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

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

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?

Trying to conduct elections and run a fair administration in a region poisoned by religious extremism can hardly be called "dilly-dallying".

India is definitely going to wait it out and hope that the leaders, and consequently the people, see the light.

Atleast we have the heart to accommodate the poison that are Geelani and Malik and others of their sorry ilk.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

Trying to conduct elections and run a fair administration in a region poisoned by religious extremism can hardly be called "dilly-dallying".

India is definitely going to wait it out and hope that the leaders, and consequently the people, see the light.

Atleast we have the heart to accommodate the poison that are Geelani and Malik and others of their sorry ilk.

The "dilly dallying" relates to actually coming to a final solution on the status of the disputed territory that is acceptable to all three parties. Elections and a fair administration are part of "development", but that is not the issue here.

Pakistan's move towards sponsoring a violent uprising in Kashmir was based on a similar distrust of Indian intentions over actually being sincere in resolving the issue - either bilaterally or trilaterally.

India treats the issue the as if it is the only party with a stake in the region - whereas both Pakistan and the Kashmiris have equal and competing stakes. When one side refuses to even acknowledge that, the other sides end up seeing very few options left.

[Flintlock]

Pakistan's move towards sponsoring a violent uprising in Kashmir was based on a similar distrust of Indian intentions over actually being sincere in resolving the issue - either bilaterally or trilaterally.

Pakistan's move cannot be justified by any means. Distrust is no excuse for crippling the valley for 20 years and poisioning the minds of people who have few other sources of information or ideas.

Has India ever tried to capture AJK and Gilgit and other areas, even though it considers these areas as legitimate parts of India?

India can just as easily accuse Pakistan of dilly-dallying on the issue.
Infact, India can accuse Pakistan of sabotaging the process by completely altering the demographics of the state, and preventing any opposition to its rule by a strict clampdown on any freedom of speech. By draconian laws which make any opposition to Pakistani sovereignty in the region illegal.

India treats the issue the as if it is the only party with a stake in the region - whereas both Pakistan and the Kashmiris have equal and competing stakes. When one side refuses to even acknowledge that, the other sides end up seeing very few options left.

Its Pakistan infact, which refuses to acknowledge the views of the other party by constantly trying to capture the valley by whatever means possible and incubating numerous Jehadi groups within its border to unleash upon Kashmir.

You conveniently forget that India has never crossed the LOC of its own accord, or tried to send militia across in order to do so.

India is, by far, the more responsible party, and the world recognizes this.

[Flintlock]

I wonder which century Geelani and his cronies are living in. Instead of encouraging tourism, investment and education in the valley, they are bent upon repeating 19th century ideas like a broken record.

As responsible leaders of Kashmir, they are committing crime by stirring up passions over such trivialities and crippling the state for weeks on end.

Its because of people like these that Kashmiris are perhaps doomed to remain poor and backward, while the rest of India moves on.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

Pakistan's move cannot be justified by any means. Distrust is no excuse for crippling the valley for 20 years and poisioning the minds of people who have few other sources of information or ideas.

Has India ever tried to capture AJK and Gilgit and other areas, even though it considers these areas as legitimate parts of India?

India can just as easily accuse Pakistan of dilly-dallying on the issue.
Infact, India can accuse Pakistan of sabotaging the process by completely altering the demographics of the state, and preventing any opposition to its rule by a strict clampdown on any freedom of speech. By draconian laws which make any opposition to Pakistani sovereignty in the region illegal.

Pakistan is not the one adamantly opposed to holding a plebiscite in the region - mandated by both the UNSC resolutions and the very instrument of accession that India claims gives it a right to Kashmir.

The issue has been discussed several times, proving Pakistan did its bit in terms of withdrawing troops from the territory, and with a letter from the UN officer in charge of monitoring the process (see UN resolutions explained thread) indicating that he did not believe that India had any intention of following UN resolutions and demilitarizing the region and implement UNSC resolutions, though Pakistan had indeed started to follow through with what was agreed.

This isn't about what you think or what mythical argument you can conjure up - history and the records speak fro themselves as to who "dilly dallied" and was not serious and was insincere in implementing the UNSC resolutions.

The people of Kashmir are not children, it is pathetic how you choose to discredit their lack of interest in being part of the Indian Union as "poisoned minds" - its a shameless excuse and validation of the fact that India knew it never had the hearts of the Kashmiris, that it never had a legal claim to the territory, and therefore chose to unethically, immorally and illegally ignore the UNSC resolutions and occupy a land against the wishes of its people, and in violation of the clauses of the instrument that allegedly gave it any right to that territory.

Its Pakistan infact, which refuses to acknowledge the views of the other party by constantly trying to capture the valley by whatever means possible and incubating numerous Jehadi groups within its border to unleash upon Kashmir.

You conveniently forget that India has never crossed the LOC of its own accord, or tried to send militia across in order to do so.

India is, by far, the more responsible party, and the world recognizes this.

Pakistan has only done so after the it was clear, as indicated by the reports from the UN itself, and other failed attempts to come to a resolution, that India was not sincere in either demilitarizing or holding a plebiscite.

There is nothing "responsible" about deliberately flouting UNSC resolutions, about flouting the requirement of a plebiscite in the instrument of accession, about initiating war to dismember and possibly destroy a nation in 1971 and about occupying a people and their land.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

I wonder which century Geelani and his cronies are living in. Instead of encouraging tourism, investment and education in the valley, they are bent upon repeating 19th century ideas like a broken record.

As responsible leaders of Kashmir, they are committing crime by stirring up passions over such trivialities and crippling the state for weeks on end.

Its because of people like these that Kashmiris are perhaps doomed to remain poor and backward, while the rest of India moves on.

As responsible leaders it is their duty to protest any move by India that purports to ignore the reality of the Kashmri dispute.

Perhaps if India managed to get out of the delusion that it alone finds itself in of "their is no dispute in Kashmir" and actually have the Kashmiri leaders sit in trilateral talks that can determine a final resolution to the dispute, they would be able to move on.

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

As responsible leaders it is their duty to protest any move by India that purports to ignore the reality of the Kashmri dispute.

Oh please, protest against what?

The State Government ltself approved the land transfer to the Amarnath Shrine Board, which BTW is an organization registered within the state of J&K.

The ruckus is just an excuse to inflame the situation and stoke the passions of Kashmiris.

As I said, ultimately Kashmiris will suffer because of their short-sighted leaders.

[Flintlock]

Pakistan has only done so after the it was clear, as indicated by the reports from the UN itself, and other failed attempts to come to a resolution, that India was not sincere in either demilitarizing or holding a plebiscite.

There is nothing "responsible" about deliberately flouting UNSC resolutions, about flouting the requirement of a plebiscite in the instrument of accession, about initiating war to dismember and possibly destroy a nation in 1971 and about occupying a people and their land.

I am sure any Indian here who is more informed than me on this issue can dispute your claims that Pakistan was sincere in holding the plebescite, but lets put that aside.

As far as your constant dragging of Bangladesh into the equation is concerned, India can hardly be chided for stepping in at the last moment in order to help out a country that was being massacred with impunity.

[dabong1]

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Huge protests continue in Kashmir

Huge protests continue in Kashmir.
The BBC's Altaf Hussain says that it appeared as if the entire population of the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley had taken to the streets.

It is the fifth consecutive day of protests over the land transfer.

In the summer capital, Srinagar, at least 30,000 people converged on the historic Lal Chowk monument.

Holiest shrines

Similar protests have taken place across the Kashmir valley, with many shouting "We want freedom!" and "Stop the sale of Kashmir

[dabong1]

"The protests began after the state government transferred 40 hectares of forest land to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board - the organisation which organises the pilgrimage.

The government said the land was needed for construction of pre-fabricated huts and toilets for the pilgrims."
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Huge protests continue in Kashmir



Why cant the "state government" construct the pre-fabricated huts and toilets for the pilgrims?
Why not let the local hindu kashmiris have the land so they help the pilgrims.....are there no hindu kashmiri groups that could share the honour of hosting the pilgrims with the local muslim.

[vish]

Gee... I wonder if there would have been such protests if an Indian Muslim body would have been given the land?

I also wonder what Israel has to do with all this?

My family members have been to that shrine; one thing they and every one who has ever been there notices that there is a genuine lack of good accommodation. Local private players don't invest because of the seasonal nature of the tourism. The only choice thus left is for the religious body in charge to act accordingly.

Won't these benefit the locals economically?

Further, are they giving the land to any commercial body? Haven't they already stated the purpose of the sale? Wasn't this decision scrutinized and approved by the local assembly? The opposition leaders (the pro-independence and pro-Pakistan actors who by the way are electorally a minority) have hyped the situation up and ensured that every Tom, Dick and Harry who has ever been pissed off in life gets a new scapegoat to blame.

By the way, the state high court has yet to decide on the sale. Its decision will be taken as final; I doubt the government will approach the SC over this.

[vish]

Originally Posted by dabong1

Why cant the "state government" construct the pre-fabricated huts and toilets for the pilgrims?

It is not the GoI that is developing the land; it is the religious body in charge.

Originally Posted by dabong1

Why not let the local hindu kashmiris have the land so they help the pilgrims.....are there no hindu kashmiri groups that could share the honour of hosting the pilgrims with the local muslim.

I'm certain that the religious body in concern herein does comprise of Kashmiri Hindus.

This issue has been blown out of proportion for petty political gains.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

I am sure any Indian here who is more informed than me on this issue can dispute your claims that Pakistan was sincere in holding the plebescite, but lets put that aside.

Certainly Indians will have their viewpoint - I however believe it was shown to be inadequate on that thread. But lets leave that alone, since it drags us into yet another cyclical "who is to blame argument", and there are plenty of other threads for that.

What is true is that, regardless of which position you subscribe to, a large number of the Kashmiris and their leadership view India, more than Pakistan or any other factor, as the "occupying force" and the obstacle to resolving the Kashmir dispute. This perception is what results in actions like the one being discussed - you may think it is a flawed perception, but it exists.

My point is that involving the Kashmiris in a trilateral dialog with Pakistan and India is not merely about removing IK from Indian hands, but about involving them in a process where other out of the box solutions are presented and they get to have their say and are able to in some way affect a resolution of the limbo (belonging to neither country and not independent either) they find themselves in.

The problem as I see it is that India, going by past behavior, is not really interested in involving any of the other parties and resolving the issue - the policy on your side is essentially one of "keep developing and ignoring Pakistan and the Kashmiris demands for talks towards a final settlement and eventually the Kashmiris might fall in line".

Involving the Kashmiris and entering into talks to resolve the dispute does not mean India will hand over Kashmir to Pakistan - it means that India recognizes that Kashmir is a disputed territory and that there are three parties laying claim to it, and it means that the negative perceptions I describe above can start to be removed. At this point India refuses to even consider the region disputed, or accept that there are other parties with claims, so what room for diplomatic measures does that leave the concerned parties?

[Flintlock]

Those communal separatists forgot that the Hindus of Jammu are also a part of their state, and their voice also deserves to be heard.

What is most annoying is how the Islamic spin doctors have managed to turn a simple administrative matter into an 'attempt by hindus to colonize the valley'.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

Those communal separatists forgot that the Hindus of Jammu are also a part of their state, and their voice also deserves to be heard.

And I think the people of Jammu should be included in any dialog as well. In fact Musharraf recognized that concern when he suggested that the Kashmir valley could be looked at separately from Jammu.

Separatism is separatism, calling it communal doesn't mean it is any worse than cultural, ethnic or racial separatism. Were the people of the subcontinent racist for wanting to separate from the British?

People can identify themselves on multiple levels and in some situations one set of identifiers prevails over others, due to whatever dynamics are affecting that situation. At first South Asians wanted to separate from the British Empire, then Muslims wanted to separate on a "religio-cultural basis (Pakistan), then Bengalis wanted to separate on a "ethno-cultural" basis (Bangladesh), and so on.