Yasin Malik threatens fast unto death against land transfer in occupied Kashmir

[vish]

Originally Posted by IceCold

Really! Look who's talking, just because you don't give a hoot does'nt mean the we don't either. And as for what we want, don't come up with BS if you have nothing positive to add, Unlike you guys who always claim Kashmir to be your part, we on the other hand don't and that is exactly why when we talk about Kashmir that includes AJK as well and not JK alone. Should'nt this be enough to throw your accusation out of the window.

All the three state actors (India, Pakistan, PRC) have not abided by the UN's resolutions. Why do you talk only about Kashmir? Is Kashmir the only thing in conttention? What about Aksai Chin, Laddakh, Jammu, Leh, "Northern Areas," and the tract of land you "leased" to the PRC? Isn't Northern Areas a part of Pakistan? Why make a hue and cry about Kashmir, or to be more specific, its Valley? Atleast India has been non-hypocrytical: we want the erstwhile princely state of J&K completely. What has Pakistan done: created a farce in the name of an "independant" Kashmir and incorporated Northern Areas into itself. What has PRC done: made it clear that it won't cede any territory. Why should India respect UN resolutions when Pakistan and China don't?

Originally Posted by IceCold

I would say give it up, other then a force full occupation you guys have nothing to put claims on to this territory. Kashmir is a disputed territory and that stands for all parts of it which needs to be addressed.

The Indian side of J&K is our territory; you want the dispute to remain alive to suit your agenda. Pakistan wants to incorporate Kashmir. This is the dispute: you want what we have.

Originally Posted by IceCold

And by the way if Kashmir is a disputed territory in the UN, that means it is for the real world as well. I wonder which world are you talking about, maybe Mars

In the real world, the Indian side of J&K is de facto Indian territory.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

I'll repeat again: "The Indian side of J&K is a part of India," atleast in the real world.

Legally and in the worlds eyes - no it isn't.

As a matter of governance, yes it is - though it has special status through the Indian constitution as well.

[vish]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

Legally and in the worlds eyes - no it isn't.

As a matter of governance, yes it is - though it has special status through the Indian constitution as well.

Every media in the world refers to the region as "Indian Kashmir." Legally, yes Kashmir is disputed. In the world's eyes, the LoC is the de facto IB.

The special status (Article 370) will be slowly diluted sooner or later.

[nitesh]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

Legally and in the worlds eyes - no it isn't.

As a matter of governance, yes it is - though it has special status through the Indian constitution as well.

Kashmir is part of India as per the agreement between Indian government and maharaja harisingh.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by nitesh

Kashmir is part of India as per the agreement between Indian government and maharaja harisingh.

Nitesh, I respect your sentiment on this, and I don't want to start another Kashmir argument, but the instrument of accession too had a condition of plebiscite attached to it, which has never been carried out. The UNSC would never have simply thrown the plebiscite option in were India's legal claim on the territory valid.

This discussion has been had on the UN resolutions thread as well.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by vish

Every media in the world refers to the region as "Indian Kashmir." Legally, yes Kashmir is disputed. In the world's eyes, the LoC is the de facto IB.

The special status (Article 370) will be slowly diluted sooner or later.

It is "Indian Kashmir" because it is under the control of India. Most maps in the world, and most government maps and websites describe Kashmir as disputed territory.

Again, legally and in the world's eyes the territory is not Indian or Pakistani - it is disputed.

As a matter of control and governance it is referred to as Indian Kashmir and Pakistani Kashmir.

[vish]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

It is "Indian Kashmir" because it is under the control of India. Most maps in the world, and most government maps and websites describe Kashmir as disputed territory.

Thoroughly agreed. Some websites and maps do describe it as a dispuited region; some don't.

What I've said is the world sees it as India-controlled territory that will be in India's control. The world basically sses it as de facto Indian territory.

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

Again, legally and in the world's eyes the territory is not Indian or Pakistani - it is disputed.

Legally true; but the reality is remarkably different.

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

As a matter of control and governance it is referred to as Indian Kashmir and Pakistani Kashmir.

That is the reason why I'm saying that we should accept the ground realities: Pakistani Kashmir is Pakistani territory while Indian Kashmir is Indian territory.

[Flintlock]

Well to sum up my arguments,

1. The separatists are exposing their xenophobia and extremist views by crying themselves hoarse over a temporary shelter for pilgrims, which is btw a necessity for the welfare and hygiene of the visitors. Instead of encouraging tourism in the valley and helping the local economy, they want to drive away visitors and keep their people impoverished, ignorant, and open to manipulation by them.

2. India has a policy in place which prevents any non-kashmiris from purchasing land or property in the state. This has been adhered to quite strictly till date, and unless the law is revoked by parliament, it will continue to be adhered to.

3. This matter is currently being heard in the High Court of J&K, and the court will decide on the legality of the land transfer.

4. Any pro-Pakistani leaders or Pakistanis have no moral standing to question Indian policy, when their own government has deliberately altered the demographics of the territory under their control and simply handed over tracts of land to the Chinese regime.

5. Any firings/lathi charge/HR Violations by the state police are the responsibility of the state government, and the central government has little say in the matter. Policing is a state subject.
The elected leaders of J&K are free to provide training to the local police on how to handle riot situations and cause fewer casualties.

[mujahideen]

Originally Posted by nitesh

Kashmir is part of India as per the agreement between Indian government and maharaja harisingh.

Jundagh was also a part of Pakistan as per the agreement between the government of Pakistan and the King their. Hyderabad would might also fall under the same category.

[malaymishra123]

Originally Posted by vish

What I've said is the world sees it as India-controlled territory that will be in India's control. The world basically sses it as de facto Indian territory.

Quoted for Emphasis!

[SMustafaMoiz]

Originally Posted by Jana

When India occupied Kashmir unlawfully is it not possible for her to award the land to Hindus there illegally.


And above all its a New tactic by Indian Government to transform Muslim majority In Indian Held Kashmir into Minority by shifting Hindu Population from parts of India to Held Kashmir

It is not just a measly bit of land. If it is a measly bit of land the Indian government(which is not by the way Kashmir's government as Kashmir is disputed) should undo the change. But to Yasin Malik it means something.

The Indian government cannot be called the government of Kashmir as Kashmir is disputed.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Massive protests rock held Kashmir

Saturday, June 28, 2008
HELD SRINAGAR: Thousands of people demonstrated in the streets of held Kashmir on Friday, protesting the transfer of state land to a Hindu shrine in what they charge is a ploy to build Hindu settlements and change the demographic balance in the valley.

Police used live ammunition, tear gas and bamboo batons in an attempt to quell some of the largest protests against the Indian rule since the outbreak of militancy in the Himalayan region nearly two decades ago. Three people have been killed and hundreds wounded over the last five days of demonstrations.

The protests were sparked by the recent transfer of 99 acres (40 hectares) of land by the state government to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board, a trust running a Hindu shrine, to construct facilities for the hundreds of thousands of pilgrims who flock there every year.

“The government has transferred land in order to change the demography of this place,” said Mian Qayyum, a prominent lawyer and head of a recently formed Action Committee Against Land Transfer.

“India has transformed this pilgrimage into an operation and is trying to imitate the Israeli operation of settlements in the occupied land of Palestine,” said Syed Ali Shah Gilani, who has been leading the protests.

Indian officials dismiss the allegations, noting that India has never tried to encourage Hindu migration to the region, India’s only Muslim-majority state. The Indian constitution also prohibits outsiders from buying land in Kashmir.

In fact, since the start of the uprising for independence from mainly Hindu India, the Hindu population has plummeted. Of the estimated 200,000 Hindus, known as Pandits, who lived in the Kashmir Valley, once famed for its peaceful coexistence between religions, only some 10,000 remain. “This is an orchestrated campaign to vitiate the atmosphere,” said Arun Kumar, a senior government official and the head of Amarnath Shrine Board.

“We’re not building any permanent structure near the cave shrine, and there is no question of permanent settlements there,” he said, adding the plans were only for the construction of prefabricated shelters and bathrooms for the pilgrims. Ghulam Nabi Azad, the state’s chief minister, tried to ease the tension by promising on Wednesday that there would be no construction on the transferred land and pledging to meet with local political parties to address the protesters’ grievances.

On Friday, protesters burned flags and effigies of Indian leaders and pelted police with stones, chanting “Tyrants, leave Kashmir!” and “We want freedom!” Over the last five days of protests they have attacked police posts, burned vehicles, stoned tourist buses and hurled thousands of rocks at Indian forces patrolling the streets.

Police have retaliated by firing live ammunition into the air, lobbing tear gas shells, beating protesters with bamboo sticks and, in some cases, resorted to throwing rocks back at the protesters. Apart from the three people killed, nearly 200 protesters and 140 policeman have been injured and dozens of government and private vehicles damaged, said police officer Devinder Singh.

Massive protests rock held Kashmir

So its gone a little beyond just Yasin Malik now.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

“Tyrants, leave Kashmir!” and “We want freedom!”

Quoted for "emphasis".

Legally, the world continues to view J&K as disputed - and until India and Pakistan resolve the issue, it will continue to be listed as disputed territory.

[Flintlock]

“India has transformed this pilgrimage into an operation and is trying to imitate the Israeli operation of settlements in the occupied land of Palestine,” said Syed Ali Shah Gilani, who has been leading the protests.

Sigh....with such a groups of xenophobe extremists as leaders, what are Kashmiris to do?

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

Sigh....with such a groups of xenophobe extremists as leaders, what are Kashmiris to do?

Quite honestly, if the attitudes of the Indian establishment are similar to what you expressed in another thread a while back - that India will essentially just play a waiting game and "dillydally" in the hope that development projects will change the mind of Kashmiris towards accepting India, regardless of how long it takes, what motivation would the leadership have to act reasonably?