Hold plebiscite in Kashmir and make people talk. What is India scared of? : Kamal Haasan

[SecondSlip]

Actor-turned-politician Kamal Haasan was at the centre of a controversy after he asked on Sunday why India was scared to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir, and referred to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as “Azad Kashmir” while speaking at an event, Times Now reported.

Haasan made the statement when asked about the suicide attack in Jammu and Kashmir in which 40 Central Reserve Police Force personnel were killed. However, he later claimed his comments were taken out of context.

“I truly regret when people say Army men are going to Kashmir to die,” he said at an event in Chennai. “The Army itself is an old fashioned thing. Like how the world changed, how we decided that humans will not kill each other for food, likewise a time will come to stop fighting.” Haasan has founded the Makkal Needhi Maiam party in Tamil Nadu.

Haasan claimed no soldier would die if politicians in India and Pakistan “behaved properly”. “The Line of Control will be under control,” he said, according to ANI.

Haasan recalled that he had written about the future of Kashmir when he was running a magazine, Maiyam. “I mourn this day because I forecast that this is what will happen, unfortunately, I should have predicted something else,” Haasan said. “Hold plebiscite and make people talk...why have they [India] not conducted it? What are they scared of? They want to divide the nation that’s all. Why don’t you ask them again? They won’t do it. Now it [Kashmir] belongs to India, the same situation prevails across the border.”

Haasan said photos of jihadis were put up on trains to portray them as heroes in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, referring it to as “Azad Kashmir”. “That is also a foolish thing to do,” he said. “India also behaves with an equal amount of foolishness, it’s not fair. If we want to prove that India is a far better country, then we should not behave like this. There begins politics, there begins the new political culture.”

https://scroll.in/latest/913663/kam...-to-pakistan-occupied-kashmir-as-azad-kashmir

 

[Madplayer]

It is being said that Kamal Hasan will be tried for treason.

 

[King-Misbah]

Because the Indian will lose any referendum in Kashmir. Its common sense.

 

[Bewal Express]

It is being said that Kamal Hasan will be tried for treason.

So he will be treason for suggesting a plebiscite, something Ind agreed to at the UN.

 

[Madplayer]

So he will be treason for suggesting a plebiscite, something Ind agreed to at the UN.

Yes and you know what the funny thing is, a lot of hindutva goons think kamal Hasan is a muslim his real name is Parthasarathy Srinivasan.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Because the Indian will lose any referendum in Kashmir. Its common sense.

Shush... the biggest democracy in the world... and all that!

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Yet when we bring actual facts into the debate, all we get is evasive answers.

The water is muddied but one side always argues "why no plebiscite"?

Then the usual debates happen.

Then things die out.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[Madplayer]

Yet when we bring actual facts into the debate, all we get is evasive answers.

The water is muddied but one side always argues "why no plebiscite"?

Then the usual debates happen.

Then things die out.

Rinse and repeat.

The points you bring in are discussed here to death already.

 

[JaDed]

Army is an old fashioned thing?How living in TN makes people so naive i wonder at times.

 

[JaDed]

Army is an old fashioned thing?How living in TN makes people so naive i wonder at times.

Jus saw social media comments ,my bad seems only Kamal is like that, tamizhans hasve called him out on his words.

 

[rhony]

There won't be a plebiscite in J&K or AK or GB. The Indian and Pakistani governments will not give Kashmiris the freedom they deserve.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Army is an old fashioned thing?How living in TN makes people so naive i wonder at times.

As Cho Ramaswamy once said:

"Kamal Haasan is an intellectual among actors and an actor among intellectuals."



Good guy at heart but doesn't have substance when you listen to his interviews.

 

[Mamoon]

Giving the people of J&K freedom of choice and subsequently granting them independence will set a terrible precedence.

The unhappy politicians in the South will proceed to demand the same. It will severely weaken the central government and put India at risk of a civil war.

You can’t have a group of people break away from the country because that is what they want. In today’s times, it does not happen anywhere.

J&K belongs to India like any other Indian state, and they are under no obligation to grant them freedom.

The only solution is dialogue, but that cannot happen as long as Pakistan is funding militants.

There are two steps to resolving the Kashmir conflict:

(1) Pakistan has to withdraw its troops from the LoC and needs to stop backing militants.

(2) Kashmiri leaders need to have a table talk with the central government and discuss the future way forward.

J&K can be one of the richest states in India because of tourism. About time they focus their energies on achievable goals.

If not, the status quo will be maintained for another 72 years and people will continue to die.

 

[Pakistanian]

Giving the people of J&K freedom of choice and subsequently granting them independence will set a terrible precedence.

The unhappy politicians in the South will proceed to demand the same. It will severely weaken the central government and put India at risk of a civil war.

You can’t have a group of people break away from the country because that is what they want. In today’s times, it does not happen anywhere.

J&K belongs to India like any other Indian state, and they are under no obligation to grant them freedom.

The only solution is dialogue, but that cannot happen as long as Pakistan is funding militants.

There are two steps to resolving the Kashmir conflict:

(1) Pakistan has to withdraw its troops from the LoC and needs to stop backing militants.

(2) Kashmiri leaders need to have a table talk with the central government and discuss the future way forward.

J&K can be one of the richest states in India because of tourism. About time they focus their energies on achievable goals.

If not, the status quo will be maintained for another 72 years and people will continue to die.

This is one of the most backward and undemocratic comments I've come across, Idk how you can claim to be a supporter of democracy when you don't support people's right to self-determinism. Even the UK let Scotland decide on if they wanted to stay in the union, and Canada did the same for Quebec. Idk think Kashmir separating from India will trigger a domino effect, the other states are much more integrated in India. I've never met a south indian that didn't identify as Indian however the vast majority of Kashmiris do not identify with India.

 

[Khan12]

Giving the people of J&K freedom of choice and subsequently granting them independence will set a terrible precedence.

The unhappy politicians in the South will proceed to demand the same. It will severely weaken the central government and put India at risk of a civil war.

You can’t have a group of people break away from the country because that is what they want. In today’s times, it does not happen anywhere.

J&K belongs to India like any other Indian state, and they are under no obligation to grant them freedom.

The only solution is dialogue, but that cannot happen as long as Pakistan is funding militants.

There are two steps to resolving the Kashmir conflict:

(1) Pakistan has to withdraw its troops from the LoC and needs to stop backing militants.

(2) Kashmiri leaders need to have a table talk with the central government and discuss the future way forward.

J&K can be one of the richest states in India because of tourism. About time they focus their energies on achievable goals.

If not, the status quo will be maintained for another 72 years and people will continue to die.

So let me guess all the blame goes to Pakistan and india should keep on killing Innocent people right since it's their country. One of the most stupidest post i have ever read on PP.

 

[JaDed]

This is one of the most backward and undemocratic comments I've come across, Idk how you can claim to be a supporter of democracy when you don't support people's right to self-determinism. Even the UK let Scotland decide on if they wanted to stay in the union, and Canada did the same for Quebec. Idk think Kashmir separating from India will trigger a domino effect, the other states are much more integrated in India. I've never met a south indian that didn't identify as Indian however the vast majority of Kashmiris do not identify with India.

In America sedition isnt allowed as well lol ,please read on it.

 

[Zaz]

Oh dear, the hinduta goons will have their knives out for kamal hassan As hes not towing the parrot line and backing the countries politics blindly...

 

[Mamoon]

This is one of the most backward and undemocratic comments I've come across, Idk how you can claim to be a supporter of democracy when you don't support people's right to self-determinism. Even the UK let Scotland decide on if they wanted to stay in the union, and Canada did the same for Quebec. Idk think Kashmir separating from India will trigger a domino effect, the other states are much more integrated in India. I've never met a south indian that didn't identify as Indian however the vast majority of Kashmiris do not identify with India.

Democracy is not bowing down to a group of people who “do not identify” and want to break away from the country.

Moreover, a major reason why Kashmiris have anti-Indian sentiment is because of Pakistan’s involvement.

When another country is fighting your battle for 72 years, there will be consequences. There will be loss of innocent life and anti-nationalist sentiment.

If Pakistan stops interfering and the bloodshed ends, future generations of Kashmiris will identify more with India.

Besides, where do you draw the line? Tomorrow, what if another state stops identifying with India and demands independence?

How many states and provinces have to demand independence before a government puts an end to it?

 

[KingKhanWC]

This is one of the most backward and undemocratic comments I've come across, Idk how you can claim to be a supporter of democracy when you don't support people's right to self-determinism. Even the UK let Scotland decide on if they wanted to stay in the union, and Canada did the same for Quebec. Idk think Kashmir separating from India will trigger a domino effect, the other states are much more integrated in India. I've never met a south indian that didn't identify as Indian however the vast majority of Kashmiris do not identify with India.

There is a certain mentality of keeping power and using it for personal benefiits which remains in some minds.

I have no idea who this chap is but he is only saying what the UN resolution has been for many years.

India knows the people hate them and want nothing to with, so the loss would be huge not only for political reasons but the sheer embarrasment. No people would want to live under a state which practices state terrorism against them.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Democracy is not bowing down to a group of people who “do not identify” and want to break away from the country.

Moreover, a major reason why Kashmiris have anti-Indian sentiment is because of Pakistan’s involvement.

When another country is fighting your battle for 72 years, there will be consequences. There will be loss of innocent life and anti-nationalist sentiment.

If Pakistan stops interfering and the bloodshed ends, future generations of Kashmiris will identify more with India.

Besides, where do you draw the line? Tomorrow, what if another state stops identifying with India and demands independence?

How many states and provinces have to demand independence before a government puts an end to it?

All irrelevant and apologist attitude towards an occupying power. They have a right to self determination enshrined in International law.

Btw condolonces to you.

 

[Mamoon]

All irrelevant and apologist attitude towards an occupying power. They have a right to self determination enshrined in International law.

Btw condolonces to you.

Again, where do you draw the line?

Condolences for what? For the loss of innocent life in Kashmir, or the fact that a cruel regime has bought Pakistan for a few billion dollars?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Again, where do you draw the line?

Condolences for what? For the loss of innocent life in Kashmir, or the fact that a cruel regime has bought Pakistan for a few billion dollars?

You dont draw any lines. If a people have a right to self - determination, they should be able to carry this out. Any power which denies this and attaches violence to it's policy towards the people is carrying out state terrorism.

If I was to occupy your house, your land and your family. You'd be jumping up demanding I leave as you have a right to self freedom but you dont want this for others because your fav nation India is involved?

Condolences for the loss of life for the soldiers. You have previously shown no sympathy of the loss of life for Kashmiris', so I thought it would be obvious what I was reffering to.

 

[Madplayer]

Again, where do you draw the line?

Condolences for what? For the loss of innocent life in Kashmir, or the fact that a cruel regime has bought Pakistan for a few billion dollars?

Do you know anything about this conflict? Your posts make you look like a roadside Indian hindutva goon with no knowledge of the issue or even sense of empathy. If you dont know about something, shut up and follow the majority.

 

[Khan12]

Do you know anything about this conflict? Your posts make you look like a roadside Indian hindutva goon with no knowledge of the issue or even sense of empathy. If you dont know about something, shut up and follow the majority.

Get ready for an essay. You bought it upon yourself.

 

[Madplayer]

Get ready for an essay. You bought it upon yourself.

An essay full of gibberish and attempts to sound different while engaging im self loathing.

 

[Mamoon]

You dont draw any lines. If a people have a right to self - determination, they should be able to carry this out. Any power which denies this and attaches violence to it's policy towards the people is carrying out state terrorism.

If I was to occupy your house, your land and your family. You'd be jumping up demanding I leave as you have a right to self freedom but you dont want this for others because your fav nation India is involved?

Condolences for the loss of life for the soldiers. You have previously shown no sympathy of the loss of life for Kashmiris', so I thought it would be obvious what I was reffering to.

J&K become a part of India when Hari Singh ceded control to India. Hence, India is not "occupying" Kashmir, they legally "own" Kashmir just like they own the other 28 states and 7 union territories.

If my grandfather had transferred the ownership of my house to you, and I am not happy with you, you are under no obligation to transfer the ownership of the house back to me. Furthermore, our neighbours (Pakistan) have absolutely no right in interfering in our business.

 

[KingKhanWC]

J&K become a part of India when Hari Singh ceded control to India. Hence, India is not "occupying" Kashmir, they legally "own" Kashmir just like they own the other 28 states and 7 union territories.

If my grandfather had transferred the ownership of my house to you, and I am not happy with you, you are under no obligation to transfer the ownership of the house back to me. Furthermore, our neighbours (Pakistan) have absolutely no right in interfering in our business.

You clearly are behind. I'll educate you quickly. Kashmir should have been part of Pakistan due to the majority of people living there being Muslims. Singh did not speak for the people, he went against them. The UN then got involved after the war and it was India who agreed with the plebisite. In fact they wanted it more than Pakistan! Therefore it was enshrined in International law and should take place.

Your grandfather had no right to transfer your house when your house should have been in your control. Now in law it says you and your family have the right to decide but If I dont give you that right Im going against what I also agreed with. On top of this If I abuse your family while occupying your house, Im sure you wont be pleased, or maybe you wont mind torture, imprisonment and rape of your family? Please do let me know.

 

[wasimjunior]

Again, where do you draw the line?

Condolences for what? For the loss of innocent life in Kashmir, or the fact that a cruel regime has bought Pakistan for a few billion dollars?

Your comments are always good reading. Should give you your own comedy column

 

[Pakistanian]

J&K become a part of India when Hari Singh ceded control to India. Hence, India is not "occupying" Kashmir, they legally "own" Kashmir just like they own the other 28 states and 7 union territories.

If my grandfather had transferred the ownership of my house to you, and I am not happy with you, you are under no obligation to transfer the ownership of the house back to me. Furthermore, our neighbours (Pakistan) have absolutely no right in interfering in our business.

That is a terrible analogy. The Dogras (Hari Singh) were an occupying force, the native Kashmiris never recognized their jurisdiction over Kashmir so the Dogras handing over the state to India doesn't make it legal. A better analogy would be that your grandfather occupied somebody's land that he didn't own and then transferred that to another person, that would be theft. You still can't giveaway stolen property.

 

[JaDed]

I like how Partition could be decided so easily but ceding a Kingdom apparently they had no right to lol.

One could argue no one had the right to divide the country coz being Minority and taking away lands like Karachi but its done so move on similarly here, Human rights violations are equally an issue as militancy.

 

[Pakistanian]

Democracy is not bowing down to a group of people who “do not identify” and want to break away from the country.

Moreover, a major reason why Kashmiris have anti-Indian sentiment is because of Pakistan’s involvement.

When another country is fighting your battle for 72 years, there will be consequences. There will be loss of innocent life and anti-nationalist sentiment.

If Pakistan stops interfering and the bloodshed ends, future generations of Kashmiris will identify more with India.

Besides, where do you draw the line? Tomorrow, what if another state stops identifying with India and demands independence?

How many states and provinces have to demand independence before a government puts an end to it?

Self determinism is a big part of democracy so if it means that a govt should bow down to the majority of a constiuency then it should. You don't anything about Kashmiris or it's history, anti-Indian sentiment has existed for decades and prior to partition they never identified with india. Future generations of kashmiris will never identify with india, that's like expecting kurds to identify with iraq or tibetans identifying with china.

Besides, where do you draw the line? Tomorrow, what if another state stops identifying with India and demands independence?

How many states and provinces have to demand independence before a government puts an end to it?

This is so dumb, your insecurities about sanctity of India is not a Kashmiris job, they should prioritize their sovereignty and wellbeing over that of an oppressive state.

Also just cause Kashmiri seccedes doesn't mean it'll lead to other states seceding. Did that happen with the creation of Bangladesh? If you think Bengalis had a right to create their own then so should Kashmiris.

 

[Mamoon]

Do you know anything about this conflict? Your posts make you look like a roadside Indian hindutva goon with no knowledge of the issue or even sense of empathy. If you dont know about something, shut up and follow the majority.

I understand that you are now bordering on personal attacks, so please allow me to get a few things out of the way before I address your query. I have done my fair share of study on this conflict, but I am obviously not in a position to argue with the sentiments of the people of Kashmir.

My point of view is from the context of the best interests of Pakistan as well as an attempt to explain why India does not and should not bow down to the demand of the Kashmiris.

Firstly, I am sorry to be blunt, but I simply do not care about the people of Kashmir at all. For me, the people of Kashmir are no different to the people of Kerala or people of South America or whatever. The only distinction for me is between Pakistanis and non-Pakistanis. I care about Pakistanis because they are my countrymen, but I do not care about the people of J&K because they are NOT Pakistanis.

As a result, please do not expect me to look at this conflict from the point of view of a native of J&K. Does this mean that I have no empathy? Absolutely not, I only wish for a prosperous future for the people of J&K and I pray that they can live a peaceful life, but I also do not believe in fighting other people's wars.

My preference is to see Pakistan prosper, and if this means that the people of Kashmir do not get what they want, I feel no shame in admitting that I do not have a problem with that.

I firmly believe that the involvement in J&K has done Pakistan no good and will not do Pakistan any good in the future. It is a big burden on our economy and has allowed our military to have a stronghold on civilian supremacy. There is no hope for the future of Pakistan as long as we continue to poke our nose where it does not belong. Every country looks and should look after its own interests, but it is something that Pakistan has never understood.

Furthermore, Hari Singh did what he did because he was left with little choice. Pakistan simply shot themselves in the foot when they sided with Northern tribals to take control of Srinagar by might, and it simply played into India's hands. Had Pakistan not lost its mind then, J&K would probably have been a part of Pakistan now, and the people of J&K would now be demanded independence from us.

Correct me if I am wrong because I might be missing a few gaps here, but I believe that the people of J&K have two strong arguments on which their quest for independence is based: firstly, they did agree to accede J&K to India, but a formal merger did not take place. Secondly, Nehru was quite vocal in assuring the people of Kashmir that the sentiments of the majority will be respected, but that obviously did not happen.

However, where does Pakistan come into the equation now? They shot themselves in the foot because of false bravado and were out of the equation when Hari Singh decided to cede control to India so that they would aid him against Pakistan and their support for the tribals.

That was the moment when Pakistan should have realised that they will never be able to win Kashmir back, and nothing positive will come out of poking its nose in what was now a conflict between India and J&K. Instead of fighting a win-less war for 72 years, they should have focused on strengthening their relationship with India and developing trade ties. Unfortunately, emotions got the better of pragmatism and here we are today.

As far as following the majority is concerned, the sentiment of the majority is the reason why Pakistan is what it is today. Throughout the course of our wretched history, we have always made the wrong friends and the wrong enemies, and our history is filled with foreign policy blunders.

Unfortunately, that is because of the fact that our foreign policy is dictated by the military who have always sought to establish chaos in order to control the centre. From getting our government involved in Kashmir after 1948 to siding with the U.S. instead of the Soviet Union and creating the monster that is Taliban, our history is filled with taking the wrong decisions at every step.

It has been 72 years, but this conflict will not end for 7,200 years, and Pakistan will probably be waiting for aid droppings from the skies in order to survive if it does not mend its ways. About time we learn from the past and acknowledge and realise our mistakes.

The day Pakistan acknowledges that the Kashmir conflict is between India and Kashmir is the day Pakistan will take its first baby step towards a prosperous future.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] [MENTION=142256]Pakistanian[/MENTION]

J&K had a soft agreement with Pakistan before our northern tribals (aided by the govt.) decided to take over J&K by force. That nonsensical show of aggression played into India's hands and forced Hari Singh to cede control to India so that they could help them against the tribals.

Had Pakistan acted with brains rather than brawn, J&K would either be independent today or they would have been a part of Pakistan. It would have been very unlikely that they would have been a part of India today. As a result, this whole conflict is a result of Pakistan goofing up. Mind you, it is not the first and will not be the last time.

Our 72 year history is filled with perennial goof ups.

 

[Mamoon]

Self determinism is a big part of democracy so if it means that a govt should bow down to the majority of a constiuency then it should. You don't anything about Kashmiris or it's history, anti-Indian sentiment has existed for decades and prior to partition they never identified with india. Future generations of kashmiris will never identify with india, that's like expecting kurds to identify with iraq or tibetans identifying with china.


This is so dumb, your insecurities about sanctity of India is not a Kashmiris job, they should prioritize their sovereignty and wellbeing over that of an oppressive state.

Also just cause Kashmiri seccedes doesn't mean it'll lead to other states seceding. Did that happen with the creation of Bangladesh? If you think Bengalis had a right to create their own then so should Kashmiris.

Again, you did not answer my question. My hypothetical question may be "dumb", but again, where do you draw the line? If states and provinces start asking for freedom, when you do say enough is enough, or is it okay for a country to disintegrate as long as that is what the people desire? Do you seriously think that is how the world works?

 

[KingKhanWC]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] [MENTION=142256]Pakistanian[/MENTION]

J&K had a soft agreement with Pakistan before our northern tribals (aided by the govt.) decided to take over J&K by force. That nonsensical show of aggression played into India's hands and forced Hari Singh to cede control to India so that they could help them against the tribals.

Had Pakistan acted with brains rather than brawn, J&K would either be independent today or they would have been a part of Pakistan. It would have been very unlikely that they would have been a part of India today. As a result, this whole conflict is a result of Pakistan goofing up. Mind you, it is not the first and will not be the last time.

Our 72 year history is filled with perennial goof ups.

Mistakes were made by all sides.

I've just told you it was India who first agreed to give Kashmiri's a right to self determination. India should make this happen and Pakistan should agree to. What the people decide should be put into place. It could be independence or merge with Pakistan but wont be merge with India.

 

[rhony]

That is a terrible analogy. The Dogras (Hari Singh) were an occupying force, the native Kashmiris never recognized their jurisdiction over Kashmir so the Dogras handing over the state to India doesn't make it legal. A better analogy would be that your grandfather occupied somebody's land that he didn't own and then transferred that to another person, that would be theft. You still can't giveaway stolen property.

Just read this on wikipedia. Dogra dynasty was a dynasty of Hindu Rajputs who ruled Jammu & Kashmir from 1846 to 1947. That's more than a hundred years and you say, they don't have legitimacy to decide if they want to join India or Pakistan? An occupying force or not, if they rule over for that long, they are the defacto power and have the right.

However, the more I read into it, the more complicated and murky it gets. In many cases, the voice of the people was taken into consideration and not the rulers about joining India or Pakistan. The voice of Kashmiris was to a) Be indpendent or b) Join Pakistan. This is according to common knowledge. How true is that?

The king went against his people's wishes even though he initially wanted to remain independent by joining India. There are cases where the rulers have acceeded to India too and the people's voice was not considered.

So, your point of argument that Hari Singh was an occupying force and hence doesnt have legitimacy doesnt hold water. However, you will be right in saying that the ruler went against the people's wishes. Is it really true though?

Considering the countries were divided based on religion, the people's voice should have been taken into consideration.

From wiki: "While the Government of India accepted the accession, it added the proviso that it would be submitted to a "reference to the people" after the state is cleared of the invaders, since "only the people, not the Maharaja, could decide where Kashmiris wanted to live." It was a provisional accession". National Conference, the largest political party in the State and headed by Sheikh Abdullah, endorsed the accession. In the words of the National Conference leader Syed Mir Qasim, India had the "legal" as well as "moral" justification to send in the army through the Maharaja's accession and the people's support of it.

So, technically, the Ruler, the Maharaja and the People (Largest political party) have agreed to the accession. There is nothing to challenge this legality. However, as stated above, it is a provisional accession. The way to move forward to make it a permanant accession, a plebiscite or people's vote was required. Pakistan's forces and tribal fighters occupying part of the Kashmir was illegitimate at that point until the UN cease fire has compelled everybody into a status quo which still exists. Nehru withdrew the plebiscite offer and declared that the status quo was the only remaining option in 1954.

 

[PakPremi]

You clearly are behind. I'll educate you quickly. Kashmir should have been part of Pakistan due to the majority of people living there being Muslims. Singh did not speak for the people, he went against them. The UN then got involved after the war and it was India who agreed with the plebisite. In fact they wanted it more than Pakistan! Therefore it was enshrined in International law and should take place.

Your grandfather had no right to transfer your house when your house should have been in your control. Now in law it says you and your family have the right to decide but If I dont give you that right Im going against what I also agreed with. On top of this If I abuse your family while occupying your house, Im sure you wont be pleased, or maybe you wont mind torture, imprisonment and rape of your family? Please do let me know.

Well defined but probably better to leave families out.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION]

Sorry I forgot to address the other point. My grandfather (Hari Singh) did have the right to make the decision because he was the elder of the house. He did what was in his authority even if it was not something the majority of his household (people of J&K) wanted.

So if I believe that you (India, i.e. the owner of the house today) are mistreating me, I will be foolish to try and fight you because I am much weaker and smaller than you, and I would be even more foolish to allow myself to be used by our neighbour (Pakistan) whose is interested in me only for personal gain, and has previously lost ownership of this house because of his own mistakes.

Now this neighbour is as capable as you when it comes to committing war crimes, and should a day come where he would benefit from oppressing me, he will not think twice, as history shows. He is fully capable of treating me the way he has treated our other neighbour and former member of his household (Bangladesh).

 

[Mamoon]

Mistakes were made by all sides.

I've just told you it was India who first agreed to give Kashmiri's a right to self determination. India should make this happen and Pakistan should agree to. What the people decide should be put into place. It could be independence or merge with Pakistan but wont be merge with India.

Indeed, mistakes were made and are still being made by all parties. However, Pakistan eliminated themselves from the equation when they decided to take control of Kashmir with guns, forcing Hari Singh to side with India. That was the day when Kashmir was no longer Pakistan's business.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Indeed, mistakes were made and are still being made by all parties. However, Pakistan eliminated themselves from the equation when they decided to take control of Kashmir with guns, forcing Hari Singh to side with India. That was the day when Kashmir was no longer Pakistan's business.

Ignorning the key points of this conflict will not win you the argument.

India wanted the plebiscite. It's stands in law. Violence and oppression will continue until this right is given.

Why are you against this human right enshrined in law? Do you enjoy Kashmiris being treated with violence and oppression?

 

[rhony]

Indeed, mistakes were made and are still being made by all parties. However, Pakistan eliminated themselves from the equation when they decided to take control of Kashmir with guns, forcing Hari Singh to side with India. That was the day when Kashmir was no longer Pakistan's business.

That's it. You nailed it. The day the tribal fighters entered Kashmir, they compelled the King and the largest political party to accede to India.

 

[rhony]

Ignorning the key points of this conflict will not win you the argument.

India wanted the plebiscite. It's stands in law. Violence and oppression will continue until this right is given.

Why are you against this human right enshrined in law? Do you enjoy Kashmiris being treated with violence and oppression?

Read the first step for a plebiscite below:


Resolution 47
On 18 March, the Republic of China tabled a new draft resolution in three parts. The first part dealt with the restoration of peace, asking Pakistan to withdraw its nationals. The second part dealt with the conduct of plebiscite for the people of Kashmir to choose between India and Pakistan. India was asked to create a "Plebiscite Administration" whose directors would be nominated by the UN Secretary General but would function as the officials of the state. The third part dealt with creating an interim administration for the state which would represent all major political groups in the state.[4]

During the subsequent discussion, the draft was modified considerably, with several concessions made to Pakistan at the instigation of the British delegation. India expressed discomfort at the modifications.[5]

The Resolution
The final resolution adopted had two parts. The first part increased the Commission's strength to five members and asked it to proceed to the Indian subcontinent at once to mediate between India and Pakistan. The second part dealt with the Security council's recommendations for restoring peace and conducting a plebiscite. This involved three steps.[5][6]

In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.
In the third step, India was asked to ensure that all the major political parties were invited to participate in the state government at the ministerial level, essentially forming a coalition cabinet. India should then appoint a Plebiscite Administrator nominated by the United Nations, who would have a range of powers including powers to deal with the two countries and ensure a free and impartial plebiscite. Measures were to be taken to ensure the return of refugees, the release of all political prisoners, and for political freedom.
The resolution also called for measures be taken for return of refugees, for the release of political prisoners and for political freedom.[7]

The resolution was approved by nine votes against none. The Soviet Union and Ukraine abstained.[8]

 

[rhony]

So the gist is, India is obligated to conduct a plebiscite based on UN regulations. That plebiscite should be conducted in Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan. Ladakh i.e, the entire Kashmir region. Pardon me if I left any other places in the area.

India cannot conduct a plebiscite in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan because it is curently under an occupying force. For the plebiscite to happen, the occupying force, i.e, Pakistan needs to remove it's army and citizens from the said areas to facilitate GOI to take control. Once the plebiscite is completed, the Kashmir region will either be part of Pakistan, or India or be an Independent country depending on people's wishes.

This is why there isn't much western outcry or urgency on India to conduct a plebiscite as the first step is not in their control.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Read the first step for a plebiscite below:


Resolution 47
On 18 March, the Republic of China tabled a new draft resolution in three parts. The first part dealt with the restoration of peace, asking Pakistan to withdraw its nationals. The second part dealt with the conduct of plebiscite for the people of Kashmir to choose between India and Pakistan. India was asked to create a "Plebiscite Administration" whose directors would be nominated by the UN Secretary General but would function as the officials of the state. The third part dealt with creating an interim administration for the state which would represent all major political groups in the state.[4]

During the subsequent discussion, the draft was modified considerably, with several concessions made to Pakistan at the instigation of the British delegation. India expressed discomfort at the modifications.[5]

The Resolution
The final resolution adopted had two parts. The first part increased the Commission's strength to five members and asked it to proceed to the Indian subcontinent at once to mediate between India and Pakistan. The second part dealt with the Security council's recommendations for restoring peace and conducting a plebiscite. This involved three steps.[5][6]

In the first step, Pakistan was asked to use its "best endeavours" to secure the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, putting an end to the fighting in the state.
In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible.
In the third step, India was asked to ensure that all the major political parties were invited to participate in the state government at the ministerial level, essentially forming a coalition cabinet. India should then appoint a Plebiscite Administrator nominated by the United Nations, who would have a range of powers including powers to deal with the two countries and ensure a free and impartial plebiscite. Measures were to be taken to ensure the return of refugees, the release of all political prisoners, and for political freedom.
The resolution also called for measures be taken for return of refugees, for the release of political prisoners and for political freedom.[7]

The resolution was approved by nine votes against none. The Soviet Union and Ukraine abstained.[8]

lol. This is a stupid point as anyone can make.

Paksitan will withdraw in heartbeat once India CONFIRMS a vote will take place. You want Pakistan to move all the troops, costing a lot money and leaving the people vunerable to Indian state terrorism when India is not going to give the vote?

 

[rhony]

lol. This is a stupid point as anyone can make.

Paksitan will withdraw in heartbeat once India CONFIRMS a vote will take place. You want Pakistan to move all the troops, costing a lot money and leaving the people vunerable to Indian state terrorism when India is not going to give the vote?

Might sound stupid but that is where it is now. Based on that technicality, India can maintain the status quo for decades as they did so far without any pressure from UN or the western world. As the years and decades go by, India will be a stronger nation and they will have a bigger say in international arena. Strategy is to just wait it out I guess.

 

[Salma_T]

Democracy is not bowing down to a group of people who “do not identify” and want to break away from the country.

Moreover, a major reason why Kashmiris have anti-Indian sentiment is because of Pakistan’s involvement.

When another country is fighting your battle for 72 years, there will be consequences. There will be loss of innocent life and anti-nationalist sentiment.

If Pakistan stops interfering and the bloodshed ends, future generations of Kashmiris will identify more with India.

Besides, where do you draw the line? Tomorrow, what if another state stops identifying with India and demands independence?

How many states and provinces have to demand independence before a government puts an end to it?

This has been a bone of contention since day one not an overnight feeling of not belonging.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

lol. This is a stupid point as anyone can make.

Paksitan will withdraw in heartbeat once India CONFIRMS a vote will take place. You want Pakistan to move all the troops, costing a lot money and leaving the people vunerable to Indian state terrorism when India is not going to give the vote?

Why didn't it do then when India agreed to plebiscite back in the day?

Heartbeat it seems.

Now after countless riots, proxy wars, driving out Hindu pandits, tensions amongst Kashmiris... you will say we should give it a try now and see who wins.

But guess what even now Pakistan will not move out their troops.

Not that India is ever going to agree to plebiscite now with demographics and situation changed.

So status quo will remain.

 

[m.shah]

Democracy is not bowing down to a group of people who “do not identify” and want to break away from the country.

Moreover, a major reason why Kashmiris have anti-Indian sentiment is because of Pakistan’s involvement.

When another country is fighting your battle for 72 years, there will be consequences. There will be loss of innocent life and anti-nationalist sentiment.

If Pakistan stops interfering and the bloodshed ends, future generations of Kashmiris will identify more with India.

Besides, where do you draw the line? Tomorrow, what if another state stops identifying with India and demands independence?

How many states and provinces have to demand independence before a government puts an end to it?

When you don't know the facts about Kashmir it is better that you shut off.. It makes you look like a fool. Don't give your opinion about Kashmir when you don't possess any info about it

 

[Mamoon]

Ignorning the key points of this conflict will not win you the argument.

India wanted the plebiscite. It's stands in law. Violence and oppression will continue until this right is given.

Why are you against this human right enshrined in law? Do you enjoy Kashmiris being treated with violence and oppression?

Win the argument? I didn't know this was a competition. What's the prize?

Firstly, a plebiscite cannot take place as long as Pakistan are interfering in Kashmir and funding militants. Once Hari Singh ceded control of J&K to India and asked for their help to fight Pakistan, Pakistan became an outsider. This dispute is now between India and Kashmir, and let them sort it between themselves.

Human rights? I all for human rights, but I do not believe in fighting the wars of other people. Besides, considering our dark history, Pakistan is the last country that should be speaking on human rights. There are international organisations that are tasked with dealing with human rights issues, and it is not Pakistan's problem.

Our problem is to deal with the human rights violations within Pakistan, but we are more interested in what happens in our neighbouring country. I do not enjoy the violence in Kashmir; I do not enjoy violence anywhere. However, it is not our place to fight violence in other countries, and I do understand that Pakistan's involvement in Kashmir is a major reason for the situation today.

 

[Mamoon]

When you don't know the facts about Kashmir it is better that you shut off.. It makes you look like a fool. Don't give your opinion about Kashmir when you don't possess any info about it

Please enlighten me with the facts. Read all my posts in this thread and tell what are the gaps that I need to fill. As I told Madplayer, I am not in a position to argue with a local Kashmiri because I cannot look at this situation from their perspective. I am merely commenting on Pakistan's blunder that cost Kashmir independence, and its blunder to interfere in what is now conflict between India and Kashmir.

 

[Madplayer]

I understand that you are now bordering on personal attacks, so please allow me to get a few things out of the way before I address your query. I have done my fair share of study on this conflict, but I am obviously not in a position to argue with the sentiments of the people of Kashmir.

It was not a personal attack at all. It was a fair assessment of your knowledge on the subject because it clearly is half-baked and it looks like you are a victim of Indian propaganda and its soft power image in general.

My point of view is from the context of the best interests of Pakistan as well as an attempt to explain why India does not and should not bow down to the demand of the Kashmiris.

Firstly, I am sorry to be blunt, but I simply do not care about the people of Kashmir at all. For me, the people of Kashmir are no different to the people of Kerala or people of South America or whatever. The only distinction for me is between Pakistanis and non-Pakistanis. I care about Pakistanis because they are my countrymen, but I do not care about the people of J&K because they are NOT Pakistanis.

Thats fine. You dont care about Kashmiris because like Indians you think it belongs to India even when your own forefathers believed otherwise. Thats fine if you want to think your ancestors were stupid and you are brighter than them. By the way, what do you think of people of AJK. Are they not Pakistanis as well? Would you want to cede that territory back to India or be a hypocrite about it and ask to maintain a status quo there? Because you are saying that Kashmir legally belongs to India which means all of Kashmir, isnt it?

As a result, please do not expect me to look at this conflict from the point of view of a native of J&K. Does this mean that I have no empathy? Absolutely not, I only wish for a prosperous future for the people of J&K and I pray that they can live a peaceful life, but I also do not believe in fighting other people's wars.

My preference is to see Pakistan prosper, and if this means that the people of Kashmir do not get what they want, I feel no shame in admitting that I do not have a problem with that.

So in one breath you said you dont care about people of Kashmir and you feel no shame if Pakistan prospering means that Kashmiris keep getting killed and on the other hand you feel empathetic about Kashmiris. Clear you head first. You dont seem to know what you want.

I firmly believe that the involvement in J&K has done Pakistan no good and will not do Pakistan any good in the future. It is a big burden on our economy and has allowed our military to have a stronghold on civilian supremacy. There is no hope for the future of Pakistan as long as we continue to poke our nose where it does not belong. Every country looks and should look after its own interests, but it is something that Pakistan has never understood.

Well its too late now. What you could is go back in time to 1948 and ask your forefathers to not get involved in Kashmir's situation. Now that your country has involved itself, its only logical that it goes all the way till this mess is sorted out. You wanna be a realist, this is what realism looks like. Dont shift goalposts from being a realist to an idealist as per convenience.

Furthermore, Hari Singh did what he did because he was left with little choice. Pakistan simply shot themselves in the foot when they sided with Northern tribals to take control of Srinagar by might, and it simply played into India's hands. Had Pakistan not lost its mind then, J&K would probably have been a part of Pakistan now, and the people of J&K would now be demanded independence from us.

Hari singh and his forefathers had a bloody history in Kashmir. You clearly are ignorant of it but Kashmiris were demanding freedom from his rule since many decades prior to Indian independence. So what he did was just pass on the control of a tyrannical rule to India. This was illegitimate in eyes of Kashmiris.
Secondly, Pakistan had signed a standstill agreement with Maharaja. India did not even sign that because they had malicious intentions from the get go. Perhaps you missed this part.
Thirdly, Pakistan's reaction came after the news of Indian army's patiala regiment being present in Kashmir broke out. By no means they should have been there in a land which was independent (yes Kashmir was independent at that brief period of time). In presence of an external army, Maharaja's signitures on the document of accession have no legitimacy anyway.
I dont want to go further into detailed analysis of the irregularities in dates of signing of the document as claimed by Indian state. You can look that up by yourself. Clearly you'd learn a thing or two.
Finally, poonch rebellion had an indigenous nature and they were able to free themselves with some assistance from Pakistan.

Correct me if I am wrong because I might be missing a few gaps here, but I believe that the people of J&K have two strong arguments on which their quest for independence is based: firstly, they did agree to accede J&K to India, but a formal merger did not take place. Secondly, Nehru was quite vocal in assuring the people of Kashmir that the sentiments of the majority will be respected, but that obviously did not happen.

However, where does Pakistan come into the equation now? They shot themselves in the foot because of false bravado and were out of the equation when Hari Singh decided to cede control to India so that they would aid him against Pakistan and their support for the tribals.

What do you mean where does Pakistan come into the equation? Nehru promised all that after UN resolutions were passed to which Pakistan is a party.

That was the moment when Pakistan should have realised that they will never be able to win Kashmir back, and nothing positive will come out of poking its nose in what was now a conflict between India and J&K. Instead of fighting a win-less war for 72 years, they should have focused on strengthening their relationship with India and developing trade ties. Unfortunately, emotions got the better of pragmatism and here we are today.

As far as following the majority is concerned, the sentiment of the majority is the reason why Pakistan is what it is today. Throughout the course of our wretched history, we have always made the wrong friends and the wrong enemies, and our history is filled with foreign policy blunders.

Unfortunately, that is because of the fact that our foreign policy is dictated by the military who have always sought to establish chaos in order to control the centre. From getting our government involved in Kashmir after 1948 to siding with the U.S. instead of the Soviet Union and creating the monster that is Taliban, our history is filled with taking the wrong decisions at every step.

It has been 72 years, but this conflict will not end for 7,200 years, and Pakistan will probably be waiting for aid droppings from the skies in order to survive if it does not mend its ways. About time we learn from the past and acknowledge and realise our mistakes.

The day Pakistan acknowledges that the Kashmir conflict is between India and Kashmir is the day Pakistan will take its first baby step towards a prosperous future.

Irrelevant Ram kahani.

 

[Mamoon]

This has been a bone of contention since day one not an overnight feeling of not belonging.

The anti-Indian sentiment has been greatly boosted by Pakistan's involvement and funding militants for 72 years. When Hari Singh ceded control to India and asked them to help them fight Pakistan, we should have realised that Kashmir was no longer ours to fight - they had made their decision and our blunder (to side with the northern tribes who wanted to win Kashmir with guns) cost us big time.

Had Pakistan backed out of Kashmir once the document of accession was signed, Kashmir would have been in a much better position today. The people of Kashmir would have not taken arms against India without the backing and support of Pakistan, which means there would have been little to no bloodshed and more dialogue which is the only solution to this dispute.

Kashmir has bled and innocent lives have been lost because of Pakistan's ego and because of Pakistan's refusal to understand that they lost all claim on Kashmir once Hari Singh signed on the document. Sure, there would have been local uprisings and people taking up arms against the Indians, but it would not have continued for 72 years if Pakistan were not there to fund them.

By the 60s and 70s, the leaders of Kashmir would have reached an agreement with the central government and there would have been a resolution by now. Unfortunately, people are still dying and will continue to die because of Pakistan's involvement.

 

[Mamoon]

It was not a personal attack at all. It was a fair assessment of your knowledge on the subject because it clearly is half-baked and it looks like you are a victim of Indian propaganda and its soft power image in general.

I am happy to a be victim of Indian propaganda on this subject, as opposed to being the victim of Pakistani propaganda. The fact that this dispute has lingered on for 72 years and counting, and Pakistan has not gained anything from it tells me that the Pakistani propaganda is misplaced. Had Pakistan been a thriving country and ahead of India on most metrics, I would have willingly bought into its propaganda. However, our history is filled with foreign policy blunders and this is one example.

Thats fine. You dont care about Kashmiris because like Indians you think it belongs to India even when your own forefathers believed otherwise. Thats fine if you want to think your ancestors were stupid and you are brighter than them. By the way, what do you think of people of AJK. Are they not Pakistanis as well? Would you want to cede that territory back to India or be a hypocrite about it and ask to maintain a status quo there? Because you are saying that Kashmir legally belongs to India which means all of Kashmir, isnt it?

If my ancestors were bright, Pakistan would not be in this position. They were clearly not bright and took wrong calls. As far AJK is concerned, Pakistan should not have won it by force. However, ceding control of AJK would be a massive blow to Pakistan's economy, since it is a major producer of agriculture, textile and tourism. Hence, I am very happy to be a hypocrite here because I want to look after Pakistan's self-interests. Every country is hypocritical, it is fair game in politics.

So in one breath you said you dont care about people of Kashmir and you feel no shame if Pakistan prospering means that Kashmiris keep getting killed and on the other hand you feel empathetic about Kashmiris. Clear you head first. You dont seem to know what you want.

Firstly, Pakistan's involvement in Kashmir is a major cause for the bloodshed. Without Pakistan backing and funding the militants, there would have been minimal bloodshed. From that perspective, I have a lot of empathy for the people of J&K because they have suffered due to Pakistan's involvement.

Nevertheless, it not Pakistan's war to fight and we need to look after our own interests. Pakistan will prosper if it stops interfering in Kashmir, which is simply not our responsibility. My head is clear because I am very open about what I want, i.e. for the suffering in Kashmir to end but Pakistan should not play any part in it.

Well its too late now. What you could is go back in time to 1948 and ask your forefathers to not get involved in Kashmir's situation. Now that your country has involved itself, its only logical that it goes all the way till this mess is sorted out. You wanna be a realist, this is what realism looks like. Dont shift goalposts from being a realist to an idealist as per convenience.

It is never too late. The mistakes of the past 72 years can be corrected in the next 72 years. I find it ironic that you are accusing me of realism, when you are coming with statements like "its only logical that it goes all the way till this mess is sorted out."

If the status quo is maintained, this mess will not be sorted for decades. You great grandchildren will be making the same arguments a century from now. The only mess to this solution is dialogue, but that is not possible as long as Pakistan are interfering. It is baffling that people still think that the strategies and tactics that have been used for 72 years to no avail will yield results one day.

Hari singh and his forefathers had a bloody history in Kashmir. You clearly are ignorant of it but Kashmiris were demanding freedom from his rule since many decades prior to Indian independence. So what he did was just pass on the control of a tyrannical rule to India. This was illegitimate in eyes of Kashmiris.

You do not need to inform me that the Kashmiris did not like Hari Singh. Throughout the history of the subcontinent, Muslims have had problems whenever Hindus have ruled them. Hari Singh was reluctant to join Pakistan because he knew that his
dynasty will suffer in Pakistan, a country that was established in the name of Islam.

More than Hari Singh, you need to blame Sheikh Abdullah.

Secondly, Pakistan had signed a standstill agreement with Maharaja. India did not even sign that because they had malicious intentions from the get go. Perhaps you missed this part.

I did not. Read post #33.

Perhaps if you could get a grip on your temper, you would care to read through the thread and have a better understand of where I'm coming from.

Thirdly, Pakistan's reaction came after the news of Indian army's patiala regiment being present in Kashmir broke out. By no means they should have been there in a land which was independent (yes Kashmir was independent at that brief period of time). In presence of an external army, Maharaja's signitures on the document of accession have no legitimacy anyway.

I dont want to go further into detailed analysis of the irregularities in dates of signing of the document as claimed by Indian state. You can look that up by yourself. Clearly you'd learn a thing or two.
Finally, poonch rebellion had an indigenous nature and they were able to free themselves with some assistance from Pakistan.

The Indian Army arrived in J&K after the northern tribes entered what is now AJK. Pakistan responded by siding with the tribals in order to fight with the Indian Army. However, Pakistan's fatal mistake was not stopping the tribals from attempting to take over Kashmir in the first place. Had Pakistan prevented them from entering Kashmir, Kashmir would probably have been independent today or perhaps a part of Pakistan.

Hari Singh's signature is legitimate because he was the one to ask India to help him fight the invaders and the Pakistan Army. The Indian Army was not in Kashmir to take over by force. Under those circumstances, the standstill agreement between Pakistan and Kashmir became null and void, because Pakistan attempting to win Kashmir with force was not part of the agreement.

What do you mean where does Pakistan come into the equation? Nehru promised all that after UN resolutions were passed to which Pakistan is a party.

The UN resolution demands Pakistan to withdraw its troops from J&K. For this conflict to have any closure, Pakistan has to step aside FIRST. As long as Pakistan does not respect the demands of the UN resolution, how can this conflict end?

Irrelevant Ram kahani.

Of course. Pakistan is a blooming country with a powerful economy and excellent ties with most countries in the world. Our military does not interfere in our politics, and we are the envy of every democratic nation in the world.

 

[Madplayer]

I am happy to a be victim of Indian propaganda on this subject, as opposed to being the victim of Pakistani propaganda. The fact that this dispute has lingered on for 72 years and counting, and Pakistan has not gained anything from it tells me that the Pakistani propaganda is misplaced. Had Pakistan been a thriving country and ahead of India on most metrics, I would have willingly bought into its propaganda. However, our history is filled with foreign policy blunders and this is one example.

And you think Kashmir is behind Pakistan's poor economy and not its own inept leadership? Kashmir issue was there since 1947 but till the 70s and 80s an average Pakistani earned 30% more than an average Indian. Its only after that your lot became inept by diverting your attention to wars that you had nothing to do with (Kashmir was not one of them because Pakistan always had everything to do with Kashmir).

If my ancestors were bright, Pakistan would not be in this position. They were clearly not bright and took wrong calls. As far AJK is concerned, Pakistan should not have won it by force. However, ceding control of AJK would be a massive blow to Pakistan's economy, since it is a major producer of agriculture, textile and tourism. Hence, I am very happy to be a hypocrite here because I want to look after Pakistan's self-interests. Every country is hypocritical, it is fair game in politics.

At least you have the decency to admitting that you are a hypocrite. Unfortunately you have failed to see how Pakistan would benefit economically if it gets the control of this part of Kashmir as well. Secondly, it doesnt work as per your personal wishes that you'd get to keep what you want and get to sell away what you dont want. J&k and Gilgit Baltistan are 1 single unit and the limits are well defined.

Firstly, Pakistan's involvement in Kashmir is a major cause for the bloodshed. Without Pakistan backing and funding the militants, there would have been minimal bloodshed. From that perspective, I have a lot of empathy for the people of J&K because they have suffered due to Pakistan's involvement.

Pretty naive and uninformed statement yet again. I will give you an example, the 2008 and 2010 agitations in Kashmir were purely and solely local in nature and around 220 people, mostly teenagers, were massacred by India in them. None of them had guns in their hands. Pakistan had nothing to do with it as was widely acknowledged by India as well. India doesnt need Pakistan as a reason to kill Kashmiris.

Nevertheless, it not Pakistan's war to fight and we need to look after our own interests. Pakistan will prosper if it stops interfering in Kashmir, which is simply not our responsibility. My head is clear because I am very open about what I want, i.e. for the suffering in Kashmir to end but Pakistan should not play any part in it.

So let me get this straight, you admit that your country got involved in this situation 72 years ago, took half of our territory while sending the rest of it into eternal chaos and now you want to keep that half of OUR territory and abandon the rest of us because you feel tired of all this. Dr. Sahab, please consult a good doctor.

It is never too late. The mistakes of the past 72 years can be corrected in the next 72 years. I find it ironic that you are accusing me of realism, when you are coming with statements like "its only logical that it goes all the way till this mess is sorted out."

See, you have made it clear that you like to present yourself as a realist and not an idealist. So lets not beat around the bush or try to deny it. Realism here would mean that Pakistan doesnt move an inch from its official stance and keep pressing India for dialogue on this issue. Backing away and expecting India to be happy with it would be idealistic in nature because India's official stance is that they want AJK back as well. They wont move an inch from that stance. So unless you want to hand over AJK to them, your suggestion is not practical or realistic.

If the status quo is maintained, this mess will not be sorted for decades. You great grandchildren will be making the same arguments a century from now. The only mess to this solution is dialogue, but that is not possible as long as Pakistan are interfering. It is baffling that people still think that the strategies and tactics that have been used for 72 years to no avail will yield results one day.

These tactics dont work and something new needs to be tried. Dialogue is a good way but you have failed to acknowledge that Indian policies are drived by RSS sitting in Nagpur. For a political party to engage in talks about Kashmir would essentially mean political suicide especially if it reaches a logical end. You probably dont know the extent of false flag operations that take place in Kashmir which prevent any talks about Kashmir with Pakistan.

You do not need to inform me that the Kashmiris did not like Hari Singh. Throughout the history of the subcontinent, Muslims have had problems whenever Hindus have ruled them. Hari Singh was reluctant to join Pakistan because he knew that his
dynasty will suffer in Pakistan, a country that was established in the name of Islam.

More than Hari Singh, you need to blame Sheikh Abdullah.

We blame both. However, in 1960's Sheikh Abdullah finally realized his mistake and demanded to break away from India but was put into jail for several years. He was a turncoat though.

I did not. Read post #33.

Perhaps if you could get a grip on your temper, you would care to read through the thread and have a better understand of where I'm coming from.

I only read the posts in which i am quoted. There are several posts here and i dont have the time to read them all. Sorry about that.

The Indian Army arrived in J&K after the northern tribes entered what is now AJK. Pakistan responded by siding with the tribals in order to fight with the Indian Army. However, Pakistan's fatal mistake was not stopping the tribals from attempting to take over Kashmir in the first place. Had Pakistan prevented them from entering Kashmir, Kashmir would probably have been independent today or perhaps a part of Pakistan.

Hari Singh's signature is legitimate because he was the one to ask India to help him fight the invaders and the Pakistan Army. The Indian Army was not in Kashmir to take over by force. Under those circumstances, the standstill agreement between Pakistan and Kashmir became null and void, because Pakistan attempting to win Kashmir with force was not part of the agreement.

I dont think you read my post properly and neither you have done enough research to know that the Tribals weren't the ones to enter Kashmir first. I talked about the presence of Patiala regiment of India in Kashmir well before October 22 when the tribal attack took place. This has been well documented by British author and historian Alastair Lamb. Even the stooge of Indian government namely Jagmohan did not deny it in his book. Would you now be patriotic enough to give your country the benefit of doubt? I am sorry but you have come across as a real amateur in this discussion so far basing everything on half baked knowledge, conjecture and the usual defeatist attitude which you have. Its not a personal attack because i would gain nothing from that. Its just an honest assessment.

The UN resolution demands Pakistan to withdraw its troops from J&K. For this conflict to have any closure, Pakistan has to step aside FIRST. As long as Pakistan does not respect the demands of the UN resolution, how can this conflict end?

True. But for any progress to take place, both parties have to come to table and acknowledge that the land is disputed. India has been denying it altogether. If India acknowledges, then Pakistan can take the next step. Secondly, When Pakistan pushes back its forces, only UN peacekeeping mission will be needed to be present in J&K. As per original resolution, India had to keep a token force (as worded in the resolution) for maintainence of law and order. However, that was because Kashmir didnt have enough police force at that time to take care of the situation. Presently we are well equipped to maintain law and order and hence Indian token force is not needed at all. Coming to the table and acknowledgement of the dispute is the 1st step though.

Of course. Pakistan is a blooming country with a powerful economy and excellent ties with most countries in the world. Our military does not interfere in our politics, and we are the envy of every democratic nation in the world.

Pakistan should work towards getting there. No issues with that at all.