What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
Well that is all so obvious, and I don't think it's too far from the truth. The fact that my fellow Pakistani members are jumping up and down shouting 'disputed' this and 'plebiscite' that, miss the wider picture.

There is near complete and total silence from the international community on this.

Even within Pakistan there seems to be Kashmir fatigue. I saw the ARY News main bulletin, and Kashmir was the 5th story to feature.

Yes I realise we've experienced our worst floods in decades, but there aren't protests or anything similar to express solidarity that I can see out on the streets. We have seen that previously.

So the issue is totally internalised, and that's where a solution to the current unrest will come from.

The reason from Pakistan is obviously due to lack of leadership in Pakistan and Internationa;l Comunity always come into play when the GoP highlights the issue. So no response from teh GoP means no response from the Intl Community. Another reason is the sale of MRCA which will keep a lot of FMs to openly speak about Kashmir.

Last but not least, silence from Pakistan is a blessing in disguise because now everyone can see that this is not a Pakistan inspired issue and more improtantly Indian masses need to realize that even without the help from Pakistan, Kashmiris are very capable of asking for an independence.
 
We know that people in 4 districts at best are against us. Most of these pictures come from Srinagar, just one city. Big deal.
Also rioters should be killed end of story.
 
All-party meeting decides to send delegation to J&K

The all-party meeting on Jammu and Kashmir on Wednesday decided to send a delegation of political leaders to the State to assess the ground situation but failed to arrive at a consensus on the issue of withdrawal or dilution of the contentious Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).

The five-and-a-half hour meeting, during which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, United Progressive Alliance Chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Bharatiya Janata Party leader L.K. Advani and leaders of other parties presented their views, however, was unanimous over the need for internal dialogue within the framework of Indian Constitution.

There was sharp division on AFSPA, revocation of which was demanded by the People’s Democratic Party and the National Conference but opposed by the BJP and some other parties.

At the meeting, Dr. Singh and other leaders voiced distress and concern over the continuing violence in the State and the loss of life.

Setting the tone, Dr. Singh said the government was willing to talk to anybody or any group which adopts peaceful means but asserted that it could not happen till the end of violence, some of which is “orchestrated by certain groups“.

A statement issued at the end of the marathon meeting said the leaders agreed that the Indian Constitution provides ample scope to “accommodate any legitimate political demand through dialogue, civil discourse and peaceful negotiations.”

Accordingly, it was decided that all-party delegation would be sent to Jammu and Kashmir, dates for which were not announced immediately.

“The leaders agreed that the delegation should meet all sections of the people and gather all shades of opinion. The visit of the all-party delegation would be facilitated by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the government of Jammu and Kashmir,” the statement said.

“The government will take into account the deliberations at today’s meeting while considering measures and initiatives to reach out to the people of Jammu and Kashmir,” it said, adding the feedback received from the all-party delegation would form an important input into the Government’s evolving response on various issues relating to the State.

During the meeting, PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti, whose party is the main opposition in Jammu and Kashmir, favoured immediate revocation of AFSPA and withdrawal of armed forces from civil areas and release of political prisoners and “innocent detenues“.

National Conference, which was represented by its chief Farooq Abdullah, also sought revocation of AFSPA, at least partially, failing which amend it to make it “humane“.

The demand of the parties from the state was supported by the Left parties and the Lok Janasakthi Party.

However, parties like the BJP, the Shiv Sena, the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Janata Dal opposed any such move, saying nothing should be done to demoralise the forces.

The BJP, whose chief Nitin Gadkari spoke at the meeting, was unexpectedly mellowed in its tone while the Shiv Sena was aggressive, according to a leader who attended the meeting.

The BJP stuck to its stand that the AFSPA should not be withdrawn, even partially, and there should be no talk of granting autonomy, a demand being pressed by the ruling NC.

Mr. Gadkari said the country cannot ignore the fact that terrorism was being aided and abetted by elements in Pakistan and government should factor this while devising its policies.

The party would support any dialogue within the framework of Indian Constitution but violence should end.

There was a spat between Ms. Mehbooba Mufti and the NC’s Mohd. Shafi after the PDP leader attacked Chief Minister Omar Abdullah.

Ms. Mehbooba Mufti alleged that the situation in the State has worsened since Mr. Omar Abdullah took charge and accused the Chief Minister of not consulting other parties and leaders on crucial issues, according to one of the participants.

She said when her father Mufti Sayeed was Chief Minister he had made it a point to speak to all major leaders, which Mr. Omar Abdullah has not done.

While the Chief Minister’s father Farooq Abdullah did not speak, his colleague Mr. Shafi shot back, saying when the PDP government succeeded the NC dispensation, violence had claimed 25 lives in the Valley. He, however, said the NC did not want to politicise the issue.

In his opening remarks at the meeting, the Prime Minister underlined that dialogue and discussion is the “only path for lasting peace and prosperity” in the State and those having grievance against the government “have to talk to the administration“.

Appealing for peace, he expressed sadness over the loss of lives and injuries suffered by the people, the police and security personnel besides “huge disruption” in the daily lives of the common man and the financial losses suffered by various sections of the society in the state.

“I am sure all of us share a deep sense of distress over the unfortunate sequence of events, during and after the Eid, particularly in the context of a reported act by a misguided person thousands of miles away,” Dr. Singh said.

“We have to talk to each other... But it is also true that meaningful dialogue can happen only in an atmosphere free from violence and confrontation. Discussions can take place only if we have calm and public order,” he emphasised.

Expressing shock and distress over the fact that men, women and even children have been joining the protests on the streets of Kashmir, Dr. Singh said, “while some of these protests may have been impulsive or spontaneous, it cannot be denied that some incidents were orchestrated by certain groups.”
 
We don't know what they will ask for as the term 'azaadi' hasn't been explicitly explained from what I've read. It seems the separatists don't know what this means.
I think they know what it means and they know what they want (multiple possible solutions), but the slogan of 'Azadi' resonates and is easier for people to latch on to and unify over. For example, at the rally led by separatists, there were people waving all sorts of flags - Kashmir flags and Pakistan flags.

Azadi in its simplest meaning for all of these people means the 'Azadi to decide their future'.

It is unrealistic to think that you can have debates, such as the ones on this forum to weigh the pro's and con's of complete independence vs divided Kashmir, with a majority, or even significant minority of Kashmiris, and convince them to your POV. As such, it is much easier to coallesce support around much simpler arguments that leave room for everyone's vision of Kashmir.

Even if a divided Kashmir, in terms of Kashmir, Jammu and Laddakh, is not something many Kashmiris agree with, the fact is that when the people protesting for 'Azadi' have had their say about their future, most of them will be satisfied enough with their lives to not really care about what happened with the other parts of J&K that no longer form a single state.
Then what you ask? Well, it's what we have now - a stalemate. Valiant_Soul has touched on it, and so have I in previous posts - it's all a matter of who will blink first.

The preconditions are in place for both sides. Both seem to be non-negotiable. In that case, we get the status quo: killings and protests.

I think this has gone beyond even taking steps like rescinding AFSPA. I doubt gestures such as those (which once looked meaningful) can pave the way for peace or normalcy.
On the AFSPA, even the moderate separatists have rejected the AFSPA rescinding as enough, twice now, in the last few days.

There is also the continuing question of resolving the dispute with Pakistan. The government under Zardari may be dovish, but there is no guarantee that either Zardari or his party will be in power in the future, the floods are not going to last forever, and continued violence in IOK after the floods could mean militants steeping in again.

Perhaps time to explore the Musharraf formula again, it appeared to satisfy many on both sides, though at this point the Kashmiris will have to be involved as well IMO.
 
K
i think its in india interest to let go kashmir and develop its people..... specially people living on footpaths.....

:pakistan:

Please do not tax your brain. We will do our thinking for ourselves.Having flags of two countries & waving a third does not constitute internationalisation of the Kashmir issue. We are not in the habit of allowing others to decide what exactly is in our interest.
 
Please do not tax your brain. We will do our thinking for ourselves.Having flags of two countries & waving a third does not constitute internationalisation of the Kashmir issue. We are not in the habit of allowing others to decide what exactly is in our interest.

:rofl::rofl:

Man that was some stellar 'Jhandu balm' performance.
 
Last edited:
Why is it so hard for you to accept that the people are disenchanted with Indian occupation and are demanding (at least the kashmiris) that they be allowed to exercise their right to self-determination in some form?

That is the crux of the problem....You are trying to put down my throat your version...what do you mean by Kashmiris???? Are you referring to people in valley???? Then yes you ar right...However here we are talking about State of Jammu and Kashmir, no??? Yes people are unhappy with GOI especially in valley however they are divided among themselves about what they want...Now please tell me what is wrong in my statement??

My advice please read post no 217....There are some surveys that cna give you an inclination about how much diverse opinions are out there in Jammu and Kashmir...

You are going from excuse after excuse to somehow link the unrest with 'lack of development' even going so far as to argue that professions in 'agriculture and husbandry' is the cause, never mind the fact that the majority of both India and Pakistan's economies, and that of many other developing nations, continue to be based on agriculture.
The problem is you want to somehow criticize....I don't know about Pakistan but lets talk about India here....

"India’s economy is diverse, depending on agriculture, handicrafts, textile, manufacturing, and a multitude of services."

Indian Economy & Industry | Economy of India | world?s third largest economy

Yes 2/3 population depends on Agricuture directly on indirectly but do you know percentage of GDP they produce???

More than 52% of country's population depends on agriculture, a sector contributing only 17.5% of the GDP.

Indian Economic Structure: Indian Industry Sectors & Industries | Economy Watch

Do i need to explain how much is industrialization is important???

Where is the disenchantment over 'agriculture and animal husbandry jobs' in Pakistan? These are not youths who were unemployed for years that are taking up the baton of protesting Indian rule. Many of them are college and school going individuals, who have not even experienced any potential 'disenchantment with the job market'. This kind of absurd exercise in denying the fact that disenchantment over a violated commitment to deciding through plebiscite whether or not to be part of the Indian State is dishonesty with self.

Your problem is too much talk about plebiscite without getting to the bottom of debate especially when it comes to kashmir...I know it is emotional subject but lets not leave intellectual mind while talking....I have already explained that Kashmiris(in other words people of jammu and kashmir) are divided on what they want....Is there disenchantment at all...of course Yes...is everyone part of it, Not at all....

I am not being dishonest here but you are....I can understand the reason behind it but i don't know what can be achieved by being dishonest....May i know what data you have that tell you all the protestors are school/college going students who have not experienced "disenchantment with the job market"...Anyways let me take you words as correct...So now can you please tell me what Job market is Jammu and Kashmir going to provide these youths when they pass out from colleges/schools??? Are saying that you need to be out there unemployed for years before you get frustrated??? Is that the reason that young Pakistani are blowing them by wearing suicide wests in every corner of Pakistan? Perhaps all of them would be college pass outs waiting for jobs for years, no??? Clearly there is more to think about it before passing judgements, no???....


Just now I was reading an Indian piece where the author recommended holding 'open houses', inviting the youth and leadership and listening to what they want. But what if they want a plebiscite to formalize their compact with the Indian State, a compact they never agreed to?
Again your problem is being selective on the demands of Kashmiri's....Plebiscite is a very complex issue...One cannot solve it because Agno believes that is the right way to go....Inviting people to find out what they want shows a mature step and is being done on various platforms...Here is one such debate...An interesting one...

We The People: Govt vs Army on Armed Forces Act?

This will tell you that even youth of Kashmir is divided as far as resolution of kashmir issue is resolved....

In all the potential issues the author though the youth might raise, he never considered the possibility of plebiscite. This isn't really 'listening to kashmiri grievances', its only listening to Kashmiri grievances that you have already pre-determined are acceptable to you, in which case it is a pointless exercise.
Seems like you know a lot about "kashmiri grievances".....May be you want to update your knowledge on that....People in valley do not represent state of Jammu and Kashmir...There are people in Jammu and People in Ladakh as well....Plebiscite is very compley topic that involves

- People of Jammu and Kashmir(P-o-k, Jammu, Valley, Ladakh, Displaced Kashmiri Pandits), China, Pakistan, demilitarization of Kashmir including complete pull back by Pakistan and scores of Pakistani's(non kashmiri's) who have settled in Kashmir....So i can understand why Author is not talking about it...can you???....

The need of the hour is to be realistic....Mush era was good from that perspective....He tried Kargil, failed and then did a reality check....The result was reached a stage where we were close to resolve the issue....Hopefully next time we will resolve the issue and we will not need any Kargil for introspection....


P.S : In india we use the word "jammu and kashmir" and kashmir interchangeably..Just making it clear so that i do not add to confusion....
 
You should be aware that a legal framework in complete agreements of the concerned parties were never reached (Read more here).

And ideology was the grand basis of partition, the only one actually. The ML chose both the ideology for division and also the regions.

"Muhammad Ali Jinnah espoused the Two Nation Theory and led the Muslim League to adopt the Lahore Resolution[7] of 1940, demanding the formation of independent states for Muslims in the East and the West of British India. "

"The province of West Pakistan was created on 14 October 1955 by the merger of the provinces, states and tribal areas of the western wing. The province was composed of twelve divisions and the provincial capital was established at Lahore. The province of East Bengal was renamed East Pakistan with the provincial capital at Dhaka. The federal government moved in 1959 from Karachi to Rawalpindi (provisional capital until Islamabad was finished), whilst the federal legislature moved to Dhaka."

This was the agreed geography of Pakistan. The princely state, though free to choose the new dominions, were subject to boundary conditions, which the Nawabs of Junagadh and Hyderabad did not took into consideration.
You are contradicting yourself - in the last line you argue that the Princely States were subject to boundary conditions, but in the beginning you argue that there was no legal framework agreed upon for accessions. If there was no framework agreed upon, then where did the boundary conditions come from? The boundary conditions were in fact not conditions, but suggestions, and they were not binding.

As I pointed out before, there was nothing suggesting that the Princely States could only accede based on the nations ideology - that is an obvious canard, and you have provided nothing to support any understanding between the British, ML and Congress on that issue. What you have provided is merely commentary on the ideology of Pakistan - that does not equate to evidence indicating that the rules governing accession of States prohibited non-Muslim States from joining Pakistan.
Based on the ideology of Pakistan creation and the regions demanded by Pakistan, India was just in keeping Junagadh and Hyderabad. And there were other "at-that-time" circumstances as well that well justifies these actions, for example the rise of communal violence, future governance, etc.
You did not 'keep Junagadh and Hyderabad', India invaded and occupied them. In the first case the State had acceded to Pakistan, in the latter the ruler was not allowed to make any decision. There was nothing indicating an agreement to limit the accession of States to Pakistan to only Muslim States.
The same logic was applied to Kashmir and India accepted the case of plebiscite.
I agree on the part about 'same logic', and I do not dispute resolving all three contested States through plebiscite, but where is the plebiscite in Kashmir? India now refuses to even consider it.
As is relevant from that thread, India's acceptance to plebiscite was subject to pre-conditions. And an agreement to those pre-conditions were never reached by both sides. The issue hangs in limbo and so the best thing to do now is to live with what we have.

Further stretching the idea of India-Pakistan partition, that Muslims and Hindus who want to exchange sides can do so, the solution to current Kashmir valley crisis become quite clear. Those who want to go to Pakistan can do so, but demand of a separate state is neither feasible nor acceptable, even to the whole of Kashmir (as only the valley wants separation and even they are divided).
Explicit pre-conditions, such as the ones India wants, were never formalized as part of the UNSC resolutions. The fact is that after India's hostile actions in Junagadh and Hyderabad, Pakistan was never going to vacate J&K and allow India to deploy troops to occupy the State, especially when there was no enforcement mechanism to force India to comply with the UNSC resolutions.

For that reason the actual UNSC resolutions called for discussions between UNCIP, India and Pakistan on coming up with demilitarization proposals, and UNCIP did propose many solutions, all of which were rejected by India. The proposal that India wanted, for Pakistan to completely vacate J&K, and allow complete Indian military dominance in the territory, and then also allow India to conduct the plebiscite, was obviously not acceptable or rational, for either Pakistan or the UN.
 
Kashmir is India's internal matter now and always....all political solutions and economic packages is between the people affected in kashmir and the GOI...and there is no room at all for any outside notice from any nation or organization....

actually even before our super power status this has always been our position and it shall always continue to be so......even now when we hear on an all party meet ....it inevitably means parties in India...GOI , the other political parties, even the hurriyat factions....but no other country is referred.....

Pakistan and China can keep on insisting on the resolution of the dispute forever more but we shall neither tolerate nor engage in any discussions on our sovereignty.....the territorial integration of India is non negotiable.....:toast_sign:
 
The reason from Pakistan is obviously due to lack of leadership in Pakistan and Internationa;l Comunity always come into play when the GoP highlights the issue. So no response from teh GoP means no response from the Intl Community. Another reason is the sale of MRCA which will keep a lot of FMs to openly speak about Kashmir.

Last but not least, silence from Pakistan is a blessing in disguise because now everyone can see that this is not a Pakistan inspired issue and more improtantly Indian masses need to realize that even without the help from Pakistan, Kashmiris are very capable of asking for an independence.
I disagree there. We've not been able to muster a sustained backing on our position for as far back as I can remember.

Do remember that the int. community can only dive in when it sees there is room for it to do so. India doesn't allow anyone to dive in with criticism and will always throw back the 'this is an internal matter' to whoever talks of Kashmir.

We just don't have the cover to go out on a diplomatic offensive, so it's futile to think we should.

You talk of the MRCA, then you should find an answer within that yourself - India's economic influence. So powerful is India's standing when it comes to deals such as that, they can flag up the MRCA card to ward off any criticism if they wish to.

I agree with your final point. I think India got it wrong when it went with the 'ISI sponsored stone throwers' gambit from the outset of the protests. It was clearly internally inspired and was foolish to think Pakistan was behind it.

I think it's fair to say that we could be milking this situation a great deal more, but the reaction from the top has been clearly muted. I think that's a desire to keep on good terms if and when talks resume between the two nations.
 
I don't think the youths that are on the streets shouting "azadi" know what they really want. To me, the anger and frustration is more a result of the constant feeling of suffocation that has existed for the last 20 years or so. A generation has grown up in that time, and it is this generation that is perhaps tired of the frequent security checks at checkposts and the obvious difficulties of having security personnel in civilian areas. From any point of view, these children (who are young adults now) haven't have had a normal childhood!!

I doubt that these youths can define what they want - for that matter, if the separatists can define it!! Yes, it is a slogan that people can gravitate to and a very effective one at that in present times.

About the question of deciding their future, well, from an Indian perspective - I don't think anyone in India is convinced that what these youths really want is "azaadi." Solutions that the GOI may propose can range from decreasing the military/paramilitary presence from civilian areas, consider autonomy, other such measures!!
 
I think they know what it means and they know what they want (multiple possible solutions), but the slogan of 'Azadi' resonates and is easier for people to latch on to and unify over. For example, at the rally led by separatists, there were people waving all sorts of flags - Kashmir flags and Pakistan flags.

Unify over what??? When there understanding of Azadi is completely different, when the end result they are looking for is completely different then may i know what is the unification for????

- There are some who complete reject this phenomenon
- There are some who want more Autonomy for Kashmir and consider it as Azaadi
- There are some who want complete freedom from India and merge with Pakistan
- There are some who want complete freedom from both India and Pakistan
- There are some who want to divide the state into three different states i.e. Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh

So may i know what unity are you talking about??? Please understand that there is almost 2-3 months of protest and yet it has not been trickeled down to Jammu and Ladakh....Does this say something???

Azadi in its simplest meaning for all of these people means the 'Azadi to decide their future'.

Does that mean i am not Azaad??? Do people of Kashmir(J&K) do not have the freedom to decide about their future???? See how simplest definition can be screwed...Waht you are referring to as Azaadi in simplest term is People of Kashmir shoud decide which country they want to merge with, or to be an independent country and this is where they are not united...So yes they do not know what Azaadi means.....


Perhaps time to explore the Musharraf formula again, it appeared to satisfy many on both sides, though at this point the Kashmiris will have to be involved as well IMO.
This is the only formulae that will work and we will end up having majority happy....people of valley will find themselves not directly under GOI control as border will be invisible, People of Jammu and Ladakh will find themselves alligned with GOI since borders are there though invisible and P-O-K people will find them free to move in and out in various parts of J&K
 
Kashmir is India's internal matter now and always....all political solutions and economic packages is between the people affected in kashmir and the GOI...and there is no room at all for any outside notice from any nation or organization....

actually even before our super power status this has always been our position and it shall always continue to be so......even now when we hear on an all party meet ....it inevitably means parties in India...GOI , the other political parties, even the hurriyat factions....but no other country is referred.....

Pakistan and China can keep on insisting on the resolution of the dispute forever more but we shall neither tolerate nor engage in any discussions on our sovereignty.....the territorial integration of India is non negotiable.....:toast_sign:

Yes my dear but that is our stand. What this thread is about is the international powers' stand and the reason for it.

As far as China is concerned, they are wise enough to know what is in their best interest and their current silence vis a vis Kashmir is a reflection of that realisation.

I'd like to know your view on topic.:undecided:
 

Back
Top Bottom