would be full independence.

If many Hindus have been driven out, then that's a problem - but not one that has to do with the future of Kashmir as a bit of land. I find the idea that the whole issue is about what the map looks like (rather than the people who live there) hilarious, if it wasn't such a tragedy.

If you're gonna hand over Kashmir back to the people who were driven out...what's gonna be your solution to the Israel/Palestine issue?

Sure it can. There's people who live there, and you ask them their choice.

Yeah, but how?

Given the current climate, it is impossible to repatriate the Pandits there.

Also due to the huge trust deficit - both India and Pakistan cannot give up what they have.

If Pakistan gives up its claim - then the whole basis of its formation is undermined. Same with India. Especially since the high strategic nature of the territory. The Indian position in Siachen gives it the ability to block the Karakoram pass - and disrupt Chinese logistical chain to Pakistan.

China not just continues to occupy Aksai Chin of Kashmir, but even claims the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh in the north-east as theirs. Given the realities of these, it would be downright naive of the Indians to be the angels here.

If many Hindus have been driven out, then that's a problem - but not one that has to do with the future of Kashmir as a bit of land.

errr...it is their homes you are talking about. How can the future of Kashmir not take into account the aspirations of the Pandits ?

Do you even know that the name Kashmir comes from the rishi Kashyap - whose heritage the Pandits come from?

find the idea that the whole issue is about what the map looks like (rather than the people who live there) hilarious, if it wasn't such a tragedy.

The issue is more about ideology. As it stands now, India and Pakistan are locked in a two person zero sum game.


If you're gonna hand over Kashmir back to the people who were driven out...what's gonna be your solution to the Israel/Palestine issue?

I support Palestinian independent state consisting of west Bank and Gaza and also repatriation / reconciliation or atleast reparations to the Arab refugees of the lands that are now Israel proper.

Idiot.

Hari Singh signed Instrument of Accession - a legally binding document. If that is not legal, then the entire Independence act of India is illegal.



You know what, the fact that Bangladesh is mostly muslim, does almost by default means that they are part of Pakistan.

Except, they are NOT. Because of the small matter of Pakistani army killing 3 FUCKING MILLIONS of Bangladeshis.

Oh, I forget, it does not count when it is done by muslims. Silly me.



Your monotheist mouth can kiss my polytheist ass for all I care.:)

The fact is India doesn't deserve Kashmir. If they don't become part of Pakistan, than they deserve to be independant. I see no reason whatsoever why they should be under Indian control. Bangladesh doesn't not border Pakistan, logically there's less of a reason for them to be part of Pakistan than Kashmir. Nice strawman though.

The fact is India doesn't deserve Kashmir. If they don't become part of Pakistan, than they deserve to be independant. I see no reason whatsoever why they should be under Indian control. Bangladesh doesn't not border Pakistan, logically there's less of a reason for them to be part of Pakistan than Kashmir. Nice strawman though.


WHile I agree with the thought of an independant Kashmire, Pakistan would never let it happen. Those fundemental Islamacists you know.

I am tired of the UN's interference in the Indian-Pakistani conflicts by making the twon share control of Kashmir. Kashmir belongs solely and legally to India. If Pakistan tries to put its filthy hands on Kashmir, the Indians have every right to invade and occupy Pakistan and see how they like it. When the British withdrew from the subcontinent, the region was ruled by several kingdoms. These kingdoms acceded into either India or Pakistan. Kashmir's government went with India. Pakistanis are upset since most of the people in Kashmir are Muslims, and since most Pakistanis are Muslims, their twisted logic is that Kashmir belongs to them on the basis that they are Muslims. If everyone followed this logic, then Miami should be given to Cuba. Quebec should become independent. Kosovo should also become independent. Western Sahara should be legally given to Morroco. See why giving any part of Kashmir to Pakistan based solely on the fact that most are Muslims makes no sense? India was trying to create a secular government. If they had given up Kashmir to Pakistan because of the dominant religion there, then it would be counter-intuitive with their goal of a secular government. If Pakistan insists on continuing to conduct terrorist operations in India, then the UN needs to withdraw and let India defend its rightful land. By allowing Pakistan some control over Kashmir, the UN has rewarded aggression against India, therefore, the UN has allied itself with the terrorists.

You need to catch up on the news there Kohlstein. The President of Pakistan is willing to give up claim to Kashmir and to make it a seperate state.

Didn't stop the US from claiming Texas... * shrugs *

Texas wanted to be part of the United States.

India is illegally occupying Muslim land. And what happens? The US strikes a nuclear deal with India while the US-backed "government" of Pakistan is backing down from its defense of Kashmir. And you know what, the fact that Kashmir is mostly Muslim, does almost by default means they are part of Pakistan. The British created Pakistan and India based on religion remember? Kashmir should NOT be ruled by these polytheists.

You might want to go back and learn a bit of history before making claims that India and Pakistan were created by the Brits. I'll grant you India but read up on the creation of Pakistan as well as Bangladesh come to think of it. You might be surprised at just who wrong you are.

The fact is India doesn't deserve Kashmir. If they don't become part of Pakistan, than they deserve to be independant. I see no reason whatsoever why they should be under Indian control. Bangladesh doesn't not border Pakistan, logically there's less of a reason for them to be part of Pakistan than Kashmir. Nice strawman though.

You really do not like history do you?

Texas wanted to be part of the United States.

Was not recognized as an independent country by Mexico; claimed a large area beyond the recognized limits of Texas.

Was not recognized as an independent country by Mexico; claimed a large area beyond the recognized limits of Texas.

No but it was recognized by the United States. However, this is actually off topic so why don't we cut this one out before we both get hip deep in an off topic debate?

No but it was recognized by the United States. However, this is actually off topic so why don't we cut this one out before we both get hip deep in an off topic debate?

Okee.

The fact is India doesn't deserve Kashmir. If they don't become part of Pakistan, than they deserve to be independant. I see no reason whatsoever why they should be under Indian control. .

lol. You ARE being a typical case of the "converted's zeal" by spouting the usual BS.

So if an area is majority muslim, then they should become either separate or join another muslim state ?

Why?

Because they cannot be muslims and live in a secular state?

And then people wonder where the paranoia of Eurabia, Bradfordstan, Londonistan etc come from.:rolleyes:

In the same token, I take it that whenever areas of West Bank and Gaza become Jewish majority due to illegal settlers, you will agree for those areas to become Israel proper, because hey, by your "logic" they are Jewish areas now and have to be part of the Jewish state of Israel, right ?


Bangladesh doesn't not border Pakistan, logically there's less of a reason for them to be part of Pakistan than Kashmir. Nice strawman though

Well, it WAS a part of Pakistan. It was made a part of Pakistan using your silly logic that being muslim is enough to define nationality - the two nation theory.

Nice knowledge of history you have there.

lol. You gotta be kidding me.
Yes. I asked for proof as a joke.

The President of Pakistan is willing to give up claim to Kashmir and to make it a seperate state.

Oh, that should explain why Pakistan has already annexed parts of the Kashmir (Gilgit and Baltistan areas) it occupied into its federal structure (called as "northern areas".

That should also explain why all government representatives of "Azad" (free) Kashmir have to swear an oath of allegiance to the states annexure to Pakistan, without which they will not be allowed to contest any elections.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41743.htm
Members of the Azad Kashmir assembly and government are required to claim allegiance to Pakistan before they can stand in elections. Some Kashmiri political parties advocated for an independent Kashmir and have therefore not been allowed to stand in provincial elections.

Yes. I asked for proof as a joke.

That's like asking proof that water is wet.

Terrorism is what the Pakistani govt does. It is the basis on which it was formed, read about Direct Action Day.

If you are asking for proof, tell me why Lashkar e Toiba is a banned organization in Pakistan and why is it's founder-leader Prof. Hafiz Mohammed Saeed is still roaming around free.

And what's funny is that US/NATO is also getting a taste of the plausible deniability games that Pak army govt plays.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/asia/13afghan.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Pakistan’s Support for Militants Threatens Region, Karzai Says

I know, I know, Karzai must be lying. Where is the proof, I ask. Show me iota of proof...:rolleyes:

That's like asking proof that water is wet.
Fine, if you think so.

Terrorism is what the Pakistani govt does. It is the basis on which it was formed, read about Direct Action Day.
Which happened 50 years ago. Is it relevant to today? Hardly.

If you are asking for proof, tell me why Lashkar e Toiba is a banned organization in Pakistan and why is it's founder-leader Prof. Hafiz Mohammed Saeed is still roaming around free.
So, you think because Pakistan banned a terrorist organisation it makes them terrorists?

And what's funny is that US/NATO is also getting a taste of the plausible deniability games that Pak army govt plays.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/asia/13afghan.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I know, I know, Karzai must be lying. Where is the proof, I ask. Show me iota of proof...:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
And you provide an article that doesn't even mention Kashmir once.

So if an area is majority muslim, then they should become either separate or join another muslim state ?

Why?

Yes, because it makes sense. Would you want India to be under Muslim control?



In the same token, I take it that whenever areas of West Bank and Gaza become Jewish majority due to illegal settlers, you will agree for those areas to become Israel proper, because hey, by your "logic" they are Jewish areas now and have to be part of the Jewish state of Israel, right ?

That will never happen. In reality israel is trending to be majority Arab before long. Then it will be only a matter of time before the jews are completely out of Palestine.


Well, it WAS a part of Pakistan. It was made a part of Pakistan using your silly logic that being muslim is enough to define nationality - the two nation theory.

Nice knowledge of history you have there.

your right, is was part of Pakistan. Though it was called E. Pakistan. the idea of making Bang. part of Pakistan was flawed because with the exception of being Muslim, the two places have little in common. Such is not the case with Kashmir as it is very similar to Pakistan.

I am tired of the UN's interference in the Indian-Pakistani conflicts by making the twon share control of Kashmir. Kashmir belongs solely and legally to India. If Pakistan tries to put its filthy hands on Kashmir, the Indians have every right to invade and occupy Pakistan and see how they like it. When the British withdrew from the subcontinent, the region was ruled by several kingdoms. These kingdoms acceded into either India or Pakistan. Kashmir's government went with India. Pakistanis are upset since most of the people in Kashmir are Muslims, and since most Pakistanis are Muslims, their twisted logic is that Kashmir belongs to them on the basis that they are Muslims. If everyone followed this logic, then Miami should be given to Cuba. Quebec should become independent. Kosovo should also become independent. Western Sahara should be legally given to Morroco. See why giving any part of Kashmir to Pakistan based solely on the fact that most are Muslims makes no sense? India was trying to create a secular government. If they had given up Kashmir to Pakistan because of the dominant religion there, then it would be counter-intuitive with their goal of a secular government. If Pakistan insists on continuing to conduct terrorist operations in India, then the UN needs to withdraw and let India defend its rightful land. By allowing Pakistan some control over Kashmir, the UN has rewarded aggression against India, therefore, the UN has allied itself with the terrorists.

As an Indian by ethnicity, I have to say:

That was total crap.
May a thousand elephants crap on your house!

You need to catch up on the news there Kohlstein. The President of Pakistan is willing to give up claim to Kashmir and to make it a seperate state.

Seperate state? It belongs to India.

Seperate state? It belongs to India.
It doesn't belong to anyone anymore. The people who used to live there don't live there anymore. The people who decided stuff back then don't live there anymore.

Fact of the matter is that all this "but back in..." crap doesn't move anything forward. They need to look at the situation now and make a decision. They need to ask the people who live there now and do what those people want. That could be simply splitting Kashmir into two bits for good, or making it independent.

I don't for a second buy this shit about geography as a valid reason for fighting. I don't really care whether China has a direct land route to Pakistan through Kashmir. It's not like they can't afford the planes or ships to get stuff there if they really cared. That should be the last of India's concerns. In fact, it shouldn't concern them at all.

I don't care what India and Pakistan do but what I do know is that the UN does more harm than they do good and definately needs to be kicked out of the region.

I don't care what India and Pakistan do but what I do know is that the UN does more harm than they do good and definately needs to be kicked out of the region.

Hear, hear!

Oh, that should explain why Pakistan has already annexed parts of the Kashmir (Gilgit and Baltistan areas) it occupied into its federal structure (called as "northern areas".

That should also explain why all government representatives of "Azad" (free) Kashmir have to swear an oath of allegiance to the states annexure to Pakistan, without which they will not be allowed to contest any elections.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41743.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6208660.stm

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has suggested Pakistan would give up its claim over disputed Kashmir if India accepted his peace proposals.
Gen Musharraf called for a phased withdrawal of troops in the region and self-governance for Kashmiris.

India responded by saying its position was that the map could not be redrawn but borders could be made irrelevant.

Both nations claim Kashmir in its entirety. It has sparked two of their three wars since independence in 1947.

You were saying?

Which happened 50 years ago. Is it relevant to today? Hardly.

Yes. Those who forget history are...


So, you think because Pakistan banned a terrorist organisation it makes them terrorists?

I don't know. YOU tell me why they banned it if THEY THEMSELVES do not think it is a terrorist organization? I suppose they did that for fun...:rolleyes:

And you provide an article that doesn't even mention Kashmir once.

Because it was not meant to give you proof of Pakistan's involvement in Kashmir jihad.

It was meant to give you an example of how they play plausible deniability game with jihadis.

Everybody knows taliban regrouped, recuperated and are now launching attacks from Pakistan with Pakistan govt doing little to stop them (they actually withdrew from the area ceding control to the taliban).

But you ask Musharraf, he is gonna say "there is no taliban in Pakistan". But we have Karzai here directly naming Pakistan.

So are you gonna take all the reports of talibani presence in Pak and agree with Karzai or are you gonna go with Pakistani denial?

It is the same with Kashmir. I am not going to waste my breath with someone who does not even know the basics and asks for proof of Pak involvement in Kashmir.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am actually quite OK with talibanis attacking US/NATO. Let them have a taste of what we have been suffering from 1990.

Yes, because it makes sense. Would you want India to be under Muslim control?

The current president of India IS a muslim. lol.

You have NO idea about how a secular representative democracy works.

So you are saying that if in the future, parts of UK become majority muslim, they are fully within their rights to secede and form a separate country, just because they are muslims and because of that they cannot live in a secular society within the UK ?

Give me a yes or no.



That will never happen. In reality israel is trending to be majority Arab before long. Then it will be only a matter of time before the jews are completely out of Palestine.

I did not ask you whether it will happen or not.

I asked you if you are OK with that idea IF it happened.


Such is not the case with Kashmir as it is very similar to Pakistan.

Pakistani Punjab has more in common with Indian Punjab (culture, language, dress, food etc) than with Kashmir, which has a distinct culture than either of the Punjabs.

You know jack about the region.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6208660.stm



You were saying?

I am STILL saying

that should explain why Pakistan has already annexed parts of the Kashmir (Gilgit and Baltistan areas) it occupied into its federal structure (called as "northern areas".

That should also explain why all government representatives of "Azad" (free) Kashmir have to swear an oath of allegiance to the states annexure to Pakistan, without which they will not be allowed to contest any elections.

Both of the above have not been reversed.

In light of the above, what Musharraf has said = BS.

I am STILL saying


Both of the above have not been reversed.

In light of the above, what Musharraf has said = BS.

So because he is offering something that is needed in the region, you are calling BS? Nice to see. Ok, I can see you are biased against Pakistan and do not believe that he can actually promise a lasting peace. You are just as bad as those who argue that the Israelis do not offer valid peace offerings when they have in the past.

Grow up some.

It doesn't belong to anyone anymore. The people who used to live there don't live there anymore. The people who decided stuff back then don't live there anymore.

So, you would be OK with India abrogating article 370 and allow non-Kashmiri Indians from elsewhere to settle in Kashmir and change the demographics there and in that process kill this insurgency and secessionist problem once and for all ?

I don't really care whether China has a direct land route to Pakistan through Kashmir..

We do. It is our security that is being threatened, you know.

It's not like they can't afford the planes or ships to get stuff there if they really cared. That should be the last of India's concerns. In fact, it shouldn't concern them at all

They cannot move tanks in planes. They cannot move tanks in ships either. We control the Malacca straits. The Karakoram highway can. That's why we maintain a presence in Siachen at a cost of about $300 million a year and lost about 1000 soldiers to the cold there.

The current president of India IS a muslim. lol.

He has no real power, so who are you trying to fool? The Prime Minister is not Muslim, and surprisingly he has the power.

So you are saying that if in the future, parts of UK become majority muslim, they are fully within their rights to secede and form a separate country, just because they are muslims and because of that they cannot live in a secular society within the UK ?

Give me a yes or no.

yes.


I did not ask you whether it will happen or not.

I asked you if you are OK with that idea IF it happened.

If your asking me if I'm comfortable with the jews taking over even more of Palestine, then no, absolutely not.


Pakistani Punjab has more in common with Indian Punjab (culture, language, dress, food etc) than with Kashmir, which has a distinct culture than either of the Punjabs.
If Kashmir is different than both then they should be independant. If they have to be with one or the other it makes sense that they should be with the one they share religion with.

So because he is offering something that is needed in the region, you are calling BS? Nice to see. Ok, I can see you are biased against Pakistan and do not believe that he can actually promise a lasting peace. You are just as bad as those who argue that the Israelis do not offer valid peace offerings when they have in the past.

Grow up some.

lol. Why would I trust Musharraf when he was the architect of Kargil ?

Because he says so?

His words are not worth toilet paper to me.

He also promised in a televised speech that he would no longer allow Pakistani soil to be used for militant activities against India. Nothing really changed. We were still targeted by LeT and JeM after that.

Let him jail Hafiz Saeed and then I will take him serious.

As I said, grow up alittle. Do you want peace in Kashmir?

He has no real power, so who are you trying to fool? The Prime Minister is not Muslim, and surprisingly he has the power.

lol, I don't have to try to fool you. You are doing a pretty good job yourself.

The point was about how a secular representative democracy works.


If your asking me if I'm comfortable with the jews taking over even more of Palestine, then no, absolutely not.

But you have no problems with asking others to give up territory because those areas are now majority muslim ?

Hypocrite.


If Kashmir is different than both then they should be independant. If they have to be with one or the other it makes sense that they should be with the one they share religion with.

That is not for you (or me, for that matter) to decide.

We promised a plebiscite to the then Kashmiris in that specific conditions. Since conditions have irrevocably changed, we cannot hold plebiscite anymore. We take the Kashmiri participation in elections to be proof majority are willing to be a part of the union.

During Operation Gibraltar in 1965, it was the local Kashmiris who tipped the army of the Pakistani SSG infiltration and some went to the extent of even capturing them. It is the local Ikhwanis who play a major part in counter intelligence. Again, you know jack about the history and current reality of the region...

Bottom line, we are not going to let a few sunni terrorists pretend that they are representative of the majority.

As I said, grow up alittle. Do you want peace in Kashmir?

Have you stopped beating your wife ?

lol, I don't have to try to fool you. You are doing a pretty good job yourself.

The point was about how a secular representative democracy works.


No, what I said was that you wouldn't like it if Muslims were in charge of India, and you said the President is Muslim making it seem as if Muslims are in control of India when in reality the president as almost no power.

But you have no problems with asking others to give up territory because those areas are now majority muslim ?

Hypocrite.

what are you talking about? in one case its matter of one side being overrun by another and in the other case its one side being unjustly controlled by the other. its apples and oranges.


We promised a plebiscite to the then Kashmiris in that specific conditions. Since conditions have irrevocably changed, we cannot hold plebiscite anymore. We take the Kashmiri participation in elections to be proof majority are willing to be a part of the union.

During Operation Gibraltar in 1965, it was the local Kashmiris who tipped the army of the Pakistani SSG infiltration and some went to the extent of even capturing them. It is the local Ikhwanis who play a major part in counter intelligence. Again, you know jack about the history and current reality of the region...

Bottom line, we are not going to let a few sunni terrorists pretend that they are representative of the majority.

My, what a rosy picture you paint of the fact that Indians are occupying a region they have no business being in.
Bottom line, Muslims will not back down it the face of occupation

Have you stopped beating your wife ?

Not married and I would never hit my gf. Now answer my question. Do you want to see peace in regards to Kashmire?

Not married and I would never hit my gf. Now answer my question. Do you want to see peace in regards to Kashmire?

The answer was in that question.

The answer was in that question.

is that a yes?

Bottom line, Muslims will not back down it the face of occupation

Good. When are you going to Kashmir for your jihad ?

is that a yes?

Yes to what?

The answer was in that question.

Sorry but you do have to state the answer clearly and not with some off the wall quip.

If you do want peace, then tell me what is wrong with what the President of Pakistan is saying! Seems to me he is offering peace.

Yes to what?

yes, you want peace

Yes to what?

The question I posed to you obviously :rolleyes:

Good. When are you going to Kashmir for your jihad ?

Who said I'm going to Kashmir?

Sorry but you do have to state the answer clearly and not with some off the wall quip.


*sigh*

Your question presumes that I am somehow against peace in Kashmir. That's why I asked "did you stop beating your wife"...it is one of those where you are in the wrong whether you answer yes or no. The question is designed to make you look bad either ways.

Of course, I am for peace in Kashmir. What sort of stupid question is that?



If you do want peace, then tell me what is wrong with what the President of Pakistan is saying! Seems to me he is offering peace.

What is wrong is, and I am again quoting what I said

that should explain why Pakistan has already annexed parts of the Kashmir (Gilgit and Baltistan areas) it occupied into its federal structure (called as "northern areas".

That should also explain why all government representatives of "Azad" (free) Kashmir have to swear an oath of allegiance to the states annexure to Pakistan, without which they will not be allowed to contest any elections.

and

Why would I trust Musharraf when he was the architect of Kargil ?

Because he says so?

His words are not worth toilet paper to me.

He also promised in a televised speech that he would no longer allow Pakistani soil to be used for militant activities against India. Nothing really changed. We were still targeted by LeT and JeM after that.

Let him jail Hafiz Saeed and then I will take him serious.


His words still remain worthless. Let him show some action.

Who said I'm going to Kashmir?

Oh, I forget. You are an internet jihadi.:)

Seems to me he is offering peace.

I also agree that I give up my claim to Angelina Jolie.

[QUOTE=Aryavartha;1208184His words still remain worthless. Let him show some action.[/QUOTE]

He made the offer to India. It is up to India to show action either for it or come out and say no to it. The ball is literally in the Indian's court.

He made the offer to India. It is up to India to show action either for it or come out and say no to it. The ball is literally in the Indian's court.

Exactly what offer is that?

He is saying that Pakistan never claimed Kashmir as its own, but only fought for the rights of Kashmirs for self-determination.

That being the case, please explain the following.

Then why did Pakistan invade the then independent princely state of J&K in 1947?

You DO know that it was the Pakistani invasion that forced Hari Singh to sign the IoA, thereby acceding to India, AFTER which India sent its army to beat back the invaders, don't you?

After this brazen attempt to annex kashmir and failing to do so, it did not take any initiative to actually free the part they occupied.

They incorporated Kashmir's Gilgit and Baltistan into Pakistan's federal structure as Northern areas.

Let him reverse that, THEN I will take him seriously.

In 1963, Pakistan ceded Shaksgam valley of Kashmir to China, without any consultation with any Kashmiri. Look up in google.

Let him get that back from China, THEN I will take him seriously.

Since 1990, his jihadis are terrorising the valley. After the parliament attack by Jaish terrorists, India amassed troops at the border and Musharraf promised in a televised speech that he will curb the activities of terrorists. Till date, Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed are roaming free.

Let him jail them, and dismantle the jihad factory, THEN I will take him seriously.

Until then I will consider his words as worthless. His offer to give up claim to Kashmir, is like me giving up my claim to Angelina Jolie. Jolie could care less about that.:p

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7598_1863128,000500020009.htm
When it comes to deciding the pattern of self-governance on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control, no serious discussion is needed.

Where is the question of self-governance when Pakistan has, by and large, been ruled, by one military dictator or the other?

If no respect is shown to the democratic aspirations of the people of Pakistan, how can its military rulers possibly grant autonomy to the government of ‘Azad Jammu & Kashmir’ (AJK)?

Readers may recall that after General Zia-ulHaq’s coup in 1977, the AJK Assembly was dissolved, the parliamentary system scrapped and a presidential form of government set in motion. An army brigadier was appointed Chief Executive.

This arrangement continued till 1985, when elections were held after amending the rules such that the opposition parties were marginalised.

Even during civilian rule in Pakistan, conditions were manipulated to bring the ruling party of Islamabad to power in Muzaffarabad.

Throughout its existence, the AJK government has remained a proxy of the Pakistan government.

Under the Constitution Act, 1974, an AJK Council was set up with the Chief Executive of Pakistan as Chairman, AJK President as Vice-Chairman and Pakistan’s Minister of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas as secretary.

This Council had executive and legislative jurisdiction over 52 subjects, leaving little area for exercise of powers by the AJK ‘government’.

The Council was supposed to be a ‘link’ for coordination, but, in practice, it has always had a decisive say. Its Chairman enjoys the sole power of declaring an Emergency and dissolving the Assembly.

In effect, the AJK government has no independence in governance, has limited financial powers and it cannot make any key appointment.

The little sphere for exercise of power has all along been monopolised by a small clique — Sardar Abul Qayyum Khan and his son, Barrister Sultan Mahmood, Raja Mumtaz Rathore, etc.

The Northern Areas have been virtually incorporated into Pakistan and are administered by Islamabad.

A subtle demographic change is also being brought about by settling Sunnis in areas where Shias and Ismailis are currently in the majority.

Pervez Musharraf ’s proposals for demilitarisation are untenable. Bringing about demilitarisation can happen only when the network of terror and acts of subversion conducted by the ISI and its outfits are first removed.

The cart cannot be put before the horse. If such operations are halted and the infrastructure of terror dismantled, the Indian army will return to its barracks and restrict itself to the routine duty of guarding the borders.

But Musharraf's idea of securing demilitarisation without the creation of conditions, that make the presence of the army unnecessary, is impractical.

No less unconvincing is the General’s idea of joint management or joint control. Apart from its imprecision, the idea does not even deal with an el ementary question: What would happen if there is a difference of opinion or approach between joint managers or controllers?

In this connection, models of Andorra, Trieste and Northern Ireland have also found mention.

None of these or any other institutional arrangement can work as long as forces of fanaticism and fundamentalism continue to operate at the ground level.

Such forces would subvert the system from within and establish their hegemony. If any of their ‘diktats’ is not followed, they would resort to terror tactics.

Free movement across the Line of Control is also not feasible. Anyone entering the Kashmir Valley or Jammu from Pakistan can easily move to other parts of India as well.

The general’s suggestion to split Jammu and Kashmir into regions — Jammu, Srinagar and Ladakh on the Indian side and Northern Areas and ‘Azad Kashmir’ on the Pakistan side — is also vague.

He has not spelt out whether his suggestion includes granting an autonomous status to these regions.

As far as the Indian side of Kashmir is concerned, none of these regions is a homogeneous entity.

The Jammu region has a substantial Muslim-majority area. Like wise, Ladakh’s Kargil district is dominated by Shia Muslims. The Gujjars and Bakarwals also have their own distinct way of life.

There would be too many claimants for separate identities. New grievances will be dished out and existing ones exaggerated.

Given the populist disposition of local political leaders, the attempt would be to build ‘separate mosques of one brick each’ and carve out their own immamats. The friction generated could singe, if not burn, the entire fabric of the State.

While petty ethnic lords would fight over their petty autonomies, the lot of the under-privileged would only worsen.

On either side of the Line of Actual Control, problems can be solved by prioritising commonalities that exist and by eliminating hunger, ignorance and disease.

The experience of Yugoslavia has shown how despotic, murderous ethnic war lords can be. India’s billion-plus people with a staggering range of diversity co-exist.

Let this movement be not disturbed by imprecise ideas rooted in superficial thinking.

Jagmohan is a former Governor of J&K and a former Union Minister

Exactly what offer is that?

I told you what he is offering and if you bothered to click the link, you can see it for yourself.

He is saying that Pakistan never claimed Kashmir as its own, but only fought for the rights of Kashmirs for self-determination.

Bullshit. You know, you are worse than those who argue that Israel never offers a decent peace proposal.

I told you what he is offering and if you bothered to click the link, you can see it for yourself.

I thought you were referring to this. I apologize.

http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/$All/69C6DCAF49A3B2B56525724100573B95?OpenDocument

I do know of his latest "offer". My reply still stands.

The day he marches his army into Muridke and jails Hafiz Mohammed Saeed is the day I will take anything he says seriously.

I have heard all these offers from Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Bhutto, Zia, Benazir, Nawaz and now Musharraf. But none of them did diddly squat in actually doing anything for peace in the region.

When Pakistan actually does dismantle its jihad factory, I will be the first to jump in this peace bandwagon. Until then I will remain a skeptic.

Ideally, I think the people living in Kashmir should decide for themselves which country their region should belong to. Unfortunately, that won't be happening.
Probably the most intelligent post that this thread will witness.

To add to the above.

When Vajpayee initiated the peace process by going in a bus to Lahore, Musharraf, the army chief, refused to be at the reception at Lahore, because ostensibly, he did not want to salute the Indian Prime Minister. Probably he was busy plotting the Kargil intrusion, which sparked off a mini-war.

http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2001/jun3001.html
And then there was the Indian premier's visit to Lahore in 1999.
Then army chief Musharraf, along with the other service chiefs, was
conspicuous by his absence. Musharraf, who refused to salute
Vajpayee on home ground, was faced with the dilemma of saluting him
on Indian territory, after the shedding of much blood in the
interim.

You are saying, this guy has had a change of heart and now wants peace. Exactly why should I believe him, when STILL his jihadis are letting loose terror on India ?

His saying Pakistan is giving up claim on Indian Kashmir does not actually change anything. They are giving up their irrational claim. What does that have to do with India having to respond.

Ok, let's play ball. India also gives up its claim on Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

Where are we now?

Exactly where we were before.

You see, Pakistan's idea of negotiation until now has been "We get to keep what we have, let's negotiate on what India already has". We have been saying "no can do".

Now they are saying, "ok we give up our claim on your Kashmir".

And we are like..."ummmm...Ok, we guess..."...

It does not actually change anything since their claim was irrational to begin with.

I thought you were referring to this. I apologize.

http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/$All/69C6DCAF49A3B2B56525724100573B95?OpenDocument

I do know of his latest "offer". My reply still stands.

The day he marches his army into Muridke and jails Hafiz Mohammed Saeed is the day I will take anything he says seriously.

I have heard all these offers from Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Bhutto, Zia, Benazir, Nawaz and now Musharraf. But none of them did diddly squat in actually doing anything for peace in the region.

When Pakistan actually does dismantle its jihad factory, I will be the first to jump in this peace bandwagon. Until then I will remain a skeptic.

You know, there is one thing that will bring peace quickly. Let Muslims in Kashmir be with their Muslim brothers and sisters in Pakistan and India will have its peace.

You know, there is one thing that will bring peace quickly. Let Muslims in Kashmir be with their Muslim brothers and sisters in Pakistan and India will have its peace.

Land for peace.

What happened the last time that was tried....

Land for peace.

What happened the last time that was tried....

your refering to.....

your refering to.....

Chamberlain offer before WW II.

Rewarding terrorism is the best way to stop terrorism. Yeah right.:rolleyes:

Chamberlain offer before WW II.

Rewarding terrorism is the best way to stop terrorism. Yeah right.:rolleyes:

so basically what your saying is that Muslims are Nazis?

so basically what your saying is that Muslims are Nazis?

No. Basically I am saying that you do not understand analogy.

No. Basically I am saying that you do not understand analogy.

And you don't understand why there is not peace. There is violence because some are resisting occupation, when you end occupation, you end the resistance and the violence.

And you don't understand why there is not peace. There is violence because some are resisting occupation, when you end occupation, you end the resistance and the violence.

Explain why there was no violence until 1990.

Clue - the Afghan jihad ended in 1989.

So, you would be OK with India abrogating article 370 and allow non-Kashmiri Indians from elsewhere to settle in Kashmir and change the demographics there and in that process kill this insurgency and secessionist problem once and for all ?Hey, if you love that sad strip of land so much, you can try and fit them all in there for all I care! :D

We do. It is our security that is being threatened, you know.
Yes, because the best form of relationship with one's neighbours is one of fear and aggression.

God forbid trust, trade or mutual understanding enter into it.

They cannot move tanks in planes.
Which tank does the Pakistani Army use?

And, yeah, that was a rhetorical question. They're all being built in Pakistan.

That's why we maintain a presence in Siachen at a cost of about $300 million a year and lost about 1000 soldiers to the cold there.
Okay, firstly you may want to consider buying warm jackets. I'm serious, how can a 21st century army lose soldiers to cold?

And secondly, this is like talking to some European from 1907. Quite astonishing, really.

In fact, check this shit (http://www.pakistanidefence.com/PakArmy/AlKhaildMBT2000.html) out!
Al-Khalid is far more modern than India's Arjun, which took 25 years to be developed and is still not completed. Pakistan already has an edge over India in an armed conflict, but after the addition of Al-Khalid, Pakistan would be invincible in a land war.
It's like reading the Austro-Hungarian Army's website! I wonder when the message will get through to the knobheads which apparently populate South Asia.

Land for peace.

What happened the last time that was tried....

Egypt got the Sinaii Peninsula back and still has a lasting peace with Israel. Even Jordan has a lasting peace with Israel too once they gave up their claim to the West Bank.

It does work but both sides need to agree to it.

Hey, if you love that sad strip of land so much, you can try and fit them all in there for all I care! :D \

So, you have no problems doing a Tibet on Kashmir. Ethnic Hans outnumber Tibetans now in Tibet....putting to rest any hopes of independent Tibet.

You should become our PM man, I will vote for you.:D


Yes, because the best form of relationship with one's neighbours is one of fear and aggression.

God forbid trust, trade or mutual understanding enter into it.

We are willing to withdraw from Siachen. The ONLY condition is that Pakistan agrees to validate the positions currently held by India. Just so you know, they don't do a Kargil again. Pakistan refuses to put on paper on the positions held by India. Hence talks are not progressing beyond a generic ceasefire.


Which tank does the Pakistani Army use?

I was referring to potential Chinese intervention to assist Pakistan. That is what the Karakoram highway was built for. That's the reason why Pak gave Shaksgam valley to China in 1963, so that the Chinese can build the highway connecting Pak.

Siachen overlooks that pass. See the map.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Map_Kashmir_Standoff_2003.png



Okay, firstly you may want to consider buying warm jackets. I'm serious, how can a 21st century army lose soldiers to cold?

Winter temperature can go below 50 degrees. Celsius that is.

Kashmir chose India in 1948. Pakistan just can't accept that.

no the Maharaja of Kashmir chose india. Not the people of Kashmir

\

Winter temperature can go below 50 degrees. Celsius that is.

Uh, isn't the normal human body tempeture in celsius something in the thirties? So wouldn't twenty degrees above that be really hot, not cold? Or do you mean 50 degrees bellow 0C, in other words below freezing?

Meh, the rest of world should leave this problem to sort itself out. The tensions between Pakistan and India have been slowly easing over the years and Pakistan seems willing to allow Kashmiris to hold a referendum as to which country the territory will accede to. Religious zeal in the area seems to be exhausting itself and the population more willing to talk than fight. I'm not sure what Musharraf's motivations are, but what he is proposing seems to be a good idea to me at least.

Uh, isn't the normal human body tempeture in celsius something in the thirties? So wouldn't twenty degrees above that be really hot, not cold? Or do you mean 50 degrees bellow 0C, in other words below freezing?Above or below freezing, 50 degrees is an extreme temperature. The average body temperature is 37C, it is considered a medical emergency if your temperature deviates 5-6 degrees either side of that. Death is near certain at 44C and 24C.

Explain why there was no violence until 1990.

Clue - the Afghan jihad ended in 1989.

So you're saying all the violence is caused by foreign Jihadis? doubtful.

So you're saying all the violence is caused by foreign Jihadis? doubtful.Well yes... considering most of the foreign jihadis had been previously been locked up in arab countries as political/religious extremists, and then sutbly pushed out of these countries to Afghanistan.

Consider Sadat's assassination in Egypt. About 300 people were indicted in the ensuing trials. Most were released in the mid 80s and given a helping hand to leave the country and to go fight in Afghanistan. The most notable of these being Ayman al-Zawahiri. Where do you think all these people went after the Soviets were defeated. And in many of these people's minds the Soviets had been defeated by the will of God, not internal pressures of a delapidated economy.

And you don't understand why there is not peace. There is violence because some are resisting occupation, when you end occupation, you end the resistance and the violence.

Kashmir is what is being occupied. The Pakistanis need to leave Kashmir alone if they want peace. The Indians aren't the ones perpetuating this violence.

Kashmir is what is being occupied. The Pakistanis need to leave Kashmir alone if they want peace. The Indians aren't the ones perpetuating this violence.

Occupied by whom?

Occupied by whom?

That would be the Indians

That would be the Indians

And yet, there is a muslim Kashmir and an Indian Kashmir. So again, occupied by whom? It all depends on where you are located.

And yet, there is a muslim Kashmir and an Indian Kashmir. So again, occupied by whom? It all depends on where you are located.

Muslim Kashmir is not occupied. It is defending against the occupation by the Indians.

Muslim Kashmir is not occupied. It is defending against the occupation by the Indians.

Go to India and ask them if Kashmir is being occupied by them or by Pakistan. This is your problem Sovietstan. You can not see things from the other side.

In this type of debate, some will see India as occupying Kashmir, and others will see Pakistan as occupying Kashmir.

So tell me why Kashmir should belong to Pakistan WITHOUT using religion as a pretext.