Should Shahid Afridi have mentioned Kashmir at the toss?

[IcedCoffee]

Seems like you are the one who needs to read up. You are asking for proof but you are not providing any for your baseless claims.

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/366712/1.hasCoversheetVersion/Ilyas PhD-E-Thesis.pdf pg 179-180

and

the book "KASHMIR - THE UNTOLD STORY" by Christopher Snedden. pg 48-54.

Now let's see your evidence.

 

[IcedCoffee]

Now i am surprised you brought Junagadh & Hyderabad into discussion.Firstly, are they matters of dispute between India and Pakistan ?Definitely not.isn't it? Both India and PAK might or might not have been 100% legally or morally correct in the matter of accession of princely states at that time.But are they matter of disputes between IND & PAK like Kashmir?Definitely not. It is just like a court case w.r.t a matter between you and me.Both you and me might had done some other legally wrong things to any other 3rd party.but will the court take those matters into account in the case of our dispute? definitely not. they will consider only the issue between us and trace out as to who is the quilty party in our case related to the issue.isn't it? Similarly leave aside the other matters of Junagadh, HYBD etc as they are not matters of disputes between IND & PAK.And talk about Kashmir only.

Now that you have mentioned Junagadh , i would just point out another matter of 'Balochistan'.Just google out as to how Balochistan was annexed to PAK by Jinnah & co that time.Now w.r.t Junagadh, you yourself has given the answer.whole of Junagadh was inside Indian territory.As a result the Nawab was passively forced to join India. May be a tactical move by Patel, but no body would blame him for blocking the trade route with PAK.For instance would PAK allow IND a trade route to Afghanistan as a matter of any good gesture( i mean with out any thing in return?) Now i just mentioned these matters from a moral point of view.As far as these are not at all issues between IND & PAK ,I have no right to be an intense critic
of the morality of such matters.

Harisingh was the elected ruler of Kashmir by the system that prevailed in those days just like any nation now a days elects a government & prime minister. So he naturally had some authority.Firstly he used that authority to be an independent nation & stay away from both India & PAK.Secondly when PAK army illegally attacked Kashmir he had no other option but to use the same authority to use the rule of 'choosing either India or Pakistan' AND he selected India. Are you so sure that the entire populace that time wanted to be with PAK?Yes ,after having experienced the continuous turmoil since 1948 and brainwashing from PAK supported terrotists, now a days majority of Kashmiris might be supporting PAK.But if you state that
was the case in 1948 with a non so less religious minority population being part of the demography of Kashmir,then sorry man i can't agree with you.PAK govt & army had no legal right to attack an independent nation Kashmir that time. It is as simple as that. Similarly being a PAK citizen yourself would you support a plebiscite in Balochistan? As i said... i am not intensely or fiercely arguing with the above cases of Baloch as it is not at all related to India.Just indicating the moral side

of these actions as a neutral.

Balochistan has little to do with India as some separatist wanted to be independent. Unlike Hyderabad and Junagadh which had the similar issue as Kashmir with majority of the populace a certain religion, but the ruler being different. Still, perhaps they didn't have anything to do directly to do with Kashmir, but the same principle must be followed in a court of law. The strategic point you mention holds no ground, as Pakistan could say the same thing for Kashmir.

Also, you conveniently forget that the Muslim majority populace wanted to side with Pakistan and in response to the Maharaj's indecision, they revolted. After which the massacres against Muslims started which fueled the fire and led to the revolution. After this, Pakistan army joined in to the war. It's the same situation as in 1971 when India joined the war when they had no right to.

And yes, the majority of the populace wanted to side with Pakistan, hence the revolt to begin with.

I already discussed that Hybd. Junagadh and Balochistan are done and dusted with. Kashmir on the other hand is still a disputed territory especially with the 3 odd wars taken place due to it.

They held a plebiscite for Junagadh back in the day, but didn't for Kashmir a state they were likely going to lose if they did. How convenient for India. The right thing to do today would be to hold a plebiscite now but of course the Indians will never do that. They'd much rather illegally occupy the land.

 

[cricket4all]

Whoever thinks this Harisingh was an 'elected ruler'? Lol elected through an election where mainly Hindus participated? There is no way this guy would have been elected by the majority Muslim population? You can bring whatever shoddy fabricated evidence to prove he was but your kidding yourself.
The Indians on this thread obviously ignoring the true facts and all there so called evidence is through indoctrinated Indian history on Kashmir.

In fact forget about history and who did whatever for a minute. Look at today and the majority Muslim population want independence or to join Pakistan. Simple and it is obvious and well known by everyone. That's why India don't want the people to vote and decide for themselves.

 

[Feroz Rawther]

Balochistan has little to do with India as some separatist wanted to be independent. Unlike Hyderabad and Junagadh which had the similar issue as Kashmir with majority of the populace a certain religion, but the ruler being different. Still, perhaps they didn't have anything to do directly to do with Kashmir, but the same principle must be followed in a court of law. The strategic point you mention holds no ground, as Pakistan could say the same thing for Kashmir.

Also, you conveniently forget that the Muslim majority populace wanted to side with Pakistan and in response to the Maharaj's indecision, they revolted. After which the massacres against Muslims started which fueled the fire and led to the revolution. After this, Pakistan army joined in to the war. It's the same situation as in 1971 when India joined the war when they had no right to.

And yes, the majority of the populace wanted to side with Pakistan, hence the revolt to begin with.

I already discussed that Hybd. Junagadh and Balochistan are done and dusted with. Kashmir on the other hand is still a disputed territory especially with the 3 odd wars taken place due to it.

They held a plebiscite for Junagadh back in the day, but didn't for Kashmir a state they were likely going to lose if they did. How convenient for India. The right thing to do today would be to hold a plebiscite now but of course the Indians will never do that. They'd much rather illegally occupy the land.

I think there is no point in continuing with the discussion other than wastage of effort for both of us. So let me believe that PAK was at fault w.r.t Kashmir
& you shall believe the other way around

 

[Ind_Yeah]

For people clamoring for "Plebescite" - It didn't happen because Pakistan didn't let it happen.

 

[kamal]

Nothing wrong with Afridi thanking fans who had travelled long way to see him and his team.

It was even more daring and hilarious the 2nd time because of the all the silly outrage the 1st time around.
I thought that was the only worthwhile thing he did in the last match .

 

[cricket4all]

What else can you expect from Christine nobody and all her pro India stance. What makes her book and views factually correct.?

Forget everything for a second but the main thing is The majority of people of Kashmir do not want to be with India and that's obvious fact.

 

[cricket4all]

Christine whoever is anti Pakistani and even dismisses international bodies like amnesty on there independent human rights observations and facts on Indian Occupied Kashmir. Forget Pakistan and India for a second but why do people like Christine ignore the obvious fact what the Kashmirs want as they are the ones suffering.

 

[cricket4all]

Kashmir is nobody's property but it belongs to the people of Kashmir.
It is also a fact the US supported Pakistan and help train and arm the then mujahideen who have now become terrorists. Whether Pakistan set them up first, continued to support them after the US in 1990, and Pakistan's many mistakes, is irrelevant to the fact that US helped and used Pakistan and these mujahideen at some point.

 

[Texaco]

Like they have oppressed Kashmiris for the last 50 years now they want players not to even state facts and appreciate people travelling from another city to come watch pakistan play.


What this women is doing is stopping Pakistan from attracting the occupied Kasmir crowd because the Indian government knows the Kashmiris will come out in the thousands and support Pakistan over any other team in the WC including India.
Kashmiris won't ever forget what Pakistan has done for them, how many wars we have started for them with India, a country with much larger resources and man power then Pak, yet we have always stood up for our Kashmiri brothers.

Hmm. What a spirit.

 

[anakin]

What else can you expect from Christine nobody and all her pro India stance. What makes her book and views factually correct.?

Forget everything for a second but the main thing is The majority of people of Kashmir do not want to be with India and that's obvious fact.

Bub, will the actual text of UNSC resolution satisfy you .. or RAW fabricated that on UN site too?

 

[cricket4all]

I know the UN resolution thank you but as a resident of Azad Kashmir I don't trust India to fulfill there part. I rather Pak army and government continues to support us including financially and in defence.

And all the Indian's and pro Indian Christine lady rant about Pakistanis and Kashmiris not knowing the resolution and all. However, India has never said or been serious in even talking about implementing UN resolution let alone doing it. They have no intention whatsoever of abiding by the resolution so why should Pak take any action first.

 

[cricket4all]

Not pro or anti Musharraf but I think he once came with a formula to resolve Kashmir which was favoured by some in both countries but nothing ever came off. I maybe wrong but was about demilitarised zone etc.

Look I don't care and have nothing against India but all I want is peace in my beloved Kashmir. For that to ever happen India and Pakistan both need to give and take, swallow there pride, treat Kashmir not as property. They need to put the Kashmirs wishes first and treat them as human beings who have a right to decide there fate. Can't see it happening but hope it does and we can live peacefully. How it's going to be done and fairly is another matter.

 

[anakin]

I know the UN resolution thank you but as a resident of Azad Kashmir I don't trust India to fulfill there part. I rather Pak army and government continues to support us including financially and in defence.

And all the Indian's and pro Indian Christine lady rant about Pakistanis and Kashmiris not knowing the resolution and all. However, India has never said or been serious in even talking about implementing UN resolution let alone doing it. They have no intention whatsoever of abiding by the resolution so why should Pak take any action first.

The situations that were present at the time of this resolution have been long gone. and the reason it never happened was Pakistan refused to carry out first and necessary condition.

 

[cricket4all]

If whatever you say is correct then they should now look at the present and future and come up with a new resolution / agreement not necessarily through UN. Peace needs to be the ultimate aim and a resolution acceptable to all.

 

[anakin]

If whatever you say is correct then they should now look at the present and future and come up with a new resolution / agreement not necessarily through UN. Peace needs to be the ultimate aim and a resolution acceptable to all.

It was called the Shimla Agreement, but Pakistan cannot even stick to that now.

 

[cricket4all]

No I mean right now. Not Shimla Agreement or UN resolution. Right now an agreement they all stick to.

 

[anakin]

No I mean right now. Not Shimla Agreement or UN resolution. Right now an agreement they all stick to.

Shimla Agreement was the partial solution which recognised LOC. and established that the framework for future discussions to be bilateral.
Pakistan agreed to that and now keeps oscillating towards UNSC resolution which never got implemented because of Pakistan's failure to meet the conditions.

 

[cricket4all]

A new solution where people of Kashmir put first then Pakistan and India and a solution acceptable to all but firstly Kashmirs.

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

For people clamoring for "Plebescite" - It didn't happen because Pakistan didn't let it happen.

this woman had a clear bias towards pakistan, as if she has a grudge against pakistan. She goes on about the UN resolution, resolution stated pakistan had to demilitarize kashmir, ONLY then india will do so but they still have right to self defense. She didnt mention that on the pakistani end. Had pakistanis demilitarised kashmir the people of kashmir would have been obliterated by the Indians that a fact.

Why didnt the resolution not state both countries need to demilitarise at the same time.

She has a clear bias, read her work, even now on twitter..

 

[anakin]

this woman had a clear bias towards pakistan, as if she has a grudge against pakistan. She goes on about the UN resolution, resolution stated pakistan had to demilitarize kashmir, ONLY then india will do so but they still have right to self defense. She didnt mention that on the pakistani end. Had pakistanis demilitarised kashmir the people of kashmir would have been obliterated by the Indians that a fact.

Why didnt the resolution not state both countries need to demilitarise at the same time.

She has a clear bias, read her work, even now on twitter..

Bub, Make up your mind... first the whole of Pakistan keeps harping India didnot follow the UN resolution,
when presented with brutal reality that it was damn fault of Pakistan.
Now you want to change the resolution.
You can't have your cake and eat it too...

 

[cricket4all]

The resolution was biased in the first place which India never complied with and do not intend to even if Pakistan do there part.

Going forward Kashmiris should be part of a new agreement between Pakistan, India and Kashmirs as the UN res is never going to be implemented.

 

[cricket4all]

That Christine woman is a biased bigoted Indian sympathiser with one sided views. The same woman dismisses independent neutral organisation reports like Amnesty international's on human rights in Indian Occupied Kashmir. She claims to have studied on Kashmir and south east Asia but more like Indian version of history and events.

She should visit Kashmir both sides on ground and see reality herself. Stupid woman.

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

Bub, Make up your mind... first the whole of Pakistan keeps harping India didnot follow the UN resolution,
when presented with brutal reality that it was damn fault of Pakistan.
Now you want to change the resolution.
You can't have your cake and eat it too...

Pakistan couldnt sell us out and leave, otherwise their would have been a massacre.

this stupid arrogant woman Christine, with her logic does that mean india had no rights on Junagadh & Hyderabad. Rights were given to princely leaders to determine who they wanted to join. So wth

 

[UN talkz]