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

[malaymishra123]

Originally Posted by SMustafaMoiz

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Jammu does not have a Muslim majority, or at least less of a majority than Kashmir (without Jammu).
As the esteemed author Brian Cloughley has stated in his book (A History of the Pakistan Army), can not Kashmir be given to Pakistan and Jammu to India? Geographically, as well as religiously, this makes sense for both countries.

Its not about the religious composition of the areas. Its about strategic advantage. Kashmir gives us an edge, Pakistan wants it, we want to keep it. Simple.

Secondly, now that Kashmir issue has been fought over so badly, and so ingrained in the Indian conscious, any cessation/separation of land in Kashmir would result in the bloodiest Hindu/Muslim riots that India will ever see. The entire country would be in flames...literally. Gujarat would look like a walk in the park compared to what would happen then. There would really be danger of India becomming separated states were that to happen.

[dabong1]

Originally Posted by Vinod2070

Debong, poll rigging was (and perhaps is) a reality in South Asia.

Pakistan is not immune to it. Musharraf's referendum was massively rigged. Benazir feared the rigging of these polls too. It just shows that democracy in India was imperfect. Poll rigging happened in Bihar and it happened in Kashmir too as per you. But Biharis did not take to the guns against the country..

Your own minister says that from the 1950's every election has been rigged in kashmir......thats why the armed freedom struggle took place......pakistan was only to happy to help.
There is a misconception in india that pakistan started the kashmir liberation......india gave the spark and pakistan poured the petrol.
The Biharis see themseves as indian the kashmiris do not.......the kashmiris took to the gun to defend there country.
The UN says that kashmir is not part of india.....Nehru said he would let the people of kashmir choose what they wanted to do..........did nehru or the UN give the same deal to the bihari's..?

Originally Posted by Vinod2070

And that is the reason many Indians don't trust Pakistan. Because the terror infrastructure is still there and the tap can be turned on at will, as you acknowledged...

The liberation infrastructure will stay in place until india forfills its obligations on kashmir.
Pakistan has offered a hundred and one solutions on kashmir to the indians.....you rejected all of them.
The fight will continue until the indian govt starts making concrete concessions.

Originally Posted by Vinod2070

But what can you do now that you couldn't earlier when the international situation was more favorable? I think nothing other than giving Pakistan a bad name and increasing the problems for the average Kashmiri.

The "international community" has not raised a single finger on the kashmir issue in the last 60 years so why would we be bothered about what they have to say............did this same "international community" force india to accept the UN resoultions......no
You have to depend on yourself and your friends.

[dabong1]

Originally Posted by malaymishra123

Its not about the religious composition of the areas. Its about strategic advantage. Kashmir gives us an edge, Pakistan wants it, we want to keep it. Simple..

Then expect the fight to carry on.

Originally Posted by malaymishra123

Secondly, now that Kashmir issue has been fought over so badly, and so ingrained in the Indian conscious, any cessation/separation of land in Kashmir would result in the bloodiest Hindu/Muslim riots that India will ever see. The entire country would be in flames...literally. Gujarat would look like a walk in the park compared to what would happen then. There would really be danger of India becomming separated states were that to happen.

nice excuse

[dabong1]

Originally Posted by malaymishra123

The last elections in Kashmir were internationally watched, and the government mad it doubly sure that there was no rigging the LAST time ONLY. There were viewers from all nations, and it went off without a hitch. The Last elections were indeed not rigged.

Did these election let the people chosse between india,pakistan and indpendence......no i dont think so.

[Salim]

The election did not give any option of joining India or Pakistan or be independent.

In that election, people participated and which was witnessed by international media and observers, to include diplomats.

Had they not been for India, they would not have participated.

They participated despite the threats of the terrorists as also shunned the call of the Hurriyat.

[Vinod2070]

Originally Posted by dabong1

Your own minister says that from the 1950's every election has been rigged in kashmir......thats why the armed freedom struggle took place......pakistan was only to happy to help.
There is a misconception in india that pakistan started the kashmir liberation......india gave the spark and pakistan poured the petrol.
The Biharis see themseves as indian the kashmiris do not.......the kashmiris took to the gun to defend there country.
The UN says that kashmir is not part of india.....Nehru said he would let the people of kashmir choose what they wanted to do..........did nehru or the UN give the same deal to the bihari's..?

I am sure the topic of the legalese of Kashmir has been discussed to death. I don't have anything to add to that. India may have done some follies, I don't deny that.

The UN resolutions are 60 years old and have proved unworkable. There is no point in playing the same broken record. Even Pakistani government no longer keeps harping on that.

Most people in India consider it a mistake by Nehru to take the issue to the UN. He should have allowed the IA to finish the job in 1948.

Originally Posted by dabong1

The liberation infrastructure will stay in place until india forfills its obligations on kashmir.
Pakistan has offered a hundred and one solutions on kashmir to the indians.....you rejected all of them.
The fight will continue until the indian govt starts making concrete concessions.

Again obviously we are on opposite sides here and have opposite views of who is to blame for the Kashmiri's plight. I don't know which solution you are talking about, but any solution that talks of changes in border is obviously unacceptable. You can't win on the table what you failed to do on the battleground.

I think it is the declared policy of India that there is no limit to the autonomy Kashmir can have. Also there was the great proposal by Musharraf to make borders irrelevant without changing them. That could be the direction of the final solution.

Originally Posted by dabong1

The "international community" has not raised a single finger on the kashmir issue in the last 60 years so why would we be bothered about what they have to say............did this same "international community" force india to accept the UN resoultions......no
You have to depend on yourself and your friends.

You have to bother because Pakistan needs the support of the international community and wants to be a respectable member of it. Its not possible while you are supporting terror in Kashmir at the same time. It has been proved that the same groups also target the Western interests all across the world.

Again the situation that you face is much altered now. India is in a much better position militarily, economically and diplomatically to deal with the situation. IA has much better equipment and a much better intelligence network in Kashmir.

Earlier some of your "think tank" used to claim that India won't be able to sustain the economic burden once it's army crosses the 500,000 in Kashmir. You have been harping on 700,000 numbers for years and India seems to be doing just fine economically. In fact it was never better.

Why don't you understand that Kashmir has just a very small % of the Muslim population of India. If 150 million plus Muslims can live in India, so can the few million in Kashmir. They run the state themselves damn it. India will never allow another religion based division of the country. NEVER.

Why don't you allow Balochistan to secede. Don't give me the UN and disputed shyt. It is basically about the nation's determination not to allow few piffling separatists and a hostile neighbor to succeed in breaking up the country. And we don't use Air force on our people in Kashmir as Pakistan does without compunctions without a care for innocents dying as collateral damage. This even at the cost of more casualties.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by malaymishra123

With due respect, tell me what exactly has Pakistan been able to achieve with regards to raising the issue at every oppurtunity? No country ever tells India to go for plebicite or meet the demands of the Kashmiris. Have you EVER heard ANY country(apart from Arab Nations) ask India to settle things with Kashmir, or hold talks with Kashmiri people? No, its always settle things with Pakistan, not Kashmir.

Even though technically its a disputed area, most countries regard it as Indian territory and tell us to talk with Pakistan rather than Kashmir or have trilateral talks. Do you understand what im trying to say here, cuz im not able to express exactly what i want to somehow!

Raising of the issue by Pakistan has been useless, there is no international pressure on India, most governments go consider Kashmir as Indian territory and all jump one over another to do business with India. Their own nations interests come first, and their interests dictate that they have the best of relations with India. Even the OIC is not as bold in making statements as they used to be. KSA, etc never talk to us about Kashmir, the max they do is give statements about supporting or appreciating Pakistan's role in Kashmir, not like the old days.

And it can be strong once again, if the terrorism stops, there can be open borders with free movement of goods and people! But for that the insurgency has to stop, there is no way around it.

You misunderstood the context of my comment regarding "raising the issue". I am not referring to the international community putting pressure on India to settle the dispute, I am referrign to maintaining that ideological disconnect amongst Kashmiris (from India) by raising the issue, and refusing to accept any solution that does not involve the consent of the Kshmiris.

Through the insurgency Pakistan has managed to accomplish one goal (assuming that the Indian argument of Kashmiris being fine with being part of India until the insurgency is valid- which I think is incorrect) - that is that Pakistan has won the ideological battle. Even with insurgency at a low point right now, and for the past many years, the sentiment in Kashmir has remained anti-India, and this sentiment is not related to "development", but ideology. Winning the Kashmiri hearts and minds has been Pakistan's coup.

As things stand, Pakistan has tried to militarily take Kashmir many times, it has failed on all occasions, Kashmir cannot be taken militarily, either through insurgency or through war.

I haven't mentioned any military solutions, so why bring it up?

The inability to take Kashmir militarily works both ways.

I mentioned in my first post in this thread, that the situation in Kashmir was of our own making, there were genuine problems and the situation was already volatile, Pakistan only gave the spark. But NOW, its all going downhill for the insurgency. The local supported was vaned, the local participation has waned, the insurgency is alive today ONLY because of active support of Pakistan, else it would be dead. The Army is getting more and more gear and makes their situation even more solid in Kashmir. The border peace b/w the 2 countries has been a boon for India, the fence was put up, advanced sensors and other equipments were setup on the LoC to monitor intrusion, etc, etc. So how is just waiting and pumping money in Kashmir a bad strategy? The country is growing economically very sound now, and money can and is being expended there...Developing the area will lead to even lesser number of people joining these radical groups, more employement etc is the key, and the government has realised that.

The problems related to governance and development were a catalyst in terms of alienating the Kashmiris from India, however the issue is no longer one of development solely. Kashmir will never be officially accepted as Indian or Pakistani territory until the two sides resolve the issue - until then the "neither here nor there" state will continue to be a reminder that the Kashmiris are stateless.

Whether you believe Pakistan is sincere or not is pointless - the fact is that our side is the one that is advocating a solution based on respecting the wishes of the Kashmiris and following UNSC resolutions, and involving the Kashmiris in negotiations. Your side just wants to ignore the whole thing, pretend like there is no dispute (at the same time claiming the Pakistani controlled territory), and no resentment and ideological alienation in IK.

You are at a huge disadvantage from that position - like I said, winning the hearts and minds of the Kashmiris has been Pakistan's coup, and all that is needed is something small like this land issue to bring that alienation to the fore.

Now I remind you, I am not suggesting that India just hand over J&K - but that it is in everyones interest for all three parties to sit down, accept the reality of the dispute, and come to a solution acceptable to all.

[Salim]

The so called coming out in the streets in Kashmir, organised by the Hurriyat, appears impressive in photographs or TV. It appears so since the streets of Srinagar are not even two lanes and it is perspective illusion.

Likewise, it appears that all the Hindus have poured out into the streets of Jammu.

In so far as Pakistan winning the ideological battle, it is right.

But the reason is not that all Kashmiris want to join Pakistan. It is because the non Islamic faith mindset of the world feel that the Islamic faith people are fanatics in the concept of ummah and all that and therefore, the slightest of problem and they think Islam is on the rebellion to further the concept of ummah! That is not true, but it is the image of Islam that worldly wise practicality is not a instinct of the Islamic faith people. The world fails to realise that there are a huge moderate Islamic faith people who are beyond the terrorist or fundamentalist fringe and that while Islam, as any religion is, is emotive, people of the Islamic faith has not left their brains behind.

That is why Paksitan it appears has indeed won the Islamic point of view being projected in such street protest.

As far as Paksitan is pretending to espouse the cause of Kashmiris that is true. That is because it is a lost cause to wrest Kashmir from India and so the moralistic line is taken.

The statements of the Kashmiri separatists in the other Kashmir have interesting things to say too and material to that effect is available.

[dabong1]

Hindus will not get Kashmir land

Thousands of stone-throwing protesters took part in the rallies
The government of Indian-administered Kashmir has said it will revoke its decision to transfer land to a body that manages an important Hindu shrine.

News that the Amarnath Shrine Board was to get the forest land sparked days of protests by the area's Muslim majority.

Three people were killed and hundreds injured, including police officers.

The protests were the among the biggest in the disputed Himalayan region for years, and widened to focus on pro-independence demands.

'Conspiracy'

State Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said the cabinet would formally revoke the plans.

He was speaking after the shrine board's management offered to return the land.

The state government now says it will provide all the necessary facilities for pilgrims who want to visit the shrine.

The government had said the land was needed for the construction of pre-fabricated huts and toilets for the pilgrims.

Separatist groups said the transfer of land was part of a "conspiracy to settle non-local Hindus in the valley with a view to reducing the Muslims to a minority".

Local environmentalists also protested against the decision.

The unrest has brought back memories of widespread protests that swept the region after a separatist insurgency began in 1989.

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Hindus will not get Kashmir land


I see they took my advice..!

[Salim]

The State govt will now build these huts and toilets and waste the money of the govt.

[dabong1]

Originally Posted by Salim

The State govt will now build these huts and toilets and waste the money of the govt.

I dont think its a waste of money........its a good thing........they should have built these facilities years ago.
I feel a bit ashamed....what must all these pilgrims think of kashmiris hospitality.

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by dabong1

I dont think its a waste of money........its a good thing........they should have built these facilities years ago.
I feel a bit ashamed....what must all these pilgrims think of kashmiris hospitality.

The hospitality was ended long time ago when the only real demographic change took place in Kashmir.

The one in which Hindus were forced to flee the region.

To think that Kashmir was a paragon of religious tolerance before the Jehadis took over...what a shame.

[Salim]

Originally Posted by dabong1

I dont think its a waste of money........its a good thing........they should have built these facilities years ago.
I feel a bit ashamed....what must all these pilgrims think of kashmiris hospitality.

Pilgrims have roughed it out over the ages and they can rough it out even now.

Interesting is the fact that in J&K, it is a land of people of the Islamic, Hindu and the Buddhist faiths.

Therefore, what is the shenanigan all about?

[dabong1]

Originally Posted by Flintlock

The hospitality was ended long time ago when the only real demographic change took place in Kashmir.

The one in which Hindus were forced to flee the region.

To think that Kashmir was a paragon of religious tolerance before the Jehadis took over...what a shame.

I think you will also find the a lot more muslims where also "forced to flee the region" after being killed and forced out of there homes by the indian army.
The religious tolerance is still there,its the "outsiders" that are intolerant.

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by dabong1

I think you will also find the a lot more muslims where also "forced to flee the region" after being killed and forced out of there homes by the indian army.
The religious tolerance is still there,its the "outsiders" that are intolerant.

Oh yeah, we saw the exemplary tolerance of Kashmiris last week. Massive display of secularism. I was truly impressed.

dabong1, hatred is spewed in the mosques. The first protests began when the people exiting the Jama Mosque at Srinagar on Friday began to go nuts in the streets.

That's reality, whether you like it or not.