What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
No one said anything about G-B being "officially" annexed. But for all practical purposes it is considered as a part of Pakistan, with Azad Kashmir (actually P-0-K) a feeble attempt at showing how concerned Pakistan is for the plight of Kashmiris! (Spare us the drama!)
What does 'annexed' mean then? Do you even realize that so long as the territory remains disputed and under the control of India and Pakistan, the two countries have to administer it and put in place mechanisms for governance as they see fit.

So keep clutching at straws - the only illegal annexation that has taken place is that by India in which India refuses to implement the UNSC resolutions and has made J&K a part of India under its constitution.

There is no 'drama' as you put it in Pakistan and Pakistanis raising awareness about the plight of Kashmiris - the hundreds of thousands of Indian troops deployed to quell the Kashmiri separatism and deny them the right to plebiscite under the UNSC resolutions is more than ample evidence that Pakistan's concerns over 'Kashmiri plight' are legitemate and valid.
As to your argument about the want of a proper administrative apparatus in place, India has been doing a far better job at that, albeit, considering those Kashmiris as Indian citizens, granting them special privileges under the Indian constitution, and accepting openly that Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India!
If you feel India has done a better job of putting in place an administrative apparatus, good for you - then the Kashmiris should recognize how poor a job Pakistan has done and vote for India in a plebiscite, which India continues to deny them in violation of its commitment to the UNSC resolutions. But, none of that supports your or the author's argument that G-B has been 'annexed' by Pakistan.

UNSC 'does not provide provisions to administer occupied territories' is a flawed argument. There are many other universally agreed upon treaties and accords (I am not very well versed with them, but they do come up with regards to the Palestinian territories - but I think it the 4th Geneva Convention which stipulates how occupied territories are to be administered) which provide guidelines as to how occupied territories should be governed. You cannot twist and take out of context various guidelines to suit your needs or apparent wrong doings and then accuse the other party of violating resolutions. Pakistan also stands guilty to moving people from other territories into its occupied part of Kashmir (now isn't that against some international agreement?)

What treaties and accords apply to J&K, in terms of the administrative structure that is to be put in place that Pakistan is violating by putting in place the administrative structure that it has? Just because various treaties and accords pertaining to other conflicts exist that does not mean Pakistan is obligated to also implement them in administering GB and AK.

You have failed to establish how the administrative measures put in place by Pakistan in either AK or GB amount to an 'annexation' or change the status of those territories to being a part of Pakistan, or how those measures are in violation of the UNSC resolutions or any accord the Pakistan is obligated to implement.

As to the settlement of outsiders in G-B under Zia, AFAIK it was wrong, limited and stopped after violence broke out and Zia died and has not impacted the demographic balance of the region. If you have independent statistics supporting your position that it is widespread and has changed the demographic balance then please share them.

Question: What does Pakistan's constitution say about Kashmir and any special provisions as per its status and administration?

" 257. Provision relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and the State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State."


[Chapter 4: General] of [Part XII: Miscellaneous]
 
I think they have...
Then UN is surely sleeping. They forgot to serve that notice on us.
...if they havn't, the preparations by the UN in registering voters, both inside J&K and outside (musn't forget the pandits who migrated or the millions settled in Europe, especially the UK), before a plebiscite takes place, could always

settle that issue.
UN gets to do whatever it wants to, only after it is satisfied that Pakistan has met all the obligations. Once those obligations are met, there is nothing that India can do to prevent plebiscite.

It appears from UN's silence, they are not convinced yet.
What is needed is the will to proceed forward with the plebisicte, the associated issues can be handled one way or another before the actual votes are cast. That these tertiary issues are raised as arguments against plebiscite speaks primarily to the obstructionist attitude of Indians and the GoI and an attempt to find any excuse, however lame, to not sumbit to the will of the Kashmiris as promised them by the UNSC resolutions and the GoI and GoP in accepting them.
Same ol' appeal to emotion. 'Will', 'obscurantism', yada yada yada.

Apparently UN felt that these issues are not as 'tertiary' as Pakistanis would have themselves believe. Perhaps thats why UN wanted these issues to be solved before the plebiscite process could kick start. Not the other way round.

It is always amusing to see how Pakistanis on one hand want plebiscite as per UNSC resolutions, and on the other hand recoil at the very thought of doing their part as per the same UNSC resolutions. If one reminds them of their part, one is of course using 'lame excuses' to indulge in 'obscurantism'.

No one will however bother to explain why Pakistan is exempt from showing its willingness to 'submit to the will of Kashmiris', not merely by rhetoric, but by pure gesture.

Removing its citizens from the valley would appear to be a great start.

We continue to wait.
 
...the only illegal annexation that has taken place is that by India in which India refuses to implement the UNSC resolutions and has made J&K a part of India under its constitution.
Instrument of Accession gives India the locus standi.

India is not bound by any UNSC resolutions as long as Pakistan refuses to implement those very resolutions.
 
brilliant rant....did you wrote it just now or copy pasted from a text file named guzw-ul-hind? I take Brainwashing and its side effects!

Wake up! As per other Pakistani's there are over 100 insurgencies in India yet

> i fail to see Indian Army positioned anywhere rolling with their tanks and calling for air strikes.

> I fail to see any curfew or media blackout.

> I fail to see why this Un-Secular India wont put a last fight using most state of the art tech with all insurgencies if it was to be reduced in tatters.

> I fail to see Indian army not resting in bunkers.

> I fail to see oppressed citizens taking asylum in neighboring countries en masses.

> I fail to see how India is not economically thriving inspite of disgruntled citizens.

> I fail to see how minority population is not increasing.

> I fail to see how they end up not taking PM or president or COAS post.

> I fail to see how they do not capture and hand over soldiers of countries that fight for their freedom.

> I fail to see how Gujrat has not emerged as economy beacon after riots.

> I fail to see how arabs and turks are not lined up in new delhi for treaties and cooperation

> I fail to see how masjid's not attacked in land of pure.

> I fail to see how 10x muslims not killed in Pakistan as compared to riots in India.

Sorry brother, i dont have answer to any of your allegations, I failed
So far i am oblivious to the sticky thorn in your flesh allegedly called Ghazwa-e-Hind or something but it's obvious you are gloating the essence of India shining mis perception. We never fail to acknowledge the fact like many others we too have our problems but hey in the same breath we certainly don't make tall and frivolous claims.
What you have really failed to see is that our top brass certainly don't rant hysterical terminologies as Cold Start, Surgical Strikes, Hot Pursuits or threaten a limited war, while the edgy foot soldiers are either blasting them selves or wasting their colleagues in no uncertain manner.!!!!!!!!!
 
...our top brass certainly don't rant hysterical terminologies as Cold Start, Surgical Strikes, Hot Pursuits or threaten a limited war, while the edgy foot soldiers are either blasting them selves or wasting their colleagues in no uncertain manner.!!!!!!!!!
If only you knew how your 'top brass' thought like during the times of actual wars, viz '47, '65, 71, '99.;)
 
If only you knew how your 'top brass' thought like during the times of actual wars, viz '47, '65, 71, '99.;)

With the exception of 1971, which can only be termed as an International conspiracy, the Pakistan top brass, thought, executed and proved their mettle to India's detriment.
 
Then UN is surely sleeping. They forgot to serve that notice on us.

UN gets to do whatever it wants to, only after it is satisfied that Pakistan has met all the obligations. Once those obligations are met, there is nothing that India can do to prevent plebiscite.

It appears from UN's silence, they are not convinced yet.
Nonsense - the UN will act once India and Pakistan come to an agreement on withdrawal of forces and inform the UN of that. That was the original sticking point. Since then India has refused to implement the UNSC resolutions, period. Which leaves little to move on.
Same ol' appeal to emotion. 'Will', 'obscurantism', yada yada yada.

Apparently UN felt that these issues are not as 'tertiary' as Pakistanis would have themselves believe. Perhaps thats why UN wanted these issues to be solved before the plebiscite process could kick start. Not the other way round.

It is always amusing to see how Pakistanis on one hand want plebiscite as per UNSC resolutions, and on the other hand recoil at the very thought of doing their part as per the same UNSC resolutions. If one reminds them of their part, one is of course using 'lame excuses' to indulge in 'obscurantism'.

No one will however bother to explain why Pakistan is exempt from showing its willingness to 'submit to the will of Kashmiris', not merely by rhetoric, but by pure gesture.

Removing its citizens from the valley would appear to be a great start.

We continue to wait.
If India want's these issues to be resolved, then India needs to reverse its stand on the UNSC resolutions, agree to implement them, and start negotiations on a bilateral withdrawal (as mentioned in the UNSC resolutions) and the various other issues involved.

As argued in the UN resolutions thread - contrary to Indian propaganda, the UN resolutions do not call for a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistani forces - they call for negotiations between India, Pakistan and a UN appointed commission/rapporteur to determine how to arrive at that point. Those negotiations were stalled by India back then, and continue to be stalled by India, no due to her backtracking from her commitment to the UNSC resolutions.

It is disingenuous to argue that it is India that is 'waiting' when it is India that blatantly violated its commitment to the UNSC resolutions and refuses to implement them. You cannot demand that XYZ be implemented when you blatantly reject the document that calls for XYZ.

And there are no great numbers of Pakistani citizens in the valley beyond the soldiers needed to stop Indian aggression.
 
Last edited:
Instrument of Accession gives India the locus standi.

India is not bound by any UNSC resolutions as long as Pakistan refuses to implement those very resolutions.
The accession was itself subject to plebiscite, indicated in Mountbatten's acceptance of the instrument of accession (as was done in Junagadh), a position that was endorsed by India's leaders repeatedly - which was never conducted, so you have no locus standi.

And the GoI took the issue to the UNSC, and accepted the recommendations issued there, which also pointed out the disputed nature of the state.
 
the only illegal annexation that has taken place is that by India in which India refuses to implement the UNSC resolutions and has made J&K a part of India under its constitution.
A victorious military/power can annex an occupied territory (again some treaty says that) - plebiscite or no plebiscite. Indian forces were "invited" into Kashmir by the then administration and India agreed on the condition that J&K cedes to the Indian Union. Rest as they say is history. Theres nothing illegal about India annexing J&K. What is illegal is keeping people of P-0-K in a state of suspended nationality a la population of Golan Heights - na ghar ke na ghat ke.
There is no 'drama' as you put it in Pakistan and Pakistanis raising awareness about the plight of Kashmiris - the hundreds of thousands of Indian troops deployed to quell the Kashmiri separatism and deny them the right to plebiscite under the UNSC resolutions is more than ample evidence that Pakistan's concerns over 'Kashmiri plight' are legitemate and valid.
Yup, so much concern for a people instigated/bullied/scared into picking up arms against the Indian machinery or more shamelessly by pushing trained terrorists who have nothing to do with Kashmiris in an attempt to "help" the "freedom struggle".

As Bushy and EjazR pointed out earlier, the homegrown seperatist movements have largely given up armed struggle opting to participate in a political process. Those using arms are not Kashmiris but terrorists pushed from across the border and the Indian Forces are there to give them a warm "welcome" with molten lead!
If you feel India has done a better job of putting in place an administrative apparatus, good for you - then the Kashmiris should recognize how poor a job Pakistan has done and vote for India in a plebiscite, which India continues to deny them in violation of its commitment to the UNSC resolutions. But, none of that supports your or the author's argument that G-B has been 'annexed' by Pakistan.
UNSC resolutions apply for a "disputed" territory. India does not see J&K as disputed now. That territory is an integral part of India and will remain so. Therefore wouldnt UNSC resolutions be nullified now? If so the question of Plebiscite does not arise. What is being done is attempts to provide a better autonomy model to the Kashmiris within the framework of the Indian Constitution. Now what does Pakistan provide that you all feel that these very Kashmiris will vote for Pakistan in a referendum?
What treaties and accords apply to J&K, in terms of the administrative structure that is to be put in place that Pakistan is violating by putting in place the administrative structure that it has? Just because various treaties and accords pertaining to other conflicts exist that does not mean Pakistan is obligated to also implement them in administering GB and AK.
Then why make all those noises about "freedom" for Kashmir? You do understand what "Freedom" means right? Why not just let them be, instead of being an occupying force? So much for moral support, wheres that morality exactly? (Now India considers J&K as an Indian Union state, not a 'disputed' area or 'occupied' territory!)
" 257. Provision relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and the State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State."


[Chapter 4: General] of [Part XII: Miscellaneous]

I asked what does Pakistan's constitution presently provide for the Kashmiris under your occupation now - with regards to their status, nationality, rights, etc? That would probably answer the question of "annexation".
 
@shhhahuuu
You are confusing socio-economic problems with freedom of religion. Indian muslims may be around 3-4% in the army and its not because they don't want to join the army as some people believe. There is a historic reason that most of the Indian muslims in the army went to Pakistan when the British Indian army was being divided. So two things need to happen, Indian muslims will themselves have to step up to the plate and the GoI should also encourage recruitment from all ethnic and religious groups to give the army a more holistic composition.

But this has NOTHING to do with freedom of religion. Even if there was not a single Muslim in the Indian army, muslims can still have freedom of religion. The Indian constitution provides to freedom to practice and preach any religion. Muslims along with other religious groups have their own personal laws that pertain to their personal life like marriage, inheritance e.t.c in accordance with their faith. Is there any other country in the world that provides this legal provision? This is freedom of religion that I was talking about.

So what I said still holds.


Well I'm talking about groups that specifically claim that they will establish a "Islamic" state in Kashmir (i.e. LeT, Hizb e.t.c.). There is no denying that there is significant sentiment for Independence in the border districts. But every single mainstream separatist group have advocated peaceful resolution. These Jihadi groups then assassinate if any kashmiri leader advocates joining India or even Independence. They even indulge in attacks to media outlets that criticize them. Is this justified?

The plebescite is not the solution for reasons I don't want to go in this thread. And these are statements from high ranking Pakistani negotiators as well. Opinion polls have been conducted though which an idea of what Kashmiris want can be gleaned. I suggest you go though the Kashmir conflict report on www.peacepolls.org




Yes unfortunately Jihad has been twisted and perverted and its the fault of muslims alone for making Jihad into some sort of a dangerous word today.

Jihad in the Islamic context, and in literal sense, the word jihad simply means a struggle—doing one’s utmost to further a worthy cause. This is an entirely peaceful struggle, with no overtones even of aggression. The actual Arabic equivalent of war, is qital or harb, and even this is meant in a defensive sense in the Quran.

I don't want to talk about Jihad bil Qitaal as everyone is aware of that, but this is used in only 2-3 verses out of the 6600+ verses in the Quran. Moreover, it is NOT some continuous fighting. Jihad is continous yes(I will explain this later) but not Jihad vil Qitaal. This is only a small part of Jihad and is only the last resort. There are special conditions for initiating it such as it can only be done by a state and how it should be conducted. Most importantly if there is freedom of religion there is no applicability of Jihad. If the GoP feels that it should militarily take over Kashmir. It should revoke peace treaties with Indian and THEN declare war. Only then these proxy groups can be allowed to fight. The problem is that these groups are BASED in Pakistani Kashmir. The United Jihad Council has offices in Muzaffarabad and issues press statements and recruits people.

On casualty figures, according to offcial figures about 50,000 have been killed in the 20 year conflict and that includes civilians, security forces and militants. Out of which 15000+ muslims alone have been killed by militants. Is this the "Jihad" that is suppose to protect the innocents as a last resort? Palestine and Kashmir are completely separate issues when you look at the scale of human right abuses. When was the last time Kashmiris were put in refugee camps and bombarded with white phosphorus?





Now on your insistence of Jihad as a continuous struggle, I feel compelled to go a little off-topic to discuss the concept of Jihad as you are only partially correct.

The predominant use of Jihad in Quran and Hadith is with the sense of striving or struggling for betterment of one's self or society. Unfortunately this meaning has been completely forgotten by muslims, what to talk about non-muslims.

Jihad in the Qur’an means striving to the utmost to present the teachings of the Qur’an before the people including to muslims themselves and thus to inculcate good values in them. That is, presenting the concept of One God, presenting akhirah-oriented life as superior to world-oriented life; principle-oriented life as against selfishness-oriented life; a humanitarian-oriented life as more elevated than a self-oriented life and a duty-oriented life as a categorical imperative taking moral precedence over a rights-oriented life.

So Jihad, according to Islam, is simply a natural requirement of daily living. It is vital both as a concept and as a practice because, while leading his life in this world, man is repeatedly confronted by such circumstances as are likely to derail him from the humanitarian path if he/she doesn't continue to strive and struggle to the morally right path. The re-assertion of his ethical sense is the real jihad which he has to wage.

From the Islamic standpoint, intention is all-important. Any undertaking carried out with good intentions will win God’s approval, while anything done with bad intentions is bound to be disapproved of and rejected by God. In actual fact, intentions are the sole criteria of good or bad actions in the divine scheme of things.

This truth relates jihad to man’s entire life and to all of his activities. Whatever man does in this world, be it at home, or in his professional capacity, in family or in social life, his prime imperative must be to carry it out with good intentions and not the reverse. This, however, is no simple matter. In all one’s dealings, adhering strictly to the right path requires a continuous struggle. Resisting temptation weather it is premarital sex, or alcohol or cheating your customer or taking bribes e.t.c. is part of the continuous Jihad bin nafs(self). This is a great and unremitting lifelong struggle and is rightly called Jihad-e-Akbar. And this is what is called jihad in the context you mentioned. It is NOT some lifelong violence that these so called "Jihadi" groups want you to believe.

Even if one is engaged in good works, such as the establishment and running of institutions which cater for social welfare or academic needs, or if one is personally engaged in social work or performing some service in the political field like protesting against injustices of the government whether they be against muslims or non-muslims, in all such works the element of personal glory has a way of creeping in. Therefore, in all such instances, it is essential that in the individuals concerned there should be a strong tendency to introspection, so that they may keep before them at all times the goal, not of personal glory but the greater glory of God alone. This effort is then also the struggle or Jihad that a person will be rewarded.

It is one’s intense inner struggle to make all activities God-oriented which makes it so powerful a concept and this is Jihad.

You can check this out for further reading:
Islam, Peace and Justice: The Concept of Jihad in Islam
The True Jihad: The Concepts Of Peace, Tolerance And Non-violence In Islam

Ejaz,

You have taken your references from interpretation of Moulana Wahiuddin Khan and the effort is made by Yoginder Sikand. Niamat Ullah Khan Wali RA had told in his writing that there will be a time when Non-Muslims will interpret and tell Muslims what is true meaning of their religion. Whether I am right in my interpertation or not but do you think your learnings exactly the way it should have been and from the resources that you could trust without a shadow of doubt?

Jihad bil Qatal and Jihad bin Nafs are both Jihads. Do you remember the full Hadith in which Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWW told that you have arrieve towads Jihad-e-Akbar. The Sababhi RA was coming from Jihad bil Qatal when Holy Prophet Muhammad told him that now you are to face the Jihad that is even more hard. Can you quote a reference from Holy Prophet's life in which he would have stopped peple from going t Jihad bil Qatal because they were already doing Jihad-e-Akbar? This is not EITHER-OR or One to choose from the given two. Both Jihads are of equal value and when Muslims are in need, this Jihad is Farz, as Farz as offering Salat or Fasting. I am eager to learn more from you about Jihad but please study references that you could trust. Zionists know if only spirit of Jihaad is taken out of Muslims, whole Ummah will get down to its knees. Would you disagree with me on that?

What you are experiencing "Peace Peace Peace" is not new stretergy against Muslims. Read history of Undulusia and please do. There were same ulamaa who used to teac Muslims that its the peace that means most to the Muslims and Qatal and Bloodshed is very rarely needed. Its a humble request from you to learn how Kufar has been playig with us in the history how they have been deceiving us.

Coming back to some cross-firing of Muslims in India, I agree Indian constitution says there is freedom to exercise religion. I can dig out 10s of incidents but for now, how can one explain two incidents in the light of this "freedom".
1- Demise of Babri Mosque by Hindu Extremist and that nothing has been done with the ones who are responsible.
2- Why were thousands of Muslims assassinated in Gujurat and how Indian constitution came into play and saved Muslims there..? What has it done with the culprits?

I know you will argue that they are in the courts but still after 17+ years for Babri Mosque and 8+ years for The Muslim Massacre? Do you not see Justice has been delayed? Don't you even have questions about it?

Allama Mohammad Iqbal was not stupid my friend, neither Mohammad Ali Jinnah was. Why is that Secular India naming every weapon it has after Hidu Raja, Maharaja, Rivers, Bhagwan and Mataz they worship? Where is Muslim reflection in them?

Coming back to Kashmir, you only see the picture of Jihad that India wants to show to its people but we see the picture of Jihad that Pakistan wants us to see. I presume both are not the "True Pictures" because both countries have their reasons to suppress or inflate that. Why don't you hear cries of sisters of Kashmir yourself? Why is Media abandoned there? Why aren't you ready to see that reality could exist beyond what you believe it to be? Open up your heart and mind and share with People in Pakistan that what is the true Picture there? Why did whole Kashmir came out on street without any Involvement from Pakistan last year? There are so many questions and Mashallah God has blessed you with enough intellect to explore and find reality yourself.

Another question from you my brother that why is Muslim presence in India only 3% instead of 14.3% as per demographics? Muslims are not in Kashmir alone but they are scattered throughout India or at least outside Kashmir too. So what is keeping them stay behind the rest? I am not talking of discrimination, but sense of being part of some society or country. Why is that not evident as you are portraying here?

Yes unfortunately Jihad has been twisted and perverted and its the fault of muslims alone for making Jihad into some sort of a dangerous word today.


If you think Jihad has been poluted then can you imagine who could have done so? Just a question because I have seen you are not illogical person so my question would help you answer yourself. Please dont reply me in haste, I have nothing to "fight" here, I am just putting few questions in your mind to answer yourself. May God help all of us, including you and me see the right path.

Jazak-Allah-Khair.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense - the UN will act once India and Pakistan come to an agreement on withdrawal of forces and inform the UN of that. That was the original sticking point. Since then India has refused to implement the UNSC resolutions, period. Which leaves little to move on.
Or perhaps its all sense. Maybe you are a bit rusty. So let me help you.
...the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council [...] and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir...
In other words the notice is to be served only after the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals have completely withdrawn from the occupied portion (and of course when Pakistan has started withdrawing its forces, which in any case can be achieved by any token gesture).

Your response was that they (the Pakistani nationals) probably have. Hence my quibble. The notice has nothing to do 'agreement on withdrawal' or real withdrawal.

Besides, India doesn't get to implement UNSC resolutions unless Pakistan has done it first and that would be removal of 'tribesmen and Pakistani civilian' from the valley. No amount of putting the cart before the horse is going to change that inconvenient fact.
If India want's these issues to be resolved, then India needs to reverse its stand on the UNSC resolutions, agree to implement them, and start negotiations on a bilateral withdrawal (as mentioned in the UNSC resolutions) and the various other issues involved.

As argued in the UN resolutions thread - contrary to Indian propaganda, the UN resolutions do not call for a unilateral withdrawal by Pakistani forces - they call for negotiations between India, Pakistan and a UN appointed commission/rapporteur to determine how to arrive at that point. Those negotiations were stalled by India back then, and continue to be stalled by India, no due to her backtracking from her commitment to the UNSC resolutions.

It is disingenuous to argue that it is India that is 'waiting' when it is India that blatantly violated its commitment to the UNSC resolutions and refuses to implement them. You cannot demand that XYZ be implemented when you blatantly reject the document that calls for XYZ.
Mostly strawman. I have not uttered a single word on 'withdrawal of Pakistani forces'.

However, I would like you to point out the cases, where India has 'violated', if thats the word you want to use, the UNSC resolutions. The resolutions do not give a time frame for plebiscite and explicitly binds it with events, that are outside India's scope. Where is the 'violation' if a) India hasn't held a plebiscite till now, and b) refused to agree to lopsided interpretation of troop withdrawal.

On the other hand, by invading Kashmir in 1965, Pakistan has blatantly 'violated' - in true sense, spirit and meaning of the word - the cease fire agreement as per UNSC resolutions.
And there are no great numbers of Pakistani citizens in the valley beyond the soldiers needed to stop Indian aggression.
Then it should be easy for Pakistan to remove the 'lesser' number of Pakistani citizens. Whats the hold up then.
 
Or perhaps its all sense. Maybe you are a bit rusty. So let me help you.

In other words the notice is to be served only after the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals have completely withdrawn from the occupied portion (and of course when Pakistan has started withdrawing its forces, which in any case can be achieved by any token gesture).

Your response was that they (the Pakistani nationals) probably have. Hence my quibble. The notice has nothing to do 'agreement on withdrawal' or real withdrawal.

Besides, India doesn't get to implement UNSC resolutions unless Pakistan has done it first and that would be removal of 'tribesmen and Pakistani civilian' from the valley. No amount of putting the cart before the horse is going to change that inconvenient fact.

Mostly strawman. I have not uttered a single word on 'withdrawal of Pakistani forces'.

However, I would like you to point out the cases, where India has 'violated', if thats the word you want to use, the UNSC resolutions. The resolutions do not give a time frame for plebiscite and explicitly binds it with events, that are outside India's scope. Where is the 'violation' if a) India hasn't held a plebiscite till now, and b) refused to agree to lopsided interpretation of troop withdrawal.

On the other hand, by invading Kashmir in 1965, Pakistan has blatantly 'violated' - in true sense, spirit and meaning of the word - the cease fire agreement as per UNSC resolutions.

Then it should be easy for Pakistan to remove the 'lesser' number of Pakistani citizens. Whats the hold up then.

One sentence from the UNSC resolutions is enough to debunk all that mumbo jumbo you posted for obfuscating the issue:

"Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission."

A. (l) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.
etc. etc. ....

Note the underlined portion and that all of the recommendations were contingent on tripartite negotiations between India, Pakistan and the UN representatives - the agreements worked out in those discussions would have then led to a presumably bilateral withdrawal.

This position is validated by subsequent UNSC resolutions:

UNSC Resolution 80 on Kashmir:


... Calls upon the Governments of India and Pakistan to make immediate arrangements, without prejudice to their rights or claims and with due regard to the requirements of law and order, to prepare and execute within a period of five months from the date of this resolution a program of demilitarization on the basis of the principles of paragraph 2 of General McNaughton proposal or of such modifications of those principles as may be mutually agreed;

And what was the McNaughton proposal?

The McNaughton Proposal:


DEMILITARISATION PREPARATORY TO THE PLEBISCITE

... There should be an agreed program of progressive demilitarization, the basic principle of which should be the reduction of armed forces on either side of the Cease-Fire Line by withdrawal, disbandment and disarmament in such stages as not to cause fear at any point of time to the people on either side of the Cease-Fire Line. The aim should be to reduce the armed personnel in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on each side of the Cease-Fire Line to the minimum compatible with the maintenance of security and of local law and order, and to a level sufficiently low and with the forces so disposed that they will not constitute a restriction on the free expression of opinion for the purposes of the plebiscite.

1. The program of demilitarization should include the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of the regular forces of Pakistan; and the withdrawal of the regular forces of India not required for purposes of security or for the maintenance of local law and order on the Indian side of the Cease-Fire Line: also the reduction, by disbanding and disarming, of local forces, including on the one side the Armed Forces and Militia of the State of Kashmir and on the other, the Azad Forces.


As pointed out in the UNSC resolutions thread, in Sir Owen Dixit's own words, it was India that was being the obstructionist in implementing the McNaughton proposal in some form, despite maintaining significantly larger number of troops (in comparison to Pakistan) on its side of the disputed territory.
 
A victorious military/power can annex an occupied territory (again some treaty says that) - plebiscite or no plebiscite. Indian forces were "invited" into Kashmir by the then administration and India agreed on the condition that J&K cedes to the Indian Union. Rest as they say is history. Theres nothing illegal about India annexing J&K. What is illegal is keeping people of P-0-K in a state of suspended nationality a la population of Golan Heights - na ghar ke na ghat ke.
Might is right? Funny, why didn't the US just let Saddam keep Kuwait then? Or for that matter why did the UNSC pass resolutions after Israeli victories over Arabs indicating that the borders of Israel should remain restricted to those that existed in 1967? Trying to bring out some obsolete 'treaty' that awards the spoils of aggression to the victor (what, are you going to join the Taliban in the medieval ages next?) to justify an immoral and illegal position just indicates the depths to which some Indians have sunk

It is not a case of 'plebiscite or no plebiscite', Mountbatten made clear in accepting the Maharajah's instrument of accession that it was conditional to a plebiscite, a position endorsed by the Indian leadership as well time and time again, and also endorsed by the UNSC to which India took its case.

Hence unilateral Indian annexation of J&K is illegal. Were the accession not conditional to a plebiscite, as indicated by Mountbatten and the Indian leadership, your point would have validity.

The 'limbo' the people of GB and AK find themselves in is entirely India's fault - for violating its commitment to the UNSC resolutions and not allowing a plebiscite to take place, or finding one excuse or another to not engage consistently in negotiations to resolve the dispute bilaterally.
Yup, so much concern for a people instigated/bullied/scared into picking up arms against the Indian machinery or more shamelessly by pushing trained terrorists who have nothing to do with Kashmiris in an attempt to "help" the "freedom struggle".
Let me repeat my last point, since it obviously did not sink in, "There is no 'drama' as you put it in Pakistan and Pakistanis raising awareness about the plight of Kashmiris - the hundreds of thousands of Indian troops deployed to quell the Kashmiri separatism and deny them the right to plebiscite under the UNSC resolutions is more than ample evidence that Pakistan's concerns over 'Kashmiri plight' are legitemate and valid."
As Bushy and EjazR pointed out earlier, the homegrown seperatist movements have largely given up armed struggle opting to participate in a political process. Those using arms are not Kashmiris but terrorists pushed from across the border and the Indian Forces are there to give them a warm "welcome" with molten lead!
If the Kashmiris choose to give up armed struggle for a political one, that is their choice - that does not mean the argument in favor of separatism goes away, nor does it change the fact that India continues to deny the people of J&K the freedom and their right to determine their destiny. And just because the Indian Military puts a 'made in Pakistan' label on every freedom fighter they kill does not automatically mean that the people they kill are not Kashmiri. Obviously the Indian military would lie about that to promote propaganda that the people being killed are not Kashmiris.

UNSC resolutions apply for a "disputed" territory. India does not see J&K as disputed now. That territory is an integral part of India and will remain so. Therefore wouldnt UNSC resolutions be nullified now? If so the question of Plebiscite does not arise. What is being done is attempts to provide a better autonomy model to the Kashmiris within the framework of the Indian Constitution. Now what does Pakistan provide that you all feel that these very Kashmiris will vote for Pakistan in a referendum?
It does not matter what India 'thinks' - as I often point out, just because India might decide to 'think' that California and Texas belong to it and unilaterally amends its constitution to declare them Indian States does not mean India actually has any legal standing on the issue. The fact is that India agreed that the territory was disputed, it agreed that a plebiscite would determine J&K's final status, and it agreed to the UNSC resolutions.
Then why make all those noises about "freedom" for Kashmir? You do understand what "Freedom" means right? Why not just let them be, instead of being an occupying force? So much for moral support, wheres that morality exactly? (Now India considers J&K as an Indian Union state, not a 'disputed' area or 'occupied' territory!)
The freedom to choose which nation they wish to be a part of - a freedom denied them by India. Its not that hard to understand.

I asked what does Pakistan's constitution presently provide for the Kashmiris under your occupation now - with regards to their status, nationality, rights, etc? That would probably answer the question of "annexation".
The rights Pakistan affords the people of GB and AK have nothing to do with annexation - annexation would be the attempt to constitutionally declare and asorb those territories as a part of Pakistan. The Pakistani constitution clearly leaves final status pending on the results of the UNSC plebiscite - hence your and the author's argument of 'annexation' is bunk.
 
Indian Muslims know what is Indian secularism and democracy. The site of grand Babri Mosque displays the Indian greatness. Even while claming to be a so-called secular democracy, India keeps scheming in Jammu Kashmir with its agents being engaged in subversive activities to make the freedom activists also pro-India. After a terrible period of New Delhi’s political recession in Jammu Kashmir, India is hoping to regain the hold in the region by keeping the new Muslim-Hindu regime in Kashmir. As the world look at the Indian terror policies in Kashmir killing thousands of innocent Kashmiris in a sustained manner since 1947, India is now over-conscious and over-cautious about its global image being a state terrorist, even though it hides behind other similar global terrorists like USA and Israel.

M.K. Gandhi end in New Delhi testify how much of criticism is tolerated by Indian leaders and media. India is still focused don marinating Jammu Kashmir under its control through a pro-India regime and finish off the freedom fighter through the agents in JK. NC CM Omar is talking about tourism in Kashmir. On Feb 02, the JK government has come out with a new proposal to setup an upgraded enclave to lure investors. The government is planning a high profile diplomatic conclave in Srinagar to woo foreign tourists in Kashmir. They said the plan is part of the two-pronged strategy the government is working out in consultation with Kashmir’s elite group of tour operators. On the one hand, the authorities would host a diplomatic conclave in Srinagar wherein ambassadors of Western and Asia-Pacific countries would participate; on the other hand the local authorities would plead in New Delhi for the removal of Armed Forces Special Powers Act, Disturbed Areas Act and other tough laws prevalent in J&K. The tour operators apprised the minister that the existence of laws like AFSPA and DAA also dissuades tourists to visit Kashmir Valley despite the fact that the situation in the State was conducive for tourism.

In view of the move to replace the terror forces of India with JK police forces, this makes sense and credibility. The state government will take up the matter with New Delhi so that the laws are scrapped paving way for fear-free environment for travel. The tourism sector of the State has borne the brunt of political unrest with the matter being compounded by the existence of various laws providing impunity to the troopers. Kashmir valley, once the choicest global destination for tourism, witnessed a consistent decline in the tourist inflow since the eruption of armed uprising with several countries issuing advisories to its nationals against travel to the conflict zone.

Speculators do see through this a move on the part of India to let the new JK regime construct infrastructures for a forthcoming embassies complex in the proposed enclave to have foreign missions for their diplomatic services with emerging new independent Jammu Kashmir. This implies New Delhi is toying with the idea of surrendering sovereignty back to Kashmiris in a systematic manner. If so, this is indeed a positive development. However, Kashmiri patriots view this is a ploy by India and its Kashmiri agents to boos the image of India world wide by showcasing the colorful scenes of Kashmir. That would create yet another illusion of how well India is doing in Jammu Kashmir and how much the Hindus care for the Kashmiris Muslims.

It appears air-services to Gulf States introduced by the government would not help India in getting rid of the freedom movement. How much the freedom leaders and their supporters and Kashmiri Muslims in general would benefit form the services is unclear. Already the pro-India elements have gained a lot of coins by backstabbing the fellow Kashmiris who fight for independence and getting them killed on payment basis from New Delhi bosses.

It has been the practice of Indian net media portals to hurl ****** language towards Kashmiris and Pakistanis. Pakistan is known in the portal circles as porkistan and India government promotes that.

Apart from Jammu Kashmir, Indian Muslims are considered as a factor against any positive ties with Pakistan. By sustained social-political maneuvers and psycho pressure tactics, Muslims in India have been converted into pro-Hindu people effectively hiding their Islamic identity for fear. India fears a friendly Pakistan would wean away Indian Muslims to love Pakistanis and that would be the most remarkable failures of Indian foreign-cum-home policy.

Perhaps, Kashmiris seem to doubt the worth of freedom and independence. Just on the eve of the Indian poll imposed on JK, a few Indians did argue for granting sovereignty back to Kashmiris as the only reliable solution to resolve the crisis, but Indian government agencies know how to silence them and they did that in perfection . So much so none speaks now about the need for freedom for Jammu Kashmir. A political party held minor demonstrations in New Delhi, also before the polls, but that also has been silenced now by "democratic and innocent" India. Silencing the opponents by all means including cooption, bribes or elimination, remains the cardinal policy of India both at home and abroad. Over decades of its “free” manipulations and machinations, India is well versed in the method of silencing..

Kashmir Watch :: In-depth coverage on Kashmir conflict
 
In the portal circles we know the stinking language BR monkeys use for Pakistan and Pakistanis so we dont care what some worthless people say about us.

The main point is the freedom of Kashmiri people. And we wish and assure them we are with them.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom