What's new

Kashmir | News & Discussions.

So, is new media only reinforcing old stereotypes?


  • Total voters
    44
USA has said kashmir is internal matter for India and Pakistan and UN these days is nothing more then a expensive lunch meeting.
What the US says does not change the legality or status of J&K, which is that it is disputed, nor does what the US says change the fact that UNSC resolutions are still pending implementation and have not been overruled.
 
Where does UNSC resolution 1172 'clearly say no to Plebiscite', or for that matter set aside/overrule the past resolutions on the Kashmir dispute?


I recommended you read through those threads precisely to address these arguments.


No such thing in UNSC resolution 1172.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 tacitly accepts India's stand regarding all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan and urges the need to resolve the dispute through mutual dialogue and does not call for a plebiscite.


Then why UNSC 1172 has accepted India's stand??? Why Pakistan's stand is not accepted???
Give me one reason!!!!!!!!!!
 
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 tacitly accepts India's stand regarding all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan and urges the need to resolve the dispute through mutual dialogue and does not call for a plebiscite.


Then why UNSC 1172 has accepted India's stand??? Why Pakistan's stand is not accepted???
Give me one reason!!!!!!!!!!
UNSC resolution 1172 did not 'accept India's stand' tacitly or otherwise. UNSC resolution 1172 was a resolution primarily related to the nuclear weapons tests carried out by India and Pakistan, and given the unsettled disputes between the two, past wars and the potential of future hostility with nuclear weapons, it 'encouraged' the two countries to engage in dialog.

At no point did it state that UNSC resolutions on Kashmir were defunct or overruled, or that plebiscite was not on the table. This is really clutching at straws.
 
What the US says does not change the legality or status of J&K, which is that it is disputed, nor does what the US says change the fact that UNSC resolutions are still pending implementation and have not been overruled.


Yes but my point is that UN after the US led invasion of iraq is a micky mouse organisation, even Iran and Israel joke in the face of UN resolutions. Kashmir is not important for the USA or for Europe who are in deep recession and have more domestica problems then sticking their hore in other nations affair's.
 
Yes but my point is that UN after the US led invasion of iraq is a micky mouse organisation, even Iran and Israel joke in the face of UN resolutions. Kashmir is not important for the USA or for Europe who are in deep recession and have more domestica problems then sticking their hore in other nations affair's.
The effectiveness of the UN has little to do with the argument of Indian occupation and tyranny in Kashmir, the fact that many Indians openly defend tyranny and occupation under the guise of nationalism much like the Nazis, and the fact that India has reneged on her pledge to the international community and the Kashmiri people, of allowing them to exercise self-determination through a plebiscite.
 
UNSC resolution 1172 did not 'accept India's stand' tacitly or otherwise. UNSC resolution 1172 was a resolution primarily related to the nuclear weapons tests carried out by India and Pakistan, and given the unsettled disputes between the two, past wars and the potential of future hostility with nuclear weapons, it 'encouraged' the two countries to engage in dialog.

ODS HOME PAGE

UNSC Resolution 1172( 1998)
Urges:
India and Pakistan to resume the dialogue between them on all
outstanding issues, particularly on all matters pertaining to peace and
security, in order to remove the tensions between them, and encourages them to
find mutually acceptable solutions that address the root causes of those
tensions, including Kashmir;

where does it demand Plebiscite?????
 
Last edited:
The effectiveness of the UN has little to do with the argument of Indian occupation and tyranny in Kashmir, the fact that many Indians openly defend tyranny and occupation under the guise of nationalism much like the Nazis, and the fact that India has reneged on her pledge to the international community and the Kashmiri people, of allowing them to exercise self-determination through a plebiscite.

Pakistan is no saint, creating jihadis who wreak havoc killing innocents in Kashmir. We all know what happened to the self rights of Kashmiri pundits who are refugees now in India. The real issue in Kashmir is over water and who controls it.
 
The effectiveness of the UN has little to do with the argument of Indian occupation and tyranny in Kashmir, the fact that many Indians openly defend tyranny and occupation under the guise of nationalism much like the Nazis, and the fact that India has reneged on her pledge to the international community and the Kashmiri people, of allowing them to exercise self-determination through a plebiscite.

I must have asked you this a million times, but for the last time why don't you tell us why Pakistan insists on hanging on to 'azad' Kashmir? Let them form their own government, military etc. What's the PA doing sitting pretty in Kashmir?

Kashmir is a fully Pakistani creation. Had Pakistan kept its tribals out of Kashmir we wouldn't have had a situation on our hands today. Also, harping about a decades old resolution after attacking us in '65, '99 and waging an insurgency for two decades is pretty disingenuous.

Lastly, coming to the Nazis. Zia did a pretty good job of proliferating Islamo fascists throughout the country, you can call us Nazis all you like but now that the GoP has started cracking down on the Punjabi Taliban (and their associates) I'm sure we'll see the true extent of their influence. I can give you plenty of examples of members apologizing, denying and sometimes even defending these animals, but its nothing you don't already know.

Pakistan has a long, hard fight ahead. I'm certain Kashmir will be resolved satisfactorily, we just have to wait till we can bargain from a position of strength. All this talk about the 'moral high ground' is simply a waste of time. We each have a bone to pick with the other but just as always you're too busy pointing fingers rather than being practical and coming up with solutions.

With regard to banning Pakistani channels, I'm all for it. Who allowed Pakistani propaganda in a region we've fought 4 wars over in the first place?
 
I think Indians got sentimental , at Kashmir when it was a none issue.

The majority of the citizen's in Kashmire are/were muslims thus the region belongs to Pakistan

Perhaps the problem was the unfortunate deaths of people migrating across, which created the initial confusion. Also our Leaders died with in 1 year time period so this issue was not resolved as our leaders were lost and there was alot of confusion.

I think Gandhi , wanted peace and also peace was desired on Pakistan side as well but unfortunately Jinnah died due to illness (Mysteriously) and Ghandhi was assasinated by somone who was angry at him for cooperating with Pakistan ...perhaps its a lesson that violence is bad

Now Politicians use Kashmir as a VOTE getting gimick nothing more

The civilized solution is to hold elections hand over Kashmir to UN for 50 years, mean while both Indians and Pakistanis can visit the region for tourism. At least that way ever one can walk safely on streets in Kashmir and enjoy the scenery

With out peace , actually no one wins not even locals -

And after 50 years Kashmirs can have elections and decide , this way sentimantal anger can be over come with 50 years of peace

If not , then it will mutal destruction at some point and stone age here we come india /pakistan , its 100% certain


Yes people can say , we will have the biggest gun , and this and that biggest stash of weapons but ... peace dose not comes by weapons by people who work towards peace.

A large scale war will end the South Asian Civilization as we know (I guess we could call it a civilization)

Just becasue ppl could not come to term with matters -

Its hard to have elections after 60 years of illegal occupation by force but I think it would be in Indian national interest if Kashmir issue is solved

The region could be a very strong economical power block , the other side of choice is grim and dark for 70 years of radio active decay

Getting sentimental on the tread does not necessarily makes any difference normal ppl can't make any difference its always been a political vote related issue in India and Pakistan
 
Last edited:
I think Indians got sentimental , at Kashmir when it was a none issue.

The majority of the citizen's in Kashmire are/were muslims thus the region belongs to Pakistan

Not really. Kashmir was a princely state, and while you may feel entitled to it just because its a muslim majority state, India happens to be a secular democracy so religion doesn't really matter. Furthermore, India doesn't subscribe to the two nation theory, the war of 1971 laid that argument to rest once and for all.

Perhaps the problem was the unfortunate deaths of people migrating across, which created the initial confusion.

Also our Leaders died with in 1 year time period so this issue was not resolved as our leaders were lost and there was alot of confusion.

I think Gandhi , wanted peace and also peace was desired on Pakistan side as well but unfortunately Jinnah died due to illness (Mysteriously) and Ghandhi was assasinated by somone who was angry at him for cooperating with Pakistan ...perhaps its a lesson that violence is bad

Now Politicians use Kashmir as a VOTE getting gimick nothing more

The civilized solution is to hold elections hand over Kashmir to UN for 50 years, mean while both Indians and Pakistanis can visit the region for tourism. At least that way ever one can walk safely on streets in Kashmir and enjoy the scenery

With out peace , actually no one wins not even locals -

And after 50 years Kashmirs can have elections and decide , this way sentimantal anger can be over come with 50 years of peace

If not , then it will mutal destruction at some point and stone age here we come india /pakistan , its 100% certain


Yes people can say , we will have the biggest gun , and this and that biggest stash of weapons but ... peace dose not comes by weapons by people who work towards peace.

A large scale war will end the South Asian Civilization as we know (I guess we could call it a civilization)

Just becasue ppl could not come to term with matters -

Its hard to have elections after 60 years of illegal occupation by force but I think it would be in Indian national interest if Kashmir issue is solved

The region could be a very strong economical power block , the other side of choice is grim and dark for 70 years of radio active decay

Getting sentimental on the tread does not necessarily makes any difference normal ppl can't make any difference its always been a political vote related issue in India and Pakistan

Long story short all you're saying is solve Kashmir or else. Don't sugar coat it with 'we will be a powerful economic block' and 'south asian civilization'.

Kashmir cannot be solved by force, Pakistan cannot impose a military solution on India. Even if nuclear war does break out it will be limited to military targets, yes there is no guarantee but mutually assured destruction has always worked. Pakistan is already in deep trouble because of its strategic blunders so covert warfare against India will also lead to serious diplomatic and possibly military retaliation. Not to mention how these same groups can turn on Pakistan.

The only way forward is for Pakistan to accept that it has no choice but to pursue a diplomatic solution with India, regardless of how long it takes. This may seem far fetched today, but as I said earlier five years down the line it might start to look a little more feasible.
 
I think Indians got sentimental , at Kashmir when it was a none issue.

The majority of the citizen's in Kashmire are/were muslims thus the region belongs to Pakistan

That is not true, Since India was a secular state, Kashmir (which was a Princely state) could have choosen india or pakistan.

Moron Hari singh couldn't make a desicion until Pakistani tribal who couldn't stand the fact that it was ruled by a hindu(Dogra) tried to invade Kashmir. Now hari singh came to India and asked for help.

India clearly stated that it will not help until he acceded to india which he did with the Instrument of Accession.

Now there cannot be any redrawing of boundries, what ever could be done should have been done 60 years ago.

I wish india had not returned the 5,500 square miles of P.o.K which India had captured from Pak after the 71 war.
 
That is not true, Since India was a secular state, Kashmir (which was a Princely state) could have choosen india or pakistan.

Moron Hari singh couldn't make a desicion until Pakistani tribal who couldn't stand the fact that it was ruled by a hindu(Dogra) tried to invade Kashmir. Now hari singh came to India and asked for help.

India clearly stated that it will not help until he acceded to india which he did with the Instrument of Accession.

Now there cannot be any redrawing of boundries, what ever could be done should have been done 60 years ago.

I wish india had not returned the 5,500 square miles of P.o.K which India had captured from Pak after the 71 war.

Yes unfortunately the stratgy to delay a decision for 100 years and deal with it is counter productive.

A state that claims to be largest democracy should also stand by ideals of democracy instead of sentimental attachment.

If Gandhi accepted pakistan and helped release pakistan's share of $$ from Banks , I am sure rest of indian political establishment should have respected the leader's decisions.

Sentimental attachment only took us to the path we are on now

The land returned was under pretext of long term peace or fear of relation in future.

But you can't have peace untill you hold unpartial elections

Making references to 65 or 71 or Kargil makes no difference , its not 65 , its not 71 not even 1999

If all regions of India / Pakistan can enjoy freedom , I think its fair that people get to live in peace under UN.

For 60 years, while we normalize relations

Sentimental talk and agression will yeild nothing

Its like a car

Its out of gas , and you are turning on the car keys engine won't start ...

Untill its recognized , ok we need to push the car back 60 miles and fill it up with gas , the car will be stuck in same spot ....

But the problem is that car has a ticking time bomb and only person who can deactivate it is 30 km away so if you don't go back and fuel up ... the car will be destroyed , and who ever is in the car will be done

There are alot of regions in India where there are huge population of Muslims but Pakistan never lays any claim on these provinces ... its a point of thought.

Other then that I think democracy should be used ...otherwise its just bad situation

How can a democratic state , deny the people it occupied by virtue of 1 person's alleged approval ? Would they not prefer a democratic gentlemanly solution.

What india did is no different then what east indian company did coming on shore and then getting aproval from 1 person and taking over city then province etc ....perhaps it was the influenc of british forces in India that made this issue the way it is ....

But ...its not a sentimantal but a logical solution. If it hurts np , have it transferred to United nations
 
Last edited:
Its an independent move and cannot be questioned.
Many reasons account for this move and they all are defensive not offensive reasons.
So it won't be appropriate to question this move.
 
Reply from Lord Mountbatten to Maharaja Hari Singh
My dear Maharaja Sahib,
Your Highness' letter dated 26 October 1947 has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. In consistence with their policy(i.e India)that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government's wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader(pakis), the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.

Meanwhile, in response to Your Highness' appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir, to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property, and honour of your people. My Government and I note with satisfaction that Your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.

Mountbatten of Burma
October 27, 1947

Once Kashmir is acceded to india Legally Mountbatten cannot order and does not have power to enforce he can only express his wish. So its upto india to hold reference to the people as per her policies and as per her policies

'The Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the Maharaja's Instrument of Accession to India and had adopted a constitution for the state that called for a perpetual merger of the state with the Union of India. India claims that this body was a representative one, and that its views were those of the Kashmiri people at the time.'
 
Human Rights Violations in Occupied Kashmir

There are strong reports that over the worsening security situation in Occupied Kashmir, arose due wide spread protests by Kashmiris against the growing Indian atrocities; Indian Government is seriously thinking to impose the Governor Rule in the Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. In this regards, Mr. Narinder Nath Vohra, the so-called Governor of the Occupied Kashmir had a detailed meeting with Indian Home, Defence, and Foreign ministers in New Delhi. Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh headed the meeting that was also participated by senior military and civil officials of Indian bureaucracy. Next few days are considered as very crucial in this regard. What is the situation on ground can be visualized from a news report that says, “The situation in Occupied Kashmir is worsening with each day passing. The local and international media is already blocked from covering the ongoing events in Srinagar and elsewhere in Occupied Kashmir. Despite the protests by Kashmiri Journalists, no newspaper is allowed to publish today in Occupied Kashmir. Restrictions on mobile messaging and access to Internet are also imposed in many areas.” Curfew is imposed in most cities of Valley and Muslim dominated areas of the Jammu province.

The state of Human Rights violations in the Occupied Kashmir can be imagined from this factual report, which says that, there have been 93,274 deaths of the innocent Kashmiri from 1989 to June 30, 2010. Besides this alarming figure of open killings by its security forces, there have been 6,969 custodial killings, 117,345 arrests, destruction, and razing of 105,861 houses and other physical structures in the use of the community as a whole. The brutal security forces have orphaned over 107, 351 children, widowed 22,728 women and gang raped 9,920 women and young girls. In June 2010 only, there have been over 40 deaths including four children besides, torturing and injuring 572 people. The brutal Indian security forces molested eight women during this one month. By committing this much human rights violations so far, India is trumpeting its success in the Occupied Kashmir, which indeed, is the real cause of fresh uprisings.

What actually propelled India to continue massive human rights violations of Kashmiris is the non-condemnation of these Indian heinous acts of by the so-called civilized international community and no action by UNO? Indian authorities are not willing to talk with Kashmiri people on political grounds. India perhaps reached to a conclusion that only bullet is the right way of dealing with Kashmiris, demanding their right of self-determination. Surprisingly, Indian successive governments are trying to ignore the dynamics of the Kashmiris movement for the freedom from the Indian rule. This indeed is the continuation of their resistance against the Dogra Rule, started in early part of the 20th century. On July 13, 1931, the Dogra authorities ordered firing on a group of peaceful Kashmiri Protestors in Jammu, resultant killing of dozens of innocent Kashmiris. Thereafter, there has been no letup in the oppression of the Dogra rule until its end in October 1947. The end of the Dogrea rule was marked by the beginning of the Hindu rule, another repressive rule on the Kashmiris, which is continuing. People of Occupied Kashmir feels that, “The martyrs who sacrificed their precious lives for Kashmir cause teach us all not to bow before the forces even if one has to sacrifice his life.”

Following the temporary suspension of the armed struggle by Kashmiri freedom fighters in 2003, India misperceived that it has been able to combat them through its counter-insurgency operations. Indeed, from 2003 onwards, there appeared a change in the Indian attitude, and it was thought by Kashmiri masses that, as Pakistan, India is also sincere in the resolution of Kashmir dispute. In January 2004, during the historic 12th SAARC Summit, both countries pledged that, Kashmir issue would be resolved through an option acceptable to all three parties; the Kashmiri, Pakistan and India. Unfortunately, India’s stubborn attitude and its misperception that Kashmiris are no more presenting a resistance, as if they have reconciled with the Indian rule has led her not to make further progress on the issue. In the meanwhile, through various compensatory measures, India tried to redress the Kashmiri grievances. However, there has been no policy change in the repressive activities of Indian security forces. Indian security forces continued human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir unabated.

After having seen no progress for the resolution of Kashmir issue through peaceful political ways, in 2008, Kashmiri once again renewed their peaceful protests. This time forceful grabbing of their land by the Indian authorities became the raison d'être for the protests. Through a deliberate attempt, Indian Government allotted 800 kanal of Kashmiri land to a Hindu shrine. The tactics was that, through a gradual process, a demographic change would be effected in the Vale of Kashmir, the way it was done in the Jammu, following the Indian rule there, from October 1947 onwards. It is worth mentioning that Muslim population constituted 62 percent of the Jammu province according to the last census held in the united Kashmir in 1941. Now it is in thirties. The Valley has over 95 % Muslim population; therefore, India is all out to reduce this by inhabiting Hindu population, through land allotments. To curb their uprisings, this time Indian state machinery decided to economically strangulate the Valley people. Making use of the security forces and Hindu extremists of Jammu, Indian authorities blocked the entire entry and exist routes of the Kashmir Valley. The economic blockade was so ruthless that there took place severe shortage of the foodstuff in the Valley. The Protestants were fired upon, resultant killing of hundreds of the innocent masses including the prominent leaders like Sheikh Abdul Aziz on 11 August 2008, once he was leading a peaceful march towards Muzaffarabad, demanding an end to economic blockade by Indian Army.

Over the time, the people of Kashmir have realized that it is only a delaying tactics being used by the Indian Government; otherwise, there is neither the will nor the desire of resolving the issue by India. So much so, after the Mumbai terror attack, India is emphasizing Pakistan to resolve other issues less Kashmir. The process of Indo-Pak Composite Dialogue is no more the agenda. Rather, India stresses on a new beginning, mostly revolving around the cross border terrorism and the trade issues. India desires to do away with the tangible developments made during 2004 to 2007, on the core issue on Kashmir, Siachin and Sir Creek. Linked with the Kashmir is the water issue between the India and Pakistan. Through the construction of a number of dams and water storages and diversions, India has reduced the water flow for Pakistan to almost 50 percent from the rivers whose water is exclusively dedicated for the Pakistan.

There is a big question mark on the role of the United Nations Organization (UNO), the only International Organization, mandated to redress the oppressed people of the world. The organization has badly failed to implement its responsibilities and its own resolutions towards a rightful solution of the issue. Besides, the major powers had a role to play for the maintenance of peace and a balance in the world, but owing to a number of factors; they also failed to undertake their moral responsibilities from the platform of UNO. Through new strategic alliances, India has become a partner of the major powers like; United States, European Union, and Russia. These major military and economic powers have their stakes in India, a country having 1.3 billion populations. Within these major interests, the voice of the Kashmiri’s right of self-determination has lost its pitch as well as the echo.

There have wide spread demonstrations against the recent killings of Kashmiri youths by Indian security forces in various parts of the world. As a routine, Indian security forces are killing 5-6 youths daily. The situation looks like the one Kashmiri experienced in early 1990s. Besides Kashmir, there have been massive demonstrations in various parts of the world, condemning the Indian atrocities. In UK, the Kashmiri community organised a huge protest demonstration against human rights violation in Occupied Kashmir by India. The demonstrators handed over a memorandum to the Indian High Commission in London, demanding an immediate halt to the atrocious inhuman activities of Indian forces in Occupied Kashmir. Demonstrators appealed international human rights organizations that they should assess the situation on ground and mobilise the world community for influencing India for ending the human rights violations there.

The Kashmiri community in Washington also organized similar protests. On the eve of Indian Premier’s meet with the President Obama, the Kashmiri community held a peaceful demonstration in front of the White House, conveying the feeling that it is high time that India should be pursued to show flexibility in resolving the issue and be asked to stop the human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir. The demonstrators emphasized the US and international community on three things: ‘President Obama to appoint special envoy for Kashmir; India to honour UN pledges, and killings of Kashmiris be stopped forthwith.

The most popular demand of the Kashmiris from the civilized world is that, if they have their stakes in India and are unable to pursue her to resolve the issue as per the wishes of Kashmiris, then why UN should not make efforts to get the issue resolved. After all, it is mandated to do that and has passed over twenty three resolution on Kashmir resolution. By no means, Kashmir should be treated like Naxalite problem, India is facing in its north and northeastern parts. Occupied Kashmir is not part of the India; therefore, its inhabitants are struggling against a foreign occupant for their freedom, that it is their legal right as per the charter of UNO. The world should therefore, be absolutely clear that, India should not treat Kashmir like its internal insurgency problems, it facing in nine states, all demanding independence from the Indian Union. As per Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, the Executive Director, Kashmir Centre Washington said that, “Kashmir situation represents a Government's repression not of a secessionist or separatist movement but of an uprising against foreign occupation, an occupation that was expected to end under determinations made by the United Nations. The Kashmiris are not and cannot be called separatists, as Dr. Manmohan Singh alleges because they cannot secede from a country like India to which they have never acceded to in the first place.” Furthermore, since the bilateralism between India and Pakistan has not worked, therefore, participation of a third party like UN has become mandatory for the solution of the Kashmir issue.

Awakening of the world conscious is the need of hour. Closing of the eyes and ears by the international community on the ongoing massive human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir by Indian security forces would not end the issue. Rather the seething protest against Indian human rights violation would endanger the world peace to an extent that may be unimaginable until now, as India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed countries. Therefore, the UNO and major powers must pressurize India to immediately end the human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir, pullout its brutal security forces and resolve the issue as per the wishes of Kashmiri subjects in the light of UN resolutions. This would bring peace and stability in the region as well at the global level.

The writer is an analyst of international relations.

Human Rights Violations in Occupied Kashmir

There's too many words about Kashmir and too little action. HR violation articles are not going to do anything for Kashmiris. I am not sure why they keep trotting these out. It is pretty tough to hold India and its government to HR violations. If Kashmiris are serious, they need a more serious movement internationally. I mean even the Tibetan independence movement, which was 10 times more well known in international circles is now dead. Kashmiris do not even protest at Indian embassies abroad unlike the Tibetan guys. I have never heard of any Kashmiri protests here in NY or even a little bit of literature being distributed about the Kashmiri independence movement. There arent any books written about Kashmiri independence - just compare that to the number of books written about Tibet in the west. Tibetans have scores of literature, massive protest rallies and run stores in the US. And yet this movement has also dimmed out of existence. How do you expect to get international support and show it is a people's movement when there arent any protests in influential countries? In fact, it leads me to believe that the whole thing is an eyewash and is perpetrated by some local leaders in return for monetary compensation from interested parties. If Kashmiris are serious about "freedom", they need to show it. Not pelt stones and expect the world community to believe they have genuine aspirations to freedom. People with real aspirations for freedom do not do things like the Kashmiris seem to do.
 

Back
Top Bottom