NationStates Jolt Archive

Who should control Muslim Majority Kashmir? Muslim Pakistan or India. To me it only makes sense for Kashmir to be with Pakistan.

Independant state with UN monitoring.

Will never happen though. It will remain in Indian hands until someone spills enough blood for it.

Robert Plant.

I have no idea, but Kashmir, the Danish rock band, is pretty cool.

Just for fun, let's give it to Israel and see what happens.

Muslim states don't have the right to seize control over any territory that has a muslim majority, dividing states up along religious lines is a bad idea, period. I would like to see Kashmir become an independent state.

I thought this was going to be about the song... :(

Give them independence then have all the largest fabric companies in the world make cashmere in Kashmir. Oh the humorous irony!

Your just on a posting roll today. I say give both sides what they have today and call it good. You cannot feasibly give either side control of it no matter what religion is the majority there. If you give it independence you will see years of fighting and possible re-invasion from the two powers. It's a powder keg that won't diffuse in the near futures unfortunately.

Time warpage. I had the second post.

Nuh uh!

Time warpage. I had the second post.

muahahaha... MY second post!! MINE!!!


(Until the next time warp)

Time warpage. I had the second post.

I've been to Srinigar, stunningly beautiful, I say give it to the Kashmiris. Alas that will never happen but I truly wish it would.

Who should control Muslim Majority Kashmir? Muslim Pakistan or India. To me it only makes sense for Kashmir to be with Pakistan.

Yeah...let's think about why you might think that...

Nuh uh!
The proof is the your quote of my post appears before my post was even posted.

Russia...or independent...

It's not so obvious really Soviestan ;p. I mean, just because you're a Muslim, it isn't implied that you'd think Kashmir should go to Pakistan.

What do the people want? Where are the various populations concentrated, if at all? Would a partition of some sort be possible?

I'm not really up on the Kashmir conflict... It's actually one that's, unfortunately, easily looked over in current Western media.

Independent. Let's tick off both sides. :D

India, for obvious reasons.

Edit: By Obvious I mean obvious why I would think that, not that the reasoning behind giving it to India is obvious.

What do the people want? .If you call for a democratic referendum in Kashmir.. the people of Kashmir would choose to join Pakistan.

You don believe me? ask Aryavartha.

If you call for a democratic referendum in Kashmir.. the people of Kashmir would choose to join Pakistan.

You don believe me? ask Aryavartha.

You sure? They wouldn't vote for independence?

Let's see what the facts are.

The then independent princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was invaded by Pakistanis under the guise of 'tribal lashkars'. The details of the arming and the mixing of regulars and guiding them can be found in the book "Raiders of Kashmir" by Gen. Akbar who was part of the planning.

The Maharajah Hari Singh then signed the Instrument of Accession which is a legal and binding document according to the Indian independence act making the accession legal and binding on both parties (India and Pak).

It was after the signing of the IoA and the acceptance of it by Lord Mountbatten, did India airlift its soldiers into Srinagar airport. Note that Kashmir was invaded by Pakistan first and defended by India later (when it became its sovereign territory). The UN resolutions identify Pakistan as the aggressor and asks it to withdraw to pre-1947 borders so that India can conduct plebiscite.

Since the former never happened, the latter never happened. It is really not that hard to understand, is it?

Plus, China invaded and still occupies roughly 30% of sovereign territory of the state of Jammu and Kashmir ?

On top of that Pakistan has ceded the Shaksgam valley to China after the 1965 war.

On top of that Pakistan has abetted and allowed settlement of non-Kashmiris in the part they occupy (which has not happened in the Indian part due to the article 370 of the Indian constitution).

On top of that Pakistani jihadis have driven out 200,000 Hindu Pandits from the valley.

But hey, Pakistan is muslim. Kashmir is muslim majority. Even there only the valley is overwhelming muslim majority, but hey why let inconvenient facts of the differing interests of the Gilgit-Baltistanis, Gujjars, the Shias, the Jammu-ites, the Ladakhi Buddhists etc come up. The minority sunni valley Kashmiri has the guns, so it is his voice that must be true, eh?

After all, according to Soviestan logic, muslims must group together as one state.

Oops, let's also forget the 3 million Bangladeshi muslims killed by Pakistani muslim army.

If you call for a democratic referendum in Kashmir.. the people of Kashmir would choose to join Pakistan.

You don believe me? ask Aryavartha.

If you are offering a referendum to ALL of Jammu and Kashmir with 3 options of

1. Independence

2. India

3. Pakistan

India might very well get the edge because it has the Jammu and Ladakhi populations overwhelming support + Kashmiri Gujjars + Kashmiri Pandits + disgruntled Gilgit and Baltistanis of Pakistani 'northern areas'.

The Mirpuri 'Azad' Kashmiri + sunni Indian Kashmiri vote will divide between Independence and Pakistan.

Things are not as simple as it seems. Plus, if jihadis are muzzled in, the army will be back to barracks and as things normalize there, more and more people will side with India. Reason why pro-secessionists cannot allow things to normalize.

If you call for a democratic referendum in Kashmir.. the people of Kashmir would choose to join Pakistan.

You don believe me? ask Aryavartha.

I see no reason to disbelieve you ;p. I'm guessing the voting would be down ethnic/religious lines though. So it wouldn't exactly please everyone, you'd always have separatists, India-loyalists, etc. Not to mention China ;/.

It looks like the north-west is pretty heavily populated by Muslims, but towards the centre-south it gets pretty mixed, it would be tough to decide where to draw the line.

You sure? Yes, I am sure.

India would never Win a democratic Referendum (or plebiscite as Aryavartha calls it)

India just does not have the votes.. its simple Math.

They wouldn't vote for independence?an Independent Kashmir would be perceived badly in India.. as It would most likely conduct to a later fusion with Pakistan.

It will remain in Indian hands until someone spills enough blood for it.

If it comes to that, then nobody has more blood than India.

Let's see what the facts are.

The then independent princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was invaded by Pakistanis under the guise of 'tribal lashkars'. The details of the arming and the mixing of regulars and guiding them can be found in the book "Raiders of Kashmir" by Gen. Akbar who was part of the planning.

The Maharajah Hari Singh then signed the Instrument of Accession which is a legal and binding document according to the Indian independence act making the accession legal and binding on both parties (India and Pak).

It was after the signing of the IoA and the acceptance of it by Lord Mountbatten, did India airlift its soldiers into Srinagar airport. Note that Kashmir was invaded by Pakistan first and defended by India later (when it became its sovereign territory). The UN resolutions identify Pakistan as the aggressor and asks it to withdraw to pre-1947 borders so that India can conduct plebiscite.

Since the former never happened, the latter never happened. It is really not that hard to understand, is it?

Plus, China invaded and still occupies roughly 30% of sovereign territory of the state of Jammu and Kashmir ?

On top of that Pakistan has ceded the Shaksgam valley to China after the 1965 war.

On top of that Pakistan has abetted and allowed settlement of non-Kashmiris in the part they occupy (which has not happened in the Indian part due to the article 370 of the Indian constitution).

On top of that Pakistani jihadis have driven out 200,000 Hindu Pandits from the valley.

But hey, Pakistan is muslim. Kashmir is muslim majority. Even there only the valley is overwhelming muslim majority, but hey why let inconvenient facts of the differing interests of the Gilgit-Baltistanis, Gujjars, the Shias, the Jammu-ites, the Ladakhi Buddhists etc come up. The minority sunni valley Kashmiri has the guns, so it is his voice that must be true, eh?

So your reasoning for why India should have Kashmir is a piece of paper signed years ago? Why does that have more say over what the people want or what makes sense?

After all, according to Soviestan logic, muslims must group together as one state.
Why would it be bad if Muslims were united as one Ummah?

Oops, let's also forget the 3 million Bangladeshi muslims killed by Pakistani muslim army.

This has to do with Kashmir how?

If you are offering a referendum.I am not offering a Referendum.. I don't have the power to do so.

The ones with the Power are sitting on the Indian Gov.. and You-and-Me know they will NOT call for a Referendum.

Partition it, like Punjab and all those other provinces on the India-Pakistan border

How about partitioning Canada ?

Partition it, like Punjab and all those other provinces on the India-Pakistan border

I am not offering a Referendum.. I don't have the power to do so.

The ones with the Power are sitting on the Indian Gov.. and You-and-Me know they will NOT call for a Referendum.

Thanks for missing the point about how and why plebiscite is irrelevant (the whole issue about Chinese occupation, Pandit refugees, Pak-Punjabis settled in their part of Kashmir, change in demography etc).

Read recent Baroness Emma Nicholson's report to the EU. It is part of a debate in the EU parliament or whatever they call it.

If it comes to that, then nobody has more blood than India.

Except perhaps China.

Although I doubt China would fight for any more of Kashmir than it feels is necessary for its strategic interests, which largely seem insular and defensive.

I don't see USA and Greenland warring over Canada

So, if two countries war over a territory, the solution should be partition, regardless of the origin, causes and reality of the conflict.

Cool.

Just to put things in perspective.. I somewhat favor the Indian Gov over the Pakistan Gov.

The Indian Gov is Elected.
The Pakistani Gov is a Bloody dictatorship.

I hate dictatorships.

How about partitioning Canada ?

Canada doesn't have the same problems as Kashmir. Not really a fair comparison.

And we have been debating our own partition of sorts for decades.

How about partitioning Canada ?

I don't see USA and Greenland warring over Canada

Independant state with UN monitoring. I like that idea.

China doesn't want further military entanglement with India even if it's got a superior army.

Oh I know. But China has plenty of blood to spill, if it chooses to do so.

Except perhaps China.

Although I doubt China would fight for any more of Kashmir than it feels is necessary for its strategic interests, which largely seem insular and defensive.

China doesn't want further military entanglement with India even if it's got a superior army.

So, if two countries war over a territory, the solution should be partition, regardless of the origin, causes and reality of the conflict.

Cool.

If you've been fighting each other for the last 60 years with no peaceful end in sight, i don't think partition is that bad of an idea

So your reasoning for why India should have Kashmir is a piece of paper signed years ago? Why does that have more say over what the people want or what makes sense?

Because it is the same piece of paper that gave Pakistan its territory of Baluchistan.

The Khan of Kalat wanted to accede to India (yeah he was a muslim ruler of a muslim majority state. Go figure.) He was intimidated into signing the IoA to Pakistan by Pakistani army's show of force.

If you want a referendum for Kashmir, I want a referendum for the whole of Pakistan.

Let Pushtuns decide if they want to be with Afghanistan.

Let Balochis decide if they want to be with Iran or Independance.

Let Sindhis decide what they want.

The Pak-Punjabis can rot in their own stew.

None of these states voted for Pakistan anyway. It was the union party which won the election beating the Muslim League.

I am sure you must be knowing all this history. Not.




Why would it be bad if Muslims were united as one Ummah?

Knock yourself out. Make arrangements to get all the muslims who are willing to join your ummah out of my country cuz we are not about to give up any more territory cuz you say so.



This has to do with Kashmir how?

Hey, it was you who insists that muslims should be one ummah. I am merely showing you what happened the last time that was tried in a small scale.

Thanks for showing your ignorance. Again.

I don't see USA and Greenland warring over CanadaHe is obviously talking about Quebec.

Aryavartha is taking a page from the book "Forum Warriors" by OcceanDrive :D

He is responding in kind.. You want a piece of India? Then he wants a piece of your precious Canada!
heads-up and cover your weak spots. :D

Canada doesn't have the same problems as Kashmir. Not really a fair comparison.

And we have been debating our own partition of sorts for decades.

How would you like it if France started training terrorists and fuelled an armed terror campaign for annexing Quebec in the guise of giving moral support to the 'self-determination' of Quebecois?

He is obviously talking about Quebec.

Aryavartha is taking a page from the book "Forum Warriors" by OcceanDrive :D

He is responding in kind.. You want a piece of India? He is wants a piece of you!
heads-up and cover your weak spots. :D

Yes, I mean for that matter we should redraw Texas and give half of it to Mexico.
New from "How to fix a problem without knowing the details:"

"Got a problem? What's that, you can't seem to decide who this territory should go to? Well we've got JUST the solution for you!"

Announcing: the separator 2000, specially designed to solve all of your territory problems with one easy offhand solution. We don't care if you've got good credit, bad credit, or thousand of crazy jihadis, we take all comers.

Side effects include: Not really solving the problem, more violence and death, further destabilization, and in very very few cases the detonation of a backpack nuke. Be advise, you should consult with your local UN or a trained diplomat before proceeding.

^ lol.

How many of you here have read the manifesto of Lashkar-e-Toiba (aka Jamaat ud Dawa) - the deadliest anti-Indian jihadi group of Pakistan ?

It goes beyond Kashmir.

Let me put it this way.

Kashmir is not the problem. It is a symptom. The problem is the ideological foundation of Pakistan (note that I am not railing against the people of Pakistan - but its army and its ideological moorings).

It is not very different from Israel. I find it amusing that people who make threads upon threads against Israel ( I am looking at you Oceandrive :D ), cannot recognise the similarities.

Robert Plant.

QFT.

How would you like it if France started training terrorists and fuelled an armed terror campaign for annexing Quebec in the guise of giving moral support to the 'self-determination' of Quebecois?

That isn't happening, so there's no need to partition Canada (on that basis.)

I realize where you're coming from, but it's not just the needs of India and Pakistan that are at stake here. Now that both nations are nuclear, the last thing we need is this part of the world nuking itself over a border skirmish accidentally morphing into something worse. It's not even remotely far fetched. The Indian sub-continent engaing in a nuclear conflict would have drastic effects on the rest of the world. Fairness need not apply.

So yeah, if it reduces the possiblity of armed conflict, then I'd consider the option. But it's not my first choice.

so.. this is what the US Gov has been using in Palestine/Israel :D

No, you're thinking of the separator 1000, guaranteed to bring back memories of the Crusades and stretch religious and ideological differences to the breaking point.

Now, if you're interested in new models, the separator 2003 came out recently. It's what they've been using in Iraq. They...still haven't got all the kinks out of it yet.

Announcing: the separator 2000, specially designed to solve all of your territory problems with one easy offhand solution. We don't care if you've got good credit, bad credit, or thousand of crazy jihadis, we take all comers.

Side effects include: Not really solving the problem, more violence and death, further destabilization, and in very very few cases the detonation of a backpack nuke.so.. this is what the US Gov has been using in Palestine/Israel :D

No, you're thinking of the separator 1000, guaranteed to bring back memories of the Crusades and stretch religious and ideological differences to the breaking point.

Now, if you're interested in new models, the separator 2003 came out recently. It's what they've been using in Iraq. They...still haven't got all the kinks out of it yet.hahaha..
ok, you win this thread.

According to wiki

In Pakistan-administered Kashmir 99% of the population is Muslim

Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir contain an approximately 70% Muslim majority...The rest of the population are Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh and others

In 1941 the Hindus represented 15% of the total Kashmiri population. But in 1990, they left the Valley of Kashmir as a result of intimidation and violence by Muslims in the region...The Indian government does not allow other Indians to buy property in the area, so the Hindus who have been killed or forced out are permanently making the Hindu proportion smaller.

A plebiscite may solve the problem, however India is reluctant to hold one for reasons which include political as well as the fact that the demographic profile of Jammu & Kashmir has changed since 1947 as Pakistan has actively encouraged people from other Pakistani states to settle in AJK while on the Indian administered part, the Hindus have been virtually cleansed.

Recently, independent agencies have conducted opinion polls and drawn the conclusion that the majority indeed favors secession from both India and Pakistan. The pollsters also concluded that Kashmiri public opinion overall is relatively more pro-Indian than pro-Pakistani.

seems like India has a much better claim to the region but no country will give the other an inch.

No, you're thinking of the separator 1000, guaranteed to bring back memories of the Crusades and stretch religious and ideological differences to the breaking point.

Now, if you're interested in new models, the separator 2003 came out recently. It's what they've been using in Iraq. They...still haven't got all the kinks out of it yet.

they should use Separator Cold War Edition used in such success stories as the Korean Peninsula

According to wiki




seems like India has a much better claim to the region but no country will give the other an inch.

You can't really base it off of percentages, though. Especially given the number of Hindus who have been forced out of their by violence, threats, and intimidation.

That isn't happening, so there's no need to partition Canada (on that basis.)

Of course it is not happening, hence the hypothetical question. ;)

I realize where you're coming from, but it's not just the needs of India and Pakistan that are at stake here. Now that both nations are nuclear, the last thing we need is this part of the world nuking itself over a border skirmish accidentally morphing into something worse. It's not even remotely far fetched. The Indian sub-continent engaing in a nuclear conflict would have drastic effects on the rest of the world. Fairness need not apply.

So yeah, if it reduces the possiblity of armed conflict, then I'd consider the option. But it's not my first choice.

Land for Peace.

I remember how successful it was....:rolleyes:

they should use Separator Cold War Edition used in such success stories as the Korean Peninsula

That was the standard unit for a long time, but then they went and lost it in Vietnam. No one's seen it since, and that's why they had to default to the separator 1000 when dealing with Israel/Palestine.

Of course it is not happening, hence the hypothetical question. ;)



Land for Peace.

I remember how successful it was....:rolleyes:

If you don't mind my asking, what part of India are you in? I remember you mentioning you were Tamil in another thread, but figure that didn't mean you were still in that area necessarily.

Of course it is not happening, hence the hypothetical question. ;)

Yeah, I dodged.

Hypothetically, as PM I would have enacted the War Measures Act in Quebec, use Canada's international 'soft power' against France at all levels, co-operate with the US on any anti-France proposals, and seriously consider dividing Quebec into separate provinces.

Just depends how serious it gets I suppose. However, I agree with you that I would adopt India's position, which is hold on to your cards until everyone plays fair.


Land for Peace.

I remember how successful it was....:rolleyes:

Just like to keep my options open. I'd be happier with a buffer state between Pakistan and India. Have no fear though, my opinion counts for naught.

If you don't mind my asking, what part of India are you in? I remember you mentioning you were Tamil in another thread, but figure that didn't mean you were still in that area necessarily.

I am a Tamil. Lived all over India - most of TN, Bangalore, Bhuvaneswar, Jamshedpur, Ahmedabad, Pune.

Currently in California. Actually I am in Florida, right now.:D It is great here

I am a Tamil. Lived all over India - most of TN, Bangalore, Bhuvaneswar, Jamshedpur, Ahmedabad, Pune.

Currently in California. Actually I am in Florida, right now.:D It is great here

You lived in Ahmedabad? Awesome, I've got family there, though most of them are in Nadiad and Mumbai.

Yeah, Florida's nice this time of year.

It should be taken to a vote. Carefully monitored by the UN to make sure there is no foul play, a question something along the lines of the following to be asked to every resident of Kashmir:

Would you like Kasmir to be:

(1)an Independant country
or
(2)a part of India
or
(3)a part of Pakistan.

You lived in Ahmedabad? Awesome, I've got family there, though most of them are in Nadiad and Mumbai.

Yep. I lived there for about 6 months - Satellite Colony. It was a nice place, but I was there at the wrong time (the infamous riots).

It should be taken to a vote. Carefully monitored by the UN to make sure there is no foul play, a question something along the lines of the following to be asked to every resident of Kashmir:

Would you like Kasmir to be:

(1)an Independant country
or
(2)a part of India
or
(3)a part of Pakistan.

Sorry to be repetitive. But it is really not that easy.

Some of the demographic changes are irreversible. The Pakistanis started settling non-Kashmiris in their part after 60s and now their kids are second generation. In a way, they have rights too, but in another way, they don't.

Plus, people may not have clear opinions themselves. For ex, a sunni Kashmiri might opt for independence, but if the vote splits between independence and Pakistan, and the India choice wins, then he might later wish he had voted for Pakistan instead.

Likewise, a shia Gilgiti might vote for independence, but if he is forced to join Pakistan instead, he might think that he should have voted for India instead.

The degrees of support to each of these choices vary so much within the same person depending on the circumstances that it is hard to quantify it into neat separate things.

There are plenty of ethnic, religious, linguistic, sectarian differences between the groups of the region and it is my opinion that it is best that they are with India, which can provide the safety that only an avowedly multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-linguistic and secular democratic country can provide.

Not a state like Pakistan founded on 'us vs them' principle.

Yep. I lived there for about 6 months - Satellite Colony. It was a nice place, but I was there at the wrong time (the infamous riots).

Ouch, yeah not a good time to be there. I went there back in 2k3 and the city had already much improved.

Ouch, yeah not a good time to be there. I went there back in 2k3 and the city had already much improved.

Yeah. Gujarat, much to the chagrin and heartburn of Modi-bashers, is on its way to a 'developed country' standards.

Yeah. Gujarat, much to the chagrin and heartburn of Modi-bashers, is on its way to a 'developed country' standards.

Aye. That it is. A few of my granduncles teach at unis around Gujarat. It's by no means backwater.

Oh and for the record, I have not voted for India.

"Control" is a vague word.

I believe in self-determination and more autonomy to states to govern themselves.

Which is what goes on in the Indian part. It is controlled by a Kashmiri party, elected by Kashmiris who have complete autonomy in many state-level issues and actually has more autonomy than any other Indian state (article 370 again)

Not so in the so-called 'Azad' Kashmir (free Kashmir).

They have no election and their leader is nominated by the powers that be in Islamabad. And people who hold office should take an oath that they affirm to the condition that they will be loyal to Pakistan.

The calls by Pakistan and its supporters (that's you Soviestan :D ) for 'self-determination' to the Indian state of Kashmir is laughable in the background of the total lack of any rights to the parts of Kashmir occupied Pakistan.

And when you consider the lack of self-determination to Pakistanis themselves, it is really a laugh riot.

How about some self-determination for Pakistan, eh? :cool:

Btw, here's what passes for "freedom" in 'azad Kashmir'.

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/pakistan0906/4.htm
III. Constitutional Structure of Azad Kashmir and Its Relationship to Pakistan

Government of Azad Kashmir, by the Pakistanis, for Pakistan.
—Former president of Azad Kashmir (name withheld)

Azad Kashmir has its own constitution, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974, and a locally chosen parliamentary form of government, as described above (see Chapter II, Background: Administration). The constitution allows for many of the structures that comprise a self-governing state, including a legislative assembly elected through periodic elections, a prime minister who commands the majority in the assembly, an indirectly elected president, an independent judiciary, and local government institutions.

But these provisions are hollow. Under Section 56 of the Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (which was drafted by the Federal Ministries of Law and Kashmir Affairs in Islamabad), the Pakistani government can dismiss any elected government in Azad Kashmir irrespective of the support it may enjoy in the AJK Legislative Assembly. The Interim Constitution Act provides for two executive forums—the Azad Kashmir Government in Muzaffarabad and the Azad Kashmir Council in Islamabad.

The latter body, presided over by the prime minister of Pakistan, exercises paramount authority over the AJK Legislative Assembly, which cannot challenge decisions of the council. The council is under the numerical control of the federal government in Islamabad, as in addition to the Pakistani prime minister it comprises six other federal ministers, the minister of Kashmir affairs as the ex-officio member, the prime minister of Azad Kashmir, and six Azad Kashmir members elected by the Legislative Assembly.38 The interim constitution act lists fifty-two subjects—virtually everything of any importance—that are under the jurisdiction of the Azad Kashmir Council, which has been described as the “supra power” by the Azad Kashmir High Court. Its decisions are final and not subject to judicial review.

Thus, Azad Kashmir remains for all intents and purposes under Pakistan’s strict control, exercising no real sovereignty of its own. From the outset, the institutional set up in the territory was designed to ensure Pakistan’s control of the area’s affairs. According to the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP)39 resolutions, Azad Kashmir is neither a sovereign state nor a province of Pakistan, but rather a “local authority” with responsibility over the area assigned to it under the ceasefire agreement.40 The “local authority” or provisional government of Azad Kashmir as established in October 1947 handed over to Pakistan under the Karachi Agreement of April 28, 1949, matters related to defense, foreign affairs, negotiations with the UNCIP and coordination of all affairs relating to Gilgit and Baltistan (strategically important territories that now comprise Pakistan’s “Northern Areas” but are claimed by India as part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir).

A former president of Azad Kashmir (who preferred not to be named in this report) described the situation as “[g]overnment of Azad Kashmir, by the Pakistanis, for Pakistan.” He also pointed to the striking continuity of the “old princely system” under British rule because of Islamabad’s “viceroy” role generally and the maintenance of the traditional biradari system locally.41

The constitution of Azad Kashmir poses major impediments towards genuine democracy as it bars all those parties and individuals from participating in the political process who do not support the idea of Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan and hence precludes all those who are in favor of Kashmiri independence. To fail to support, or fail to appear to support Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan means to invite the ire of Pakistan’s abusive intelligence agencies and its military. It also entails inviting political persecution, such as ineligibility to contest elections or to seek employment with any government institution, or the curtailing of basic freedom of expression. (These issues are explored in more detail in Chapters IV and V, below.)
Interference and control by Islamabad in Azad Kashmir politics

Because of the mandate of the AJK Legislative Assembly and its particular division of power with Pakistan, the elected political leaders of Azad Kashmir essentially remain titular heads of the territory while the real power resides in Islamabad. This requires a compliant Azad Kashmir administration, and explains the repeated changes in Azad Kashmir’s leadership at Pakistan’s will. And in common with previous such exercises, the most recent election to the Legislative Assembly, in July 2006, was greeted with widespread charges of poll rigging by all opposition political parties and independent analysts (see Chapter V, below).42 Another instrument of exercising control is through assigning virtually all major civil and police administrative posts to Pakistani civil and military officials who are “on deputation” from Islamabad. The Azad Kashmir government is also totally dependent on the federal government of Pakistan for its finances.

Power in Azad Kashmir is exercised primarily through the Pakistani army’s General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, just outside Islamabad, and its corps commander based in the hill station of Murree, two hours by road from Muzaffarabad. It is widely understood in Pakistan and privately admitted by virtually all politicians from Azad Kashmir that the corps commander in Murree is known to summon the Azad Kashmir prime minister, president and other government officials regularly to outline the military’s views on all political and governance issues in the territory.

During the rule of Pakistan’s first military leader, Ayub Khan (1958-68), President K.H. Khurshid of Azad Kashmir was forced to resign by a mid-level police official and later jailed in Palandari and Dalai Camp. During Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government (1972-77), another president of Azad Kashmir, Sardar Qayyum, was suddenly arrested by a mid-level official :eek: of the Federal Security Forces in Muzaffarabad and subsequently dismissed. During General Zia-ul-Haq’s government (1977-88), Brig. Hayat Khan was appointed administrator of Azad Kashmir, a post he held for seven years. When a civilian government was reestablished in Pakistan in 1988, Benazir Bhutto’s swearing in as prime minister was shortly followed by the installation of an elected government of Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party in Azad Kashmir. When Bhutto was sacked by the president in 1990, Azad Kashmir Prime Minister Mumtaz Rathore was “escorted” to Islamabad in a helicopter and made to sign a letter of resignation.

When Nawaz Sharif became prime minister of Pakistan in 1990, Sardar Qayyum once again rose to power as prime minister of Azad Kashmir, the nominee of the Pakistani army. During Bhutto’s next stint in power (1993-96), she cautiously chose not to dismiss Sardar Qayyum, but elections in 1996 brought her Pakistan People’s Party to government again in the territory, as expected, and Sultan Mahmood Chaudhry became prime minister.

Following General Musharraf’s 1999 coup, Sardar Muhammad Anwar Khan took the oath of office on August 25, 2001, as president of Azad Kashmir. Sardar Anwar had been nominated by the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference (MC, the ruling party in the AJK Legislative Assembly, backed by Musharraf) on July 29, 2001, in a decision evidently reached in Islamabad, as at the time of his nomination the members of the assembly had little or no idea who Anwar was.43 Prior to this appointment, he had served in the Pakistani army for thirty-five years and was an army major-general at the time of his appointment, retiring from the army just four days before his election as president on August 1, 2001.44 Controversially, his retirement was under an ordinance issued by Musharraf that waived the restriction on government servants accepting any political post before they had been retired for a minimum of two years.45 Anwar’s term of office ended following Legislative Assembly elections held in Azad Kashmir on July 11, 2006. On July 27, AJK Muslim Conference candidate Raja Zulqarnain Khan was elected president of Azad Kashmir for a five-year term.46

Sardar Sikandar Hayat Khan, a veteran of Pakistan-sponsored politics, served as prime minister of Azad Kashmir from July 2001 to July 25, 2006, when he was succeeded by Musharraf nominee and Muslim Conference president Sardar Attique Ahmad Khan.47


Regarding Azad Kashmir’s political party landscape, since the early 1990s real decision-making authority and the management of the “Kashmir struggle” has rested firmly with the Pakistani military through the ISI and ISI-backed militant organizations (see above, Chapter II, Background: The role of militant groups), and the mainstream political parties allowed representation by Pakistan in the AJK Legislative Assembly have not figured among the principal political actors in Azad Kashmir. However, they have benefited from the perks, privileges and funds for purposes of patronage and generating public support.

Sardar Karamdad Khan, a Muzaffarabad-based lawyer, summed up for Human Rights Watch the dispensation of power in the territory:

The Pakistani bureaucracy is the real administrative power, the ISI and the Pakistan army exercise coercive power. And under the constitution, the elected representatives are subservient to the Kashmir Council controlled by Pakistan. High Court and Supreme Court Judges can only be appointed by approval of the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in Islamabad. The Minister of Kashmir Affairs can dismiss the PM, as can the Chief Secretary—another Islamabad appointee. Under Article 56, the President of Pakistan can dissolve the Legislative Assembly. Surely, this is a truly unique form of self-rule.48

*crickets*

Ohhh i know give it to the Sikhs and rename it Kahalistan!


Bole So Nihal!

*crickets*

*cheep cheep cheep*

My two cents:

Let Kashmir become independent. Let the UN install a transitional Kashmir authority to hold free and fair elections. Then the people in Kashmir can determine whether they want to stay independent, be absorbed into Pakistan or India or form a loose confederation with either country.

We are never going to get Khalistan

I'm pretty sure that movement died with the 1980's


True true, but then we don't really need it, I mean Sikhi is for all huh!

Ohhh i know give it to the Sikhs and rename it Kahalistan!


Bole So Nihal!

We are never going to get Khalistan

I'm pretty sure that movement died with the 1980's

yea we don't need it, we got a Sikh Prime Minister of India...thats good enough


Ohh yeah and of course we have a Sikh Guru Ji! ;)

True true, but then we don't really need it, I mean Sikhi is for all huh!

yea we don't need it, we got a Sikh Prime Minister of India...thats good enough

Why would it be bad if Muslims were united as one Ummah?

Because then they'd decide to start "backpacking" through the rest of the world, like every other time the muslims got any sort of power.

Keep posting like that, and they'll call you a bigot.

Well it's true. Moors in Spain, Crusades, Ottomans in Austria. If it wasn't for Charles Martel and Jan III Sobieski, we'd all be speaking that mahakanah-hakanah shit.

Because then they'd decide to start "backpacking" through the rest of the world, like every other time the muslims got any sort of power.

Keep posting like that, and they'll call you a bigot.

Yes, you and I know it's true, but others here will keep calling you a bigot for saying it until the Ummah shows up and puts them in blue beekeeper outfits.

Damn straight.

Well it's true. Moors in Spain, Crusades, Ottomans in Austria. If it wasn't for Charles Martel and Jan III Sobieski, we'd all be speaking that mahakanah-hakanah shit.

Yes, you and I know it's true, but others here will keep calling you a bigot for saying it until the Ummah shows up and puts them in blue beekeeper outfits.

Who should control Muslim Majority Kashmir? Muslim Pakistan or India. To me it only makes sense for Kashmir to be with Pakistan.


Well, using your logic, then the land of Israel should stay in the Jews hands, as its a majority of Jews. :rolleyes:

Well, using your logic, then the land of Israel should stay in the Jews hands, as its a majority of Jews. :rolleyes:

Zilam wins the thread!

Well it's true. Moors in Spain, Crusades, Ottomans in Austria. If it wasn't for Charles Martel and Jan III Sobieski, we'd all be speaking that mahakanah-hakanah shit.

Um, crusades were Christians pal. You really should learn your history, especially the part where Muslims brought civilisation to the world, while everyone else was plunged in the dark ages.

Zilam wins the thread!

Pft, I win every thread I post in :D

Well it's true. Moors in Spain, Crusades, Ottomans in Austria. If it wasn't for Charles Martel and Jan III Sobieski, we'd all be speaking that mahakanah-hakanah shit.

See, that's why you're a bigot.

Um, crusades were Christians pal. You really should learn your history, especially the part where Muslims brought civilisation to the world, while everyone else was plunged in the dark ages.

Though to be fair, we gave them the number zero, and they passed it along to you a-holes :)

Could someone explain why either country is fighting over a territory which (by the pictures of it) a goat would starve trying to live there. Are there minerals or something that makes it valuable? It seems to be a totally worthless piece of ground. Both would be better off without it. They just seem to want it because the other wants it.

What is the real value of this territory?

Could someone explain why either country is fighting over a territory which (by the pictures of it) a goat would starve trying to live there. Are there minerals or something that makes it valuable? It seems to be a totally worthless piece of ground. Both would be better off without it. They just seem to want it because the other wants it.

What is the real value of this territory?

Nowadays it's a shelled out warzone, but it used to be some of the most beautiful land in Southern Asia. I've heard parts of it still are.

And do people really need a reason to kill each other?

Nowadays it's a shelled out warzone, but it used to be some of the most beautiful land in Southern Asia. I've heard parts of it still are.

And do people really need a reason to kill each other?

Most of it is not a shelled-out warzone. Just the actual border area nearest Pakistan, where the trenches and shit are.

Well it's true. Moors in Spain, Crusades, Ottomans in Austria. If it wasn't for Charles Martel and Jan III Sobieski, we'd all be speaking that mahakanah-hakanah shit.

uhh....the crusades were started by Christian and various Catholic Popes

Most of it is not a shelled-out warzone. Just the actual border area nearest Pakistan, where the trenches and shit are.

True.

Could someone explain why either country is fighting over a territory which (by the pictures of it) a goat would starve trying to live there. Are there minerals or something that makes it valuable? It seems to be a totally worthless piece of ground. Both would be better off without it. They just seem to want it because the other wants it.

What is the real value of this territory?

This is why it's important to the majority hindu population of India, along with the fact that they have documents and treaties backing their claim.

Kashmir was originally and still is one of the most important centres of Hinduism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir


Pakistan wants it because it has a Muslim Majority

This is why it's important to the majority hindu population of India, along with the fact that they have documents and treaties backing their claim.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir


Pakistan wants it because it has a Muslim Majority

It like most conflict is a relgious thing, give to us Sikhs and we'll make sure every body has access, shit why not do the same with Jerulselum too.

'Sikhs making sure that Muslims don't kill all the infedels since 1469'

Yay, you Sikhs and your silly uncut hair. :fluffle:

Oi oi, it's not silly, It's manly all right!:D

It like most conflict is a relgious thing, give to us Sikhs and we'll make sure every body has access, shit why not do the same with Jerulselum too.

'Sikhs making sure that Muslims don't kill all the infedels since 1469'

Yay, you Sikhs and your silly uncut hair. :fluffle:

Well, using your logic, then the land of Israel should stay in the Jews hands, as its a majority of Jews. :rolleyes:

At time the jews starting going to Palestine it was over 90% Arab. Even when they got their state, Palestine was mostly Arab. So it flawed. The only similarity Kashmir has with Palestine is that Muslims are getting screwed.

Because then they'd decide to start "backpacking" through the rest of the world, like every other time the muslims got any sort of power.

:rolleyes:

Whatever the Kashmiris want, though what's best for stability is to have it independent. If India and Pakistan are going to behave like children and not share nicely, then the 'toy' should be removed from the equation.

Because it is the same piece of paper that gave Pakistan its territory of Baluchistan.

The Khan of Kalat wanted to accede to India (yeah he was a muslim ruler of a muslim majority state. Go figure.) He was intimidated into signing the IoA to Pakistan by Pakistani army's show of force.
He wasn't intimidated by anyone.

If you want a referendum for Kashmir, I want a referendum for the whole of Pakistan.

Let Pushtuns decide if they want to be with Afghanistan.

Let Balochis decide if they want to be with Iran or Independance.

Let Sindhis decide what they want.

The Pak-Punjabis can rot in their own stew.

None of these states voted for Pakistan anyway. It was the union party which won the election beating the Muslim League.

I am sure you must be knowing all this history. Not.

I don't want a referendum for kashmir, its clear they want to be with Pakistan. As for what you mentioned about Pakistan, it has little to do with Kashmir.



Knock yourself out. Make arrangements to get all the muslims who are willing to join your ummah out of my country cuz we are not about to give up any more territory cuz you say so.

Muslims in Kashmir are part of the Ummah, in case you haven't realised. Kashmir is Muslim land and can not simply be given up just because your country doesn't want to lose territory.

He wasn't intimidated by anyone.


I don't want a referendum for kashmir, its clear they want to be with Pakistan. As for what you mentioned about Pakistan, it has little to do with Kashmir.




Muslims in Kashmir are part of the Ummah, in case you haven't realised. Kashmir is Muslim land and can not simply be given up just because your country doesn't want to lose territory.

Ah, yes. It's clear. Because, you know, of your crazy psychic powers and all. If all this Ummah stuff is true, and everyone believes this, why isn't there a unified Pakistan/Bangladesh? Or did India coerce it into happening somehow :rolleyes:

Kashmir should control Kashmir

In other words, it should be independent.

At time the jews starting going to Palestine it was over 90% Arab. Even when they got their state, Palestine was mostly Arab. So it flawed. The only similarity Kashmir has with Palestine is that Muslims are getting screwed.

He's not talking about Palestine, he's talking about Israel.

While I'd like to see Kashmir independent, I wonder how long afterwards it would take to become Musharraf's pet?

The proof is the your quote of my post appears before my post was even posted.

Oh yeah? Well, this post was before any of yours! So there!

Oh yeah? Well, this post was before any of yours! So there!

No it isn't. It's at the end. You fail at Time Warp.

Instead of having India, Pakistan, or the Great Powers deciding for them, the Kashmiri people should decide in a referendum, and see what people in each town/village want, and then decide on a border that would undoubtedly go through the middle of Kashmir from there. So-called religious rights and unity, along with doddery old monarchs can both hang themselves - neither will bring peace.

No it isn't. It's at the end. You fail at Time Warp.

I claim Joltlag!

I don't want a referendum for kashmir, its clear they want to be with Pakistan. As for what you mentioned about Pakistan, it has little to do with Kashmir.

If there 'should' be a referendum in Pakistan to justify one in Kashmir, then why not in India too? Otherwise, it's just the usual double standards in foreign policy we have these days...

Led Zeppelin should control Kashmir. Didn't they write it?

Oh wait, that Kashmir. I dunno, maybe ask those that live there?

Ohhh i know give it to the Sikhs and rename it Kahalistan!


Bole So Nihal!

Sat Sri Akal...Waheguru Ji ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji ki fateh!

yea we don't need it, we got a Sikh Prime Minister of India...thats good enough

Not just the PM.

The current chiefs of army, navy and airforce of India are all Sikhs. :cool:

See, that's why you're a bigot.

True. At times I cringe at the 'support' I get from the likes of youknowwho.

At time the jews starting going to Palestine it was over 90% Arab. Even when they got their state, Palestine was mostly Arab. So it flawed. The only similarity Kashmir has with Palestine is that Muslims are getting screwed.

At time the muslims started going to Kashmir, it was 100% Hindu.

He wasn't intimidated by anyone.

The fuck you know anything about Kalat. I bet you don't even know of that part of history. Go google you fool.


I don't want a referendum for kashmir, its clear they want to be with Pakistan. As for what you mentioned about Pakistan, it has little to do with Kashmir.

True. It is also my contention that Pakistan has little to do with Kashmir. They need to stay the fuck away from Kashmir.


Muslims in Kashmir are part of the Ummah, in case you haven't realised. Kashmir is Muslim land and can not simply be given up just because your country doesn't want to lose territory.

I said it once and I will say it again.

If you want your ummah, take them with you (whoever wants to come with you).

We are NOT going to give up ANYMORE territory for your fantasies.

You are welcome to try and get fertilized.

Kashmir is India and India is Kashmir.

Um, crusades were Christians pal. You really should learn your history, especially the part where Muslims brought civilisation to the world, while everyone else was plunged in the dark ages.

uhh....the crusades were started by Christian and various Catholic Popes

For the billionth time, the Crusades were a COUNTEROFFENSIVE. Were the Allies in the wrong by invading Normandy? No? Well, the Christians weren't in the wrong by invading Palestine.

:rolleyes:

*seconds that*

Not just the PM.

The current chiefs of army, navy and airforce of India are all Sikhs. :cool:





Wait a minute. Aren't Sikh's supposed to be pacifistic?

Wait a minute. Aren't Sikh's supposed to be pacifistic?

Bwahahahahha geez, where you get that idea?

Why do you think we carry kirpan?

Okay well it's coz Guru ji told us to, but he told us to so that we can fight when we need to.

Wait a minute. Aren't Sikh's supposed to be pacifistic?

Not exactly. You might be confusing with Jains who are the ultimate pacifists. I won't comment on the theological basis of Sikhism, but socio-culturally, Sikhism was a response to Islamic aggression. In the olden days, the Sikh khalsa ("saint-warriors") were seen as protectors of Dharma (of all religions) and it was quite common for hindu families to give eldest son to Sikhi.

So, their history is full of conflicts, mostly with the Mughals and the Afghans and in the end with the British. The Anglo-Sikh wars ended with Sikh acceptance of British rule, following which the British raised a lot of regiments from the community. That tradition still continues with Sikhs heavily over-represented in the armed forces. That's why all three service chiefs are Sikhs, although Sikhs are less than 2% of Indian population.

The fuck you know anything about Kalat. I bet you don't even know of that part of history. Go google you fool.
I know about actually. I just think your twisting the events to fit into your side of the issue in an effort to make it seem as if India has more claim to Kashmir than it does.


True. It is also my contention that Pakistan has little to do with Kashmir. They need to stay the fuck away from Kashmir.


Pakistan has a whole lot to with Kashmir. They are almost obligated to be involved there.

I said it once and I will say it again.

If you want your ummah, take them with you (whoever wants to come with you).

We are NOT going to give up ANYMORE territory for your fantasies.

You are welcome to try and get fertilized.
The fact is all Muslims will one day be united under a Khalifah InshAllah and Kashmir will be a part of that. The day when Muslims stand as one Ummah is far from a fantasy, it is reality.


Kashmir is India and India is Kashmir.

Why because a piece of paper says so? That not good enough, not even close.

Bwahahahahha geez, where you get that idea?

Why do you think we carry kirpan?

Okay well it's coz Guru ji told us to, but he told us to so that we can fight when we need to.

So, when that Sihk kid wanted to go to public school with his knife, and they were saying it was just something ceremonial, they were fucking LYING?

Why do I see so many parallels in the arguments between India/Pakistan and Israel/Palestine...?

In fact, I've got a better idea. Instead of bickering over who should have, and has a 'right' to all of Kashmir, why don't we have a progressive discussion that will find a suitable compromise between both India and Pakistan and their respective supporters? That way, a solution will can be found that benefits both countries, as well as the Kashmiri people (who often seem to go overlooked), instead of permanent hostility and satisfying one country's ego.

(¯`'•.¸Led Zeppelin¸.•'´¯)

So, when that Sihk kid wanted to go to public school with his knife, and they were saying it was just something ceremonial, they were fucking LYING?

All depends how big it is huh! I mean a lot of Sikhs wear a tiny cerimnial kirpan, in defferance to the laws of the land.

But go see Sikhs celebrating a Guru's birthday or summit, and you'll soon see the real thing.

The fact is all Muslims will one day be united under a Khalifah InshAllah and Kashmir will be a part of that. The day when Muslims stand as one Ummah is far from a fantasy, it is reality.

...

Why because a piece of paper says so? That not good enough, not even close.

LOL at irony. :p :D

Just for fun, let's give it to Israel and see what happens.

Doing anything with Israel, giving anything to Israel, even looking at Israel on a map, is the equivalent of a 7th grader left alone in a room with baking soda and vinegar.

So, when that Sihk kid wanted to go to public school with his knife, and they were saying it was just something ceremonial, they were fucking LYING?

It is mostly ceremonial at this point in history. It wasn't always.

So, when that Sihk kid wanted to go to public school with his knife, and they were saying it was just something ceremonial, they were fucking LYING?

http://www.thethirteenthstep.com/stfu/tinfoil-hat.jpg

I know about actually. I just think your twisting the events to fit into your side of the issue in an effort to make it seem as if India has more claim to Kashmir than it does.


No you don't.

You don't know anything about the region other than talking points from tablighi pamphlets.

You have repeatedly demonstrated how clueless you are.


Pakistan has a whole lot to with Kashmir. They are almost obligated to be involved there.

Why?

My next door neighbor in India is a muslim. Is Pakistan almost obligated to be involved in that too?


The fact is all Muslims will one day be united under a Khalifah InshAllah and Kashmir will be a part of that. The day when Muslims stand as one Ummah is far from a fantasy, it is reality.

Yawn. Wake me up when that happens.

Like I said, I don't care what mess you want to do within your borders. And you are most welcome to take whichever muslim of India wants to live with you.

Good riddance and all that. But we ain't giving up territory. You are most welcome to become Mohammed Bilal.

The lifespan of an average jihadi in Kashmir is mere weeks nowadays.


Why because a piece of paper says so? That not good enough, not even close.

Why not? Because you say so?

Who are you?

A western convert. Your words are not worth anything to me. We run our affairs as we see fit. You can do jack about it.

Your jihad has been going on for 20 years now buddy.

It seems like Allah is with us since nothing has changed since 1947.

In fact, I've got a better idea. Instead of bickering over who should have, and has a 'right' to all of Kashmir, why don't we have a progressive discussion that will find a suitable compromise between both India and Pakistan and their respective supporters? That way, a solution will can be found that benefits both countries, as well as the Kashmiri people (who often seem to go overlooked), instead of permanent hostility and satisfying one country's ego.

You can't.

Kashmir is not the problem. It is a symptom.

The problem is the ideological foundation of Pakistani state. It is the anti-thesis of the foundation of the Indian state. They both cannot exist in the same space. The partition and its aftermath is the longest running civil war in history.

Added later:

Pakistan cannot let go of Kashmir without giving up nazariya-e-Pakistan. And that would lead to the undermining of the very foundation of the state. Likewise with India. It is really an ideological struggle for existence.

So, when that Sihk kid wanted to go to public school with his knife, and they were saying it was just something ceremonial, they were fucking LYING?

:rolleyes:

Do you understand symbolism ?

Doing anything with Israel, giving anything to Israel, even looking at Israel on a map, is the equivalent of a 7th grader left alone in a room with baking soda and vinegar.

Like I said -- fun. :p

For the billionth time, the Crusades were a COUNTEROFFENSIVE. Were the Allies in the wrong by invading Normandy? No? Well, the Christians weren't in the wrong by invading Palestine.

Amazing how some people believe in 1,000 year old propaganda isn't it?

The pope Urban II claimed that the crusade he started was an attempt to aid the Byzantines against the Turks, who had invaded and conquered several Byzantine cities. His real objectives were more about gold, glory and land acquisition. The crusaders overruled the objections of the Byzantine king and entered Byzantine, essentially invading it. They conquered several Byzantine cities and set up crusader states on Byzantine land. It's pretty clear the pope didn't give a shit about the Eastern Roman Empire. Like most, if not all religious wars, the Crusades were started for political reasons, and were cloaked in religion to make them seem legitimate.

Who should control Muslim Majority Kashmir? Muslim Pakistan or India. To me it only makes sense for Kashmir to be with Pakistan.

Heh. I don't know. My parents are Indian and I've heard it's a good vacation spot.

Who should control Muslim Majority Kashmir? Muslim Pakistan or India. To me it only makes sense for Kashmir to be with Pakistan.

See, that's the funny thing. There are only 30 million more Muslims in Pakistan than in India, and that is assuming Pakistan is 100% muslim, which it is not. Pakistan has a total population of approx. 160 million. India's population is 13% Muslim, and, even when you round their population down to *only* (in a very liberal sense) 1 billion, there are still 130 million muslims living there.

What I'm trying to say is, India's current Muslim Population is a little more than 130 million, and Pakistan's is slightly less than 160 million.



Personally though, I think Kashmir should either become independant, or it should be split up via a UN regulated peace summit of some kind.

We keep them from firing nukes at each other. Beyond that, there is no solution.

Personally though, I think Kashmir should either become independant, or it should be split up via a UN regulated peace summit of some kind.

It is already split up.

~30% with Pakistan. In that they have split it into 'northern areas' which have been partially absorbed into Pakistan's federal structure, and into 'azad' Kashmir, which is in an undecided status and ruled as a colony.

~30% with China. They invaded in 1962 and are still occupying it and have no intention of giving it up.

rest with India.

The practical solution is making the de facto borders as de jure. None of these countries are going to budge an inch from status quo unless something better is offered. And there is no "win-win-win" solution. The closes is the status quo.

Amazing how some people believe in 1,000 year old propaganda isn't it?

The pope Urban II claimed that the crusade he started was an attempt to aid the Byzantines against the Turks, who had invaded and conquered several Byzantine cities. His real objectives were more about gold, glory and land acquisition. The crusaders overruled the objections of the Byzantine king and entered Byzantine, essentially invading it. They conquered several Byzantine cities and set up crusader states on Byzantine land. It's pretty clear the pope didn't give a shit about the Eastern Roman Empire. Like most, if not all religious wars, the Crusades were started for political reasons, and were cloaked in religion to make them seem legitimate.

That doesn't change the fact that the Muslims started the conflict by invading Byzantine lands. The Crusaders set up those crusader states when the Byzantines didn't send the troops that they had promised to aid the crusaders. These crusader states had no connection to Europe, so your thesis that Urban II was in it for "gold, glory, and land aquisition" is false, since all he gained was the glory part.

There are only two legitimate options that can be pursued concerning Kashmir if we are to go about this with any sense of civility and justice. The two choices are independence or India. Pakistan and China have no right to any of Kashmir's land. Putting it under U.N. administration is also a bad idea. Before the fate of Kashmir is decided, it must be wrested free from Pakistani and Chinese occupation. A surprise attack on Western China will accomplish much. As massive as the Chinese army is, it cannot effectively defend the Himalayan region from an Indian assault. The Chinese will suffer such heavy losses that they will be forced to cease their illegal occupation of that part of Kashmir. It is very likely that Western powers will intervene to force China's hand. Pakistan must also be freed from Pakistani control. Although India has every right to attack Pakistan and reclaim Kashmir by force after repeated invasions by Pakistan, this would not be a tactical error. Since Indian law forbids these illegal aliens residing in Kashmir with the assistance of Pakistan. India must begin an aggressive deportation campaign is Kashmir. Terrorist groups and sympathizers must be ruthlessly eradicated. These actions do not technically constitute aggression against Pakistan, even though many of the criminals and terrorists would be Pakistani by origin. While taking these actions would be the sovereign right of India, it would no doubt provoke Pakistani retaliation which WOULD constitute aggression. That would be sufficient cause to send international troops to defend Kashmir. Once these measures are taken by India, the demographics of Kashmir should shift somewhat. Once Pakistan's illegal occupation of Kashmir is forcibly ended, and Kashmir is made secure, then the choice of independence or India can be presented. Even then, I'm not sure that independence should even be an option anymore after the ascession treaty. The only reason that Pakistan feels entitled to Kashmir is because of its demographics which is insane. Does anyone else here think that Soviestan is sounding alot like an Islamic version of TheFourthHolyReich?

Maybe India should invade and occupy part of Pakistan. Maybe then those Pakistanis will know how it feels. Anyone who disagrees with this, should also disagree with Pakistan's invasion and occupation of part of Kashmir.

Maybe India should invade and occupy part of Pakistan. Maybe then those Pakistanis will know how it feels. Anyone who disagrees with this, should also disagree with Pakistan's invasion and occupation of part of Kashmir.

If only they didn't have a nuke.

Maybe India should invade and occupy part of Pakistan. Maybe then those Pakistanis will know how it feels. Anyone who disagrees with this, should also disagree with Pakistan's invasion and occupation of part of Kashmir.

Pakistan is already occupied. By the Pakistani army.

Somebody said this "Everywhere else, countries have armies. In Pakistan, army has a country". So true.

Instead of having India, Pakistan, or the Great Powers deciding for them, the Kashmiri people should decide in a referendum, and see what people in each town/village want, and then decide on a border that would undoubtedly go through the middle of Kashmir from there. So-called religious rights and unity, along with doddery old monarchs can both hang themselves - neither will bring peace.

You can't have a referendum though because Pakistan messed up the entire demographic of the region from what it was in 1947/48

For the billionth time, the Crusades were a COUNTEROFFENSIVE. Were the Allies in the wrong by invading Normandy? No? Well, the Christians weren't in the wrong by invading Palestine.

You're comparing Muslims to Hitler?

And yes they were wrong in taking Palestine

Western Christians were only supposed to go to Constantinople to defend it from Muslim Attack instead they sacked the city in their "Holy War"

Disastrous misrule by the Angelid dynasty (1185-1204) resulted in the collapse of the empire and the disastrous capture and sack of Constantinople by soldiers of the Fourth Crusade on April 13, 1204

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople#The_Palaeologi.2C_1204-1453

leading to the city's fall in 1453

I know about actually. I just think your twisting the events to fit into your side of the issue in an effort to make it seem as if India has more claim to Kashmir than it does.




Pakistan has a whole lot to with Kashmir. They are almost obligated to be involved there.


The fact is all Muslims will one day be united under a Khalifah InshAllah and Kashmir will be a part of that. The day when Muslims stand as one Ummah is far from a fantasy, it is reality.



Why because a piece of paper says so? That not good enough, not even close.

Muslims can't unite in Iraq right now. How will they unite worldwide?

No you don't.

You don't know anything about the region other than talking points from tablighi pamphlets.

You have repeatedly demonstrated how clueless you are.

:rolleyes:

Why?

Because they can't simply be indifferent while they see their brothers occupied right on their border.

Yawn. Wake me up when that happens.

Like I said, I don't care what mess you want to do within your borders. And you are most welcome to take whichever muslim of India wants to live with you.
Kashmir is within our borders. What you fail to realise is Islam is something that transends borders or nationality. It certainly trumps any piece of paper that you say gives you claim.

Good riddance and all that. But we ain't giving up territory. You are most welcome to become Mohammed Bilal.

The lifespan of an average jihadi in Kashmir is mere weeks nowadays.

:rolleyes:

Why not? Because you say so?

Who are you?

A western convert. Your words are not worth anything to me. We run our affairs as we see fit. You can do jack about it.

Your jihad has been going on for 20 years now buddy.

It seems like Allah is with us since nothing has changed since 1947.

And who are you? A kafir? You think your words are worth much to me? You have Kashmir, for now but the idea Allah swt sides with the kafirs is laughable.

You're comparing Muslims to Hitler?

No, of course not. That would cast the muslims in a favourable light.

No, of course not. That would cast the muslims in a favourable light.

wow....just wow

And who are you? A kafir? You think your words are worth much to me? You have Kashmir, for now but the idea Allah swt sides with the kafirs is laughable.

If this so called "Allah" was on your side, you'd have never lost Kashmir. Or Spain. Or Austria.

Because they can't simply be indifferent while they see their brothers occupied right on their border.

yeah, that's why they kill them :rolleyes:

Infinitely more Kashmiri civilians (hindus and muslims) have been killed by Pakistani jihadis than by any other cause.

Not to mention the 3 million fellow muslims killed by Pakistani army.

And this mess can be seen in Afghanistan too, with Pakistani-taliban crossing over and killing Afghan civilians.

Yep, Pakistanis have a strange way of showing their brotherly love to their fellow muslims.:rolleyes:

It is precisely for that reason that it is being fenced in by ALL three of its neighbors. Iran, Afghanistan and India. They just can't take any more of this brotherly love from Pakistan.;)

Yep, you heard it right.

Iran, is fencing the border with Pakistan.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_20827.shtml
Iran fences border with Pakistan
Mar 2, 2007



Kashmir is within our borders. What you fail to realise is Islam is something that transends borders or nationality. It certainly trumps any piece of paper that you say gives you claim.

Feel free to come and make your claim. Like I said, the average lifespan is mere weeks for jihadis.

Oh did I mention why it has come down from the months that it was before?

The Isreali supplied tracking devices and hand-held thermal imagers and such kufr scientific stuff. Yep, Israel is now the second biggest source for Indian military.


And who are you? A kafir? You think your words are worth much to me? You have Kashmir, for now but the idea Allah swt sides with the kafirs is laughable.

Yep. Pakistan , the land of pure momins, slaved itself to America, then China and now back to America, went to several wars with India, ruined its socio-economic development so as to match India militarily etc etc.....but still have not managed to grab an inch from us vile kaffirs and is now facing the pits.

Us kaffirs on the other hand did Bangladesh, improved our economy and have a greater future.

It does seem that Allah is favoring us kaffirs. And why not, as us kaffirs like to say "Satyameva Jayate" - Truth alone triumphs.

Time to do some more salah.

Muslims can't unite in Iraq right now. How will they unite worldwide?

To be honest, I'm not sure. It will be probably take something big, but it will happen.

To me it only makes sense for Kashmir to be with Pakistan.

*Gives the World to China*

Only makes sense.

To be honest, I'm not sure. It will be probably take something big, but it will happen.

Islam is behind Judism and Christianity in the line: "Religions Uniting"

As far as I can see they're just splitting furthr apart over the dumbest things (all religions).

To be honest, I'm not sure. It will be probably take something big, but it will happen.

sure it will
:rolleyes:

The Isreali supplied tracking devices and hand-held thermal imagers and such kufr scientific stuff. Yep, Israel is now the second biggest source for Indian military.

Come on Arya, we both know that makes the most sense. Indians are just brown Jews. We suck at tipping, for instance. :D

Come on Arya, we both know that makes the most sense. Indians are just brown Jews. We suck at tipping, for instance. :D

lol...many a times I had to leave tips on the sly to make up for the miserly tip the other desis leave at the table. :headbang:

hmmm...come to think of it. We also like to crib about upstart derivative religions like Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. Reminisce about 'old glory'. Very argumentative to point of sillyness. Have a stereotype of weak, cunning, bania (merchant) and moneylender types in muslim countries near us. Have been chased out of many countries (especially in Africa, where we are officially the Jews of Africa)....yeah there are many similarities...:p

To be honest, I'm not sure. It will be probably take something big, but it will happen.
I'm convinced...

yeah, that's why they kill them :rolleyes:

Infinitely more Kashmiri civilians (hindus and muslims) have been killed by Pakistani jihadis than by any other cause.

Not to mention the 3 million fellow muslims killed by Pakistani army.

And this mess can be seen in Afghanistan too, with Pakistani-taliban crossing over and killing Afghan civilians.

Yep, Pakistanis have a strange way of showing their brotherly love to their fellow muslims.:rolleyes:

It is precisely for that reason that it is being fenced in by ALL three of its neighbors. Iran, Afghanistan and India. They just can't take any more of this brotherly love from Pakistan.;)

you have any evidence to back this up?




Feel free to come and make your claim. Like I said, the average lifespan is mere weeks for jihadis.

Oh did I mention why it has come down from the months that it was before?

The Isreali supplied tracking devices and hand-held thermal imagers and such kufr scientific stuff. Yep, Israel is now the second biggest source for Indian military.


Wow. The jews are helping to occupy and murder Muslims, I'm shocked:rolleyes:

Yep. Pakistan , the land of pure momins, slaved itself to America, then China and now back to America, went to several wars with India, ruined its socio-economic development so as to match India militarily etc etc.....but still have not managed to grab an inch from us vile kaffirs and is now facing the pits.

Us kaffirs on the other hand did Bangladesh, improved our economy and have a greater future.

It does seem that Allah is favoring us kaffirs. And why not, as us kaffirs like to say "Satyameva Jayate" - Truth alone triumphs.

Time to do some more salah.
Everything happens for a reason and everything is how Allah wills it. In the long run Muslims will win out.

Everything happens for a reason and everything is how Allah wills it. In the long run Muslims will win out.


Emmm... there is no such thing as an 'Allah'.

you have any evidence to back this up?

I find this a little laughable. You offer nothing but your own somewhat amusing opinion on the matter, and expect everyone else to back what they say up with a source. Either provide a source for your own statements, or feel free to not be taken seriously.

Everything happens for a reason and everything is how Allah wills it. In the long run Muslims will win out.

What a moderate attitude.

The only way a major religion could 'win out' is by exterminating its competitors. Most likely all the mjor religions will fade away like paganism, or melt into one blob of worship. Either are fine by me as no one would hate an Agnostic. ;)

Yeah...let's think about why you might think that...

D'you know, I can't quite think why? I'm sure that, if a similar situation sistaution arose but with a Hindue majority, the OP would feel quite the same....:D

you have any evidence to back this up?

bwahahahahah...

For someone who pretends to know something about the region, and who makes two threads on the topic (yeah, I remember your earlier thread too Soviestan :) ), you sure are....well words fail me.

The Iran link was already there in that post of mine.

India started the fencing Kashmir years back and it is completed and functioning now. The reason why jihadi lifespan has reduced is partly due to the fencing and gadgets for early detection and warning so teams can be sent out to kill jihadis before they try and cut through the fence.

It is pretty common knowledge for anyone who gives even a cursory reading on the region. It appears that you have no clue. Not surprising.

W.r.t Afg-Pak border

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1978810,00.html

Note that here Afg does not want the fence because it is another blow to their claims of the expiry of Durrand Line.

Wow. The jews are helping to occupy and murder Muslims, I'm shocked:rolleyes:

Who would have thought that non-muslims too can help each other out, when muslims from elsewhere travel elsewhere to take part in local jihads ?


Everything happens for a reason and everything is how Allah wills it.

Exactly. That's why I said do more salah. The more you pray, the more Allah will help us. Allah helps those who have truth with them.

That is why India has prevailed in this conflict.


In the long run Muslims will win out.

In the long run we are all dead.