Turn on thread page Beta

The all important Kashmir Issue watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CogitoErgoSum)
    i agree with zaf, both countries should withdraw, and would... in a perfect world. but surely one country or the other would totally occupy kashmir, if the other began to withdraw? therein lies the problem, i think...
    If there was a plebscite, and FREE and FAIR elections, then there would be a government and an army. So if either India or Pakistan invaded, which is essentially what they are doing, Kashmir could defend itself.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Pakistan dont claim it to be a part of It wat they say that India should allow UN resolutions n Kashmiris r the ones to choose whether they wanna be with INdia
    it is my opinion that Pakistan renounces the ideals of a UN resolution when it endorses terrorism against citizens rather than legitimate military targets (military against military.) I only refer to Islamic Pakistani backed terrorists going into Indian family barracks and slaughtering women and children. If thats what you call freedom fighting im appalled, as long as terrorism in Kashmir lives India will never give it up out of principal that uncivilised animals will resort to such measures - and if Pakistan wants Kashmir so badly would it be willing to take the millions of musims residing in India?? thats what war over Kashmir amounts too - Indian hindus and sikhs fled Pakistan after partition muslims did flood out why not?

    Thats my solution (and the BJP/VHP/RSS opinion) - India gives up Kashmir but every muslim in india leaves to go to pakistan. Thats what Pakistan (you can blame Jinnah for this) was set up for after all.

    And i stand corrected about the Maharaja thing. Though he didnt sell it he was asked to which direction he should go - where is india a new state going to materialise cash from to buy Kashmir??
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I only refer to Islamic Pakistani backed terrorists
    Proof? There is none. Stick to the facts.

    The point is if BOTH India and Pakistan withdraw out of land which isn't theres in the first place (under UN resolutions) then there are free and fair elections and then Kashmir can defend itself from terrorists on both sides and if it has its own army, it can defend itslef against India and Pakistan.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.indianembassy.org/US_Medi...an_25_2000.htm

    written by an American journalist.

    They also proved beyond any doubt albeit in an indian enquiry that an attack on India's parliament was pakistani backed.

    Why does Musharaf not stop the flow of terrorists into indian controlled Kashmir - because their his most effective weapon prehaps.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redeyejedi)
    I never advocated religious revolution in Pakistan. At the moment this may be the case..what about if Musharaf decides to better relations with the US or India which doesnt really conform to the "US/India = Great Satan" idea does it, i think you are misunderstood as to who really holds power in Pakistan - Musharaf must appease the extremist elements of society to survive, Pakistan is on a knife edge towards Islamic revolution.

    Islamic revolutions have happened in Afganistan and Iran why not Pakistan by your own admission a very religious country?
    I still dont agree that President Musharaf needs to or do appease any extremist n by a religious country i mean majority of the population belongs to one religion (Islam) n its not anywhere near to extremism n if a religious society can be a cause of worry to anyone then wat do u say abt the preaching of Pope/s who oppose a secular society


    Israels government doesnt have elements of society hell bent on destruction of the US. Furthermore it was the US that gave Israel its nuclear capabilities. Pakistan got theirs through weapons falling of the back of a chinese lorry - hardly a sound start to a nuclear programme, then stealing components for manufacture of their own bombs which they then decide to distribute to Iran/Iraq.....i believe this is why Pakistans father of the atomic weapon is languishing in some Pakistani prison.
    Why US gave Israel nuclear capabilities? Is it safe for nations around it or is it legal?
    N Pakistan have sent centrifuges to IAEA which make the whole issue clear
    Also with regards to Pakistan harbouring Bin Laden its more than likelt given he needs dialysis treatment which hes not going to recieve in Tora Bora. Also many of Al Quedas high command who have been captured have been so in Pakistan.

    If Pakistan does have a period of islamic revolution as i think it may well do at some point then we will see things escalate to a higher plateau.
    n why do u think bin ladin is getting treatment in Pak why not in India or US he can be in US do anyone knows where he is?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flipflop2)
    Pakistan is run by a Military leader. It is UNSTABLE! A large majority of the citizens hate Musharaff, and eventaully the country may be taken into the hands of Islamic extremists. Those Nuclear missiles and F16's will come in handy then.

    Military is a very important part of Pakistan (that's a bad thing). Also Musharaff isn't the sort of guy who sticks to his promises. For example he promised to step down as chief of the Nations military intelligence agency, but we all know that didn;t happen.

    Pakistan is run by a military dictator. The chances are all those weapons being suppluied to Pakistan now by the US will be used against India. That DOES upset relations between the two countries.
    not even a large minority hate Musharaf im living in Pak n i know the ground realities n wat sort of asumption is this that ultimately power will lead to Islamic extremists even if there r they r not even represented which party do u claim to be Islamic extremist n can have a large majority to take over power.
    the reason that Musharraf steped down from his promise was the need of the hour neither the nation wanted him to step down the conditions r definately better than b4.
    i can also say that India will use weapons against Pak every problem will be solved the day india will step out of Kashmir n its India who started the armed race in the region.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    If there was a plebscite, and FREE and FAIR elections, then there would be a government and an army. So if either India or Pakistan invaded, which is essentially what they are doing, Kashmir could defend itself.
    Pakistan has been asking for plebiscite its India who is running away from it coz they knew the results Kashmirs will never vote to be with INdia
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    India will use weapons against Pak every problem will be solved the day india will step out of Kashmir n its India who started the armed race in the region.
    Equally i can say that all problems will be solved when terrorists stop activities in Kashmir so that Indians and Pakistanis can sit at a table and converse like human beings.

    India decided to develop nuclear weapons by conventional methods - they built there own bombs with Russian assistance initially pakistan initially got theres from china - theres a big differance in the maturity of the two nations because of this.

    Also Musharaf has said he would use nuclear weapons as a first measure india has always maintained they would use nuclear missiles as a counter measure to pakistans use of nuclear warheads.

    the reason that Musharraf steped down from his promise was the need of the hour neither the nation wanted him to step down the conditions r definately better than b4.
    Why has he passed so much legislation to allow him to dissolve the general assembly at will then??

    not even a large minority hate Musharaf im living in Pak n i know the ground realities n wat sort of asumption is this that ultimately power will lead to Islamic extremists even if there r they r not even represented which party do u claim to be Islamic extremist n can have a large majority to take over power.
    This article suggest otherwise -

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4104655.stm
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redeyejedi)
    http://www.indianembassy.org/US_Medi...an_25_2000.htm

    written by an American journalist.

    They also proved beyond any doubt albeit in an indian enquiry that an attack on India's parliament was pakistani backed.

    Why does Musharaf not stop the flow of terrorists into indian controlled Kashmir - because their his most effective weapon prehaps.
    it was never proved n india has a habit of blaming Pak for everything where extremist like those of Shiv Sina r roaming arnd in every second street of India.
    there is freedom struggle going on in many parts of India itself but for u thats not the use power wat happened in Gujrat is in itself prove how secular INdia is n how safe minorities r there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redeyejedi)
    Equally i can say that all problems will be solved when terrorists stop activities in Kashmir so that Indians and Pakistanis can sit at a table and converse like human beings.

    India decided to develop nuclear weapons by conventional methods - they built there own bombs with Russian assistance initially pakistan initially got theres from china - theres a big differance in the maturity of the two nations because of this.

    Also Musharaf has said he would use nuclear weapons as a first measure india has always maintained they would use nuclear missiles as a counter measure to pakistans use of nuclear warheads.



    Why has he passed so much legislation to allow him to dissolve the general assembly at will then??



    This article suggest otherwise -

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4104655.stm
    ya this is wat im saying the problem will be solved the day terrorist stop their activities mean indian army n its should free the land to recolve the issue.
    But why India decided to develope nuclear weapons?
    Pakistan has same relations with China as India with Russia then wats the problem the problem is India just cant bear it.
    n btw when did President Musharaf said that he will use nuclear weapons against India for heaven sake speak some facts not just wat ur media tell u n as far as legislation is concerned thats our internal politics noone should be concerned abt it as long as institutions r working.
    atleast its better than India where a part leader has to resign if he prays someone this is wat extremism... how can Pakistan believe that INdia is honest with the peace process when u get such response.
    Plus wat do say abt Pakistanis response when India came to Pakistan for cricket series the hospitality was awesome on the other hand what indians did in Delhi was disgusting they just cant bear frienship with PAk those who cannot see Pak winning a match will they ever let Kashmir issue be solved once for ever.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Gujrat is in itself prove how secular INdia is n how safe minorities r there.
    Muslims are a minority in India and they provoked disturbances in Gujurat in particular by burning to death a train load of pilgrimes to Ayohdya (for some unknown reason an area contested by muslims strangely enough.) The activities of hindus in gujurt were reactionary to Muslim aggression. It was frustrations of a hindu majority boiling over especially after muslim terrorists go into a mandhir (Hindu temple) and kill a load of worshippers. Muslims are a minority in india and should behave a such as many British indians and Pakistanis do in britain. Secularism as an ideal is brilliant but does not work when there are 800 million hindus and only 200 million of other various religions it is not practical.

    Shiv Sena have no direct political power, whilst they have a mouthpiece through the BJP they have had to moderate their ideals to appeal to more voters.

    This is a bit off topic ... i dont really want to get into a debate about indian muslims outstaying their welcome in a predominantly hindu country. Im sure many muslims are patriotic indians but there are others who are not.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Pakistan has same relations with China as India with Russia then wats the problem the problem is India just cant bear it.
    India developed a bomb with russian assistance, china gave pakistan a bomb - a big differance in that India respect their technology pakistan were given it on a plate and therefore dont respect its technology so they make comments of using nuclear weapons as a first resort.

    atleast its better than India where a part leader has to resign if he prays someone this is wat extremism... how can Pakistan believe that INdia is honest with the peace process when u get such response.
    Yes western media is my source for Musharafs sweeping legislation to give him complete control but why on earth would they lie - its not everyones ambition to be Islam bashing so i can only accept Reuters political commentry as gospel.

    Sorry are you claiming India...one of the worlds most booming economies is unstable. Please!

    I have tremendous respect for Pakistani cricketers especially Inzamam (amazing) and Afridi (a real big hitter.) and dont think you can use cricket as a political measure.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redeyejedi)
    Muslims are a minority in India and they provoked disturbances in Gujurat in particular by burning to death a train load of pilgrimes to Ayohdya (for some unknown reason an area contested by muslims strangely enough.) The activities of hindus in gujurt were reactionary to Muslim aggression. It was frustrations of a hindu majority boiling over especially after muslim terrorists go into a mandhir (Hindu temple) and kill a load of worshippers. Muslims are a minority in india and should behave a such as many British indians and Pakistanis do in britain. Secularism as an ideal is brilliant but does not work when there are 800 million hindus and only 200 million of other various religions it is not practical.

    Shiv Sena have no direct political power, whilst they have a mouthpiece through the BJP they have had to moderate their ideals to appeal to more voters.

    This is a bit off topic ... i dont really want to get into a debate about indian muslims outstaying their welcome in a predominantly hindu country. Im sure many muslims are patriotic indians but there are others who are not.
    very well said.

    any kashmiri who doesnt want to be part of india, can leave, pack their bags and go to pakistan.

    and on gujarat....the statistics are all lies, less that a thousand people really died, and about a quarter of which were hindu. and how did it start.....a train full of hindu pilgirms, mainly women and children, was set alight by muslims.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    any kashmiri who doesnt want to be part of india, can leave, pack their bags and go to pakistan.
    No, it is the Indians who should pack their bags and get out of Kashmir and go back to India since Kashmir isn't theirs.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    History lesson time:

    India was once one country Jinnah (a supreme idiot if i dont say so myself) decided to rip apart a country that could have floursihed as one entity - he decided to create "Pakistan aka. land of the pure" please explain to me why muslims still remain in India (apparently an impure country??) when visa versa does not apply?

    As with all other indian states it was up to the maharajas which way states went. The Kashmiri maharaja decided to take india - this means in the eyes of convention Kashmir belongs to India therefore zaf1986 your comment appears to be idiotic in the extreme.


    No, it is the Indians who should pack their bags and get out of Kashmir and go back to India since Kashmir isn't theirs.
    again wrong. You are only saying that because Kashmir is muslim dominated - as was Bangladesh aka East Pakistan, who relied on INDIA to break away from West Pakistan. This would indicate % concentration of muslims has nothing to do with becoming part of Pakistan.

    So i believe that if Kashmiri Muslims dont like being part of India they can start walking now and take any indian muslim sympathisers with them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    History lesson time:

    India was once one country Jinnah (a supreme idiot if i dont say so myself) decided to rip apart a country that could have floursihed as one entity - he decided to create "Pakistan aka. land of the pure" please explain to me why muslims still remain in India (apparently an impure country??) when visa versa does not apply?

    As with all other indian states it was up to the maharajas which way states went. The Kashmiri maharaja decided to take india - this means in the eyes of convention Kashmir belongs to India therefore zaf1986 your comment appears to be idiotic in the extreme.


    Quote:
    No, it is the Indians who should pack their bags and get out of Kashmir and go back to India since Kashmir isn't theirs.



    again wrong. You are only saying that because Kashmir is muslim dominated - as was Bangladesh aka East Pakistan, who relied on INDIA to break away from West Pakistan. This would indicate % concentration of muslims has nothing to do with becoming part of Pakistan.

    So i believe that if Kashmiri Muslims dont like being part of India they can start walking now and take any indian muslim sympathisers with them.
    Yes, well done for dishing out history. I do know enough history thank you very much, otherwise I wouldn't be here discussing it. Nevertheless your history lesson is very much irrelevant right now. Whether or not dividing India into two countries and later three was a good idea is another debate. This is a discussion about Kashmir.

    Yes there are Muslims in India and there are Hindus in Pakistan, hell Pakistan's star player these days, Danish kaneria, is hindu!

    Do you have no regard for international law or democracy? Under international law, the maharaja's handover is meaningless and has no official standing for if it did, Kashmir would be India's, which it isn't. As far as democracy is concerned, why is India so hesistant to have a referendum if they think the Kashmiris will side with India? I couldn't care less whether Kashmir was Hindu dominated or Muslim dominated or Christian dominated. The Kashmiris are a nation who have the right to decide their own destiny, rather than being dictated by Indian and Pakistani interests. India has already got 1 billion people to worry about, why the hell do they want a titchy little Kashmir? I really don't get it. Oh, and if you want to discuss Bangladesh, we can open another thread. This is about Kashmir, so stick to the topic.

    So i believe that if Kashmiri Muslims dont like being part of India they can start walking now and take any indian muslim sympathisers with them.
    Since you yourself concede that Muslims are in the majority in Kashmir, you won't be getting rid of them that easily.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    India has complete regard for international law, whereas Pakistan tries to convene to international law when it suits them - you cant endorse terrorism and then scream 'lets have a referendum' the two simply dont go hand in hand.

    Lets face it if India wanted a referendum whats to prevent it from sending the millions of homeless people in india to go and 'settle' there. A referendum is essentially meaningless because as often as not these things can be manipulated - this may be wrong on india's part but it is one of the limitations of a referendum and can equally be limited by Pakistan.

    Do you have no regard for international law or democracy?
    Yes becuase "President-elect" General Pervez Musharaf and his high command do - was there a reason why Pakistan is suspended from the commonwealth, i cant remember? And here was me thinking the worlds biggest and first true democracy was a sham.

    Under that logic would that indicate that East Punjab and well all of Pakistan be returned to Indian domain.

    Pakistan has no right to claim Kashmir under international law until it soughts out Musharaf and these mad talib wannabes in islamabad, Karachi, Baluchistan and the NFP. When Pakistan is a democracy then it can appeal to international law and democracy, until then......

    Bangladesh is entirely relevant to this thread as it is an indication that a referendum often based on ones religion means bugger all.

    Why does India care about Kashmir, well if you let Kashmir go well whats to stop Pakistan going ahh well can we have Hyderbad aswell its muslim dominated. Whether you like it or not this is a case of religion and state. Religion is a factor which must be taken into consideration.

    Yes there are Muslims in India and there are Hindus in Pakistan, hell Pakistan's star player these days, Danish kaneria, is hindu!
    By proportion the numbers are not even compareable are they??
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redeyejedi)
    India has complete regard for international law, whereas Pakistan tries to convene to international law when it suits them - you cant endorse terrorism and then scream 'lets have a referendum' the two simply dont go hand in hand.

    Lets face it if India wanted a referendum whats to prevent it from sending the millions of homeless people in india to go and 'settle' there. A referendum is essentially meaningless because as often as not these things can be manipulated - this may be wrong on india's part but it is one of the limitations of a referendum and can equally be limited by Pakistan.



    Yes becuase "President-elect" General Pervez Musharaf and his high command do - was there a reason why Pakistan is suspended from the commonwealth, i cant remember? And here was me thinking the worlds biggest and first true democracy was a sham.

    Under that logic would that indicate that East Punjab and well all of Pakistan be returned to Indian domain.

    Pakistan has no right to claim Kashmir under international law until it soughts out Musharaf and these mad talib wannabes in islamabad, Karachi, Baluchistan and the NFP. When Pakistan is a democracy then it can appeal to international law and democracy, until then......

    Bangladesh is entirely relevant to this thread as it is an indication that a referendum often based on ones religion means bugger all.

    Why does India care about Kashmir, well if you let Kashmir go well whats to stop Pakistan going ahh well can we have Hyderbad aswell its muslim dominated. Whether you like it or not this is a case of religion and state. Religion is a factor which must be taken into consideration.



    By proportion the numbers are not even compareable are they??
    You seem to be under the illusion that I am supporting Pakistan. Lets get this straight: I am not.

    Right now the rest of your argument is meaningless. Just because Pakistan is doing something wrong, which it clearly is, does not justify India doing it.

    Show me where I said Pakistan should have Kashmir?? I haven't and you haven't got a clue what you're on about.

    If fair and free referendum was held, we know what the result would be. Kashmiris want independence, they don't want to be with India or Pakistan. But we ain't going to have a free and fair election because India and Pakistan won't be getting their forces out of Kashmir in a hurry - obviously it isn't eithers interest to have an independent Kashmir - interesting how China is opposed to an independent Kashmir and is making a lot of noise these days - my enemy's enemy is my friend :rolleyes:

    The reason why I wasn't bringing age old issues into this is because if India claim Kashmir because the maharaja signed it with India, then Pakistan will claim Hyderabad and Junagar because despite the Hindu majorities, the Nawabs of these places signed to be with Pakistan. So either India gives up Hyderabad and Junagar under that contract and takes Kashmir, or we forget about all of that and India and Pakistan realise that Kashmiris are a people, who want independence and get them involved in the process.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is the truth which India has always denied
    There were, however, some states over which problems arose, primarily because of India's insatiable desire to grab territory. For example, the Muslim ruler of Junagarh, a state with a Hindu majority population, announced his decision to join Pakistan. India responded by aiding and abetting the establishment of a so-called "Provisional Government" of Junagarh on Indian territory, which attacked Junagarh with Indian connivance and support. Subsequently Indian forces also invaded Junagarh, despite protests from Pakistan, in order to "restore law and order". A farcical plebiscite was organized under Indian auspices, and India annexed Junagarh. Similarly, in Hyderabad, a Hindu majority state, the Muslim ruler of the state wanted to retain an independent status. India responded by attacking Hyderabad and annexed the state by force. India sought to justify its aggression against Hyderabad and Junagarh on the plea that the rulers of Junagarh and Hyderabad were acting against the wishes of their people.

    In Jammu and Kashmir state, the situation was the reverse. The ruler of the State was a Hindu, while the population was overwhelmingly Muslim and wanted to join Pakistan. In this case, India consistently pressurized the Hindu Ruler to accede to India. Apprehending that the Hindu ruler was likely to succumb to Indian pressure, the people of Jammu and Kashmir rose against him, forcing him to flee from Srinagar, the capital of the State. They formed their own government on 24th October, 1947. On 27th of October, 1947, the Government of India alleged that the ruler had acceded to India on the basis of a fraudulent instrument of accession, sent its forces into the State and occupied a large part of Jammu and Kashmir.
    But Indian leaders, including Jawahar lal Nehru, the Prime Minister and Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor General of India, solemnly declared that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by the people of the State. This declaration was reiterated by India at the UN Security Council when the dispute was referred to that august body, under chapter 6 of the U.N Charter relating to peaceful settlement of disputes. The Security Council adopted a number of resolutions on the issue, providing for the holding of a fair and impartial plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir under UN auspices to enable the Kashmiri people to exercise their right of self-determination and join either Pakistan or India. The UN also deployed the United Nations Military Observer Group (UNMOGIP) to monitor the cease-fire line between the Liberated or Azad Kashmir area and the Indian Held Kashmir (IHK). These resolutions were accepted by India and Pakistan and constitute an agreed legal basis for settlement of the dispute.

    India, however, thwarted all attempts by the United Nations to organize a plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Eventually, India openly resiled from its commitments and declared that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India.

    The Indian armed intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was illegal and took place against the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Despite the decision of the UN Security Council for the holding of a plebiscite to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their own future, India's own pledges to that effect, and reiteration of their commitment of resolving the Kashmir issue in the Simla Agreement of 1972 signed between Pakistan and India after the 1971 war, India continues to remain in illegal occupation of a large part of Jammu and Kashmir, refuses to allow the Kashmiris to decide their own future and continues its brutal suppression in the territory
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    ZAF1986 - No, it is the Indians who should pack their bags and get out of Kashmir and go back to India since Kashmir isn't theirs.

    is that not an inferance, if you wanted an "independent kashmir' the same would have applied for pakistan, would it not?

    ZAF 1986 -If fair and free referendum was held, we know what the result would be. Kashmiris want independence, they don't want to be with India or Pakistan. But we ain't going to have a free and fair election because India and Pakistan won't be getting their forces out of Kashmir in a hurry

    Thought this is a nice ideal it is certainly not implementable. Any deterioration in the Indo-Pakistani relations would result in a mass build up of troops around Kashmir as a threat to one another. You say give them an army to defend themeselves...what against two nuclear powers and one of the worlds largest standing armies. Im sure the US has no intention of allowing that to ever happen. As i said its an ideal which will never work.

    Pakistan will claim Hyderabad and Junagar

    Is it realistic to claim territories in the middle of India - a logistical nightmare just call it the "Hyderbad air lift" a similar thing will happen as to soviet East Germany and West Germany. As history has dictated again with Bangladesh each country has to be a sold connected land mass in order to work.

    farcical plebiscite was organized under Indian auspices

    whats to stop that happening in Kashmir??

    The Indian armed intervention in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was illegal and took place against the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

    atleast with the indian army Pakistan know who their fighting unlike Pakistani backed terrorist groups.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,865

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.