UN resolution on Kashmir (The strong Indian case)

[ftbno1]

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/47(1948)
https://youtu.be/PeMrcFO4O2w
First of all whenever you are discussing kashimir their cam be two types of arguement one legal and one moral. I wont delve in moral arguement as their were sins and atrocities commited against kasmiris by establishment of both India & Pakistan. However legal arguement of that Pakistani intelligencia put forward has no leg to stand on. These are their claim:
1. Kashmir should have been part of the Pakistan as per muslim majority rule. (This is not true as this rule applied on the areas which were directly under british control. The fate of princely states were to be decided by their rulers. Further Pakistan had accepted the Kashmir as a seperate nation when they signed traty with the king before attacking him. )
2. Plebicide should be conducted in kashmir as per UN resolution. This is said by every Pakistani leader in general assembly. (Most Pakistanis and many Indians believe that Pakistan has stronger case on this and India gets away repetedly only because of superior diplomacy. Well this is not true. Fist the resolution clearly states that Pakistan has to remove all its forces from the valley ALL. After that India has tp withdraw bulk of its forces (Not ALL). As Pakistan never fulfilled first condition the blame squarely lies on Pakistan for plebicide never happening..
3. It was Pakistan who requested to remove option of freedom of Kashmir from plebicide. So they now claiming to fullfill the wishes of kashmiris seems futile.

Knowing all this I am amazed why the pakistani rhetoric even mentions UN resolutions and why indian commentators never counter it.

 

[Azzurri]

If you are trying act like a wise and neutral person then you must mention why Indian army attached Hyderabad against the will of the the ruler of Hyderabad who wanted to join Pakistan .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ftbno1]

If you are trying act like a wise and neutral person then you must mention why Indian army attached Hyderabad against the will of the the ruler of Hyderabad who wanted to join Pakistan .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First Hyderabad never wanted to be part of pakistan. Pakistan actually accepted them as seperate nation by sending embassy their.
Second Hyderabad happened after kashmir invasion of Pakistan so all bets were off.
Third Nawab of hyderabad threatened openly to commit hindu genocide. No such threat was issued by Hari singhji.
Fourth. We never accepted hyderabad as seperate country. Pakistan had accepted Kashmir as a seperate kingdom before attacking them.

 

[Thomaskutty]

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/47(1948)
https://youtu.be/PeMrcFO4O2w
First of all whenever you are discussing kashimir their cam be two types of arguement one legal and one moral. I wont delve in moral arguement as their were sins and atrocities commited against kasmiris by establishment of both India & Pakistan. However legal arguement of that Pakistani intelligencia put forward has no leg to stand on. These are their claim:
1. Kashmir should have been part of the Pakistan as per muslim majority rule. (This is not true as this rule applied on the areas which were directly under british control. The fate of princely states were to be decided by their rulers. Further Pakistan had accepted the Kashmir as a seperate nation when they signed traty with the king before attacking him. )
2. Plebicide should be conducted in kashmir as per UN resolution. This is said by every Pakistani leader in general assembly. (Most Pakistanis and many Indians believe that Pakistan has stronger case on this and India gets away repetedly only because of superior diplomacy. Well this is not true. Fist the resolution clearly states that Pakistan has to remove all its forces from the valley ALL. After that India has tp withdraw bulk of its forces (Not ALL). As Pakistan never fulfilled first condition the blame squarely lies on Pakistan for plebicide never happening..
3. It was Pakistan who requested to remove option of freedom of Kashmir from plebicide. So they now claiming to fullfill the wishes of kashmiris seems futile.

Knowing all this I am amazed why the pakistani rhetoric even mentions UN resolutions and why indian commentators never counter it.

To be fair , the rational ones in pak don't use these arguments anymore from what I have seen.Restoration of democracy is partly responsible for that.You'll find that most of them are embarrassed that they were duped by their leaders for a long long time aboout Kashmir.

 

[hussain123]

One of the most common questions, which Indians pose to us is that why would anyone want India to withdraw its forces first, when the United Nations Security Council Resolution on Kashmir clearly asks Pakistan to withdraw all its forces from erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir and then asks India to do the same while allowing it to maintain minimum number of troops, during Plebiscite? Maroof Raza, who is said to be some defense analyst, has been posing the same question to Kashmiri leadership, repeatedly, on the Times Now channel, ever since, but has never got an answer. It’s a good question, which needs an academic answer.
Apart from the human rights violations in Indian Kashmir, which is incomparable to the other part of Kashmir, let’s deal with it, in the same context in which it is being asked. The argument is that, as per the said resolutions, Pakistan needs to be the first mover, which is right. That is exactly what the UN resolutions enshrine. However, there is a gross lack of knowledge, in the common masses, including this so-called analyst’, about the context revolving it. Having read closely, the United Nations Kashmir documents, I can tell you with authority where exactly such unprofessional or part-time diplomats falter. As Indian commentators themselves say that these resolutions do not fall under the category of 'Enforceability', it thus requires a formal cooperation of both the countries as to when to start the implementation of these resolutions. Had they been enforceable or a binding, UN could have militarily pressurized either or both the countries, which is not the case. I find it pertinent to mention here that there were preparatory talks about it at the UN, in years 1948, 49 and 50. Even Sheikh Abdullah reports firsthand account in his autobiography 'The Blazing Fire' that many times they were very close to an agreement but ‘stupid contentions’ prevailed. As per him, at one instance, Pakistan said after they withdraw 100%, India, which had to keep minimum number of troops for law & order, should not exceed 22,000, during the Plebiscite, while India didn't budge and remained adamant on 27,000 troops. Thereafter, both new nations got busy in their own internal complexities for some time. In the interim, India under Nehru sensed that with Sheikh Abdullah as his close admirer, his plans changed & he thought he can avoid UN and Pakistan. Otherwise, we all know it was Nehru who took Kashmir to the UN. When Pakistan came back to the UN about it, confident Nehru's India was altogether a different ball game to play with. First, India dilly-dallied the plebiscite question, which later transformed into a complete denial. UN could do nothing as it was not a binding but of course a moral binding, since Pakistan and India had signed an international document with the ratification of many other nations, including the US, UK, Belgium et al.
These are the international matters. Please think about it - India's official claim, as per its 1994 parliament resolution is that ‘’the entire state of J&K is its integral part including the Pakistani Kashmir, which remains to be taken’’. In this situation, if Pakistan unilaterally backs off, which is what people like Raza ask for, India (even if it doesn't actually want it) will have no option, but to honor its resolution with almost full majority in Parliament and control 'AJK' as well, or else it will go against its own constitution. UN has been offering its good offices time and again. Until India does not agree to whole idea of the conduct of the referendum in J&K, UN can do nothing nor can Pakistan. So, the question of withdrawal of Pakistan comes much later in the 'Implementation phase'. Therefore, the first pre requisite is the joint agreement, followed by a joint request to the UN, by both the countries, to come and implement the 'agreed upon' resolutions, whose opposition, by the way, India has made its law and part of constitution in 1994. This is where the bottleneck lies. Once they approach the UN and “implementation phase’’ begins, Pakistan has to withdraw first and if it denies to comply with what it has already signed and has been harping on, it will be exposed and Kashmiris will have to start opposing Pakistan instead of India, then.
Dear able minds, we all know how India brought UNMOGIP office in Delhi on road, about a year ago, and asked it to pay rent and hire some other building as it is irrelevant for India now. This is International politics where morality doesn't matter. As per my study, India is fully aware it will lose if it honors its commitment and since, it has the military strength to safeguard what it now considers its territory, why would it budge even an inch? Pakistan also honors UN resolutions so much because it knows Kashmir's detachment from India is in its national interest as apart from the important territory loss to India, its water source could be out of India's control. Lastly, since these resolutions are not enforceable and UNO is ready to offer its good offices, if solicited by both these countries, a third option could easily be added. It's only up to Pakistan and India to decide any changes; the UN just has to provide its supervision. Give me India's consent today, I being an ordinary person, promise you a referendum in Kashmir with all the three options, swiftly. Pakistan does not just agree but it has as usual again appealed to the UN this week, for the implementation. The irony is that only doctors discuss medicine, economists know and talk its jargon but when it comes to politics, especially the International one, everybody tries their hands on it, enhancing dissemination of myths and confusions which steel statesmen in both the countries, who would have otherwise wanted to do something, of their political capital.
So dear Maroof, if it were the way you thought it to be, then India's official stance on Kashmir, would have been exactly what yours is i.e., let Pakistan withdraw first. I believe you would be in know of what not only is the Indian stance but the part of its constitution now—“The state of J&K is an inalienable and integral part of the Union of India including the P.o.K.’’ Since it is not, it may help you to understand my argument in a lucid way. I agree with your statement 100%. My only contention is that let the Indian PMO say exactly what you are saying. Then the ball will be in Pakistan’s court. Till then, you cannot use this argument. I hope the point is clear to you and all others like you.
(
source:greater kashmir

 

[ftbno1]

One of the most common questions, which Indians pose to us is that why would anyone want India to withdraw its forces first, when the United Nations Security Council Resolution on Kashmir clearly asks Pakistan to withdraw all its forces from erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir and then asks India to do the same while allowing it to maintain minimum number of troops, during Plebiscite? Maroof Raza, who is said to be some defense analyst, has been posing the same question to Kashmiri leadership, repeatedly, on the Times Now channel, ever since, but has never got an answer. It’s a good question, which needs an academic answer.
Apart from the human rights violations in Indian Kashmir, which is incomparable to the other part of Kashmir, let’s deal with it, in the same context in which it is being asked. The argument is that, as per the said resolutions, Pakistan needs to be the first mover, which is right. That is exactly what the UN resolutions enshrine. However, there is a gross lack of knowledge, in the common masses, including this so-called analyst’, about the context revolving it. Having read closely, the United Nations Kashmir documents, I can tell you with authority where exactly such unprofessional or part-time diplomats falter. As Indian commentators themselves say that these resolutions do not fall under the category of 'Enforceability', it thus requires a formal cooperation of both the countries as to when to start the implementation of these resolutions. Had they been enforceable or a binding, UN could have militarily pressurized either or both the countries, which is not the case. I find it pertinent to mention here that there were preparatory talks about it at the UN, in years 1948, 49 and 50. Even Sheikh Abdullah reports firsthand account in his autobiography 'The Blazing Fire' that many times they were very close to an agreement but ‘stupid contentions’ prevailed. As per him, at one instance, Pakistan said after they withdraw 100%, India, which had to keep minimum number of troops for law & order, should not exceed 22,000, during the Plebiscite, while India didn't budge and remained adamant on 27,000 troops. Thereafter, both new nations got busy in their own internal complexities for some time. In the interim, India under Nehru sensed that with Sheikh Abdullah as his close admirer, his plans changed & he thought he can avoid UN and Pakistan. Otherwise, we all know it was Nehru who took Kashmir to the UN. When Pakistan came back to the UN about it, confident Nehru's India was altogether a different ball game to play with. First, India dilly-dallied the plebiscite question, which later transformed into a complete denial. UN could do nothing as it was not a binding but of course a moral binding, since Pakistan and India had signed an international document with the ratification of many other nations, including the US, UK, Belgium et al.
These are the international matters. Please think about it - India's official claim, as per its 1994 parliament resolution is that ‘’the entire state of J&K is its integral part including the Pakistani Kashmir, which remains to be taken’’. In this situation, if Pakistan unilaterally backs off, which is what people like Raza ask for, India (even if it doesn't actually want it) will have no option, but to honor its resolution with almost full majority in Parliament and control 'AJK' as well, or else it will go against its own constitution. UN has been offering its good offices time and again. Until India does not agree to whole idea of the conduct of the referendum in J&K, UN can do nothing nor can Pakistan. So, the question of withdrawal of Pakistan comes much later in the 'Implementation phase'. Therefore, the first pre requisite is the joint agreement, followed by a joint request to the UN, by both the countries, to come and implement the 'agreed upon' resolutions, whose opposition, by the way, India has made its law and part of constitution in 1994. This is where the bottleneck lies. Once they approach the UN and “implementation phase’’ begins, Pakistan has to withdraw first and if it denies to comply with what it has already signed and has been harping on, it will be exposed and Kashmiris will have to start opposing Pakistan instead of India, then.
Dear able minds, we all know how India brought UNMOGIP office in Delhi on road, about a year ago, and asked it to pay rent and hire some other building as it is irrelevant for India now. This is International politics where morality doesn't matter. As per my study, India is fully aware it will lose if it honors its commitment and since, it has the military strength to safeguard what it now considers its territory, why would it budge even an inch? Pakistan also honors UN resolutions so much because it knows Kashmir's detachment from India is in its national interest as apart from the important territory loss to India, its water source could be out of India's control. Lastly, since these resolutions are not enforceable and UNO is ready to offer its good offices, if solicited by both these countries, a third option could easily be added. It's only up to Pakistan and India to decide any changes; the UN just has to provide its supervision. Give me India's consent today, I being an ordinary person, promise you a referendum in Kashmir with all the three options, swiftly. Pakistan does not just agree but it has as usual again appealed to the UN this week, for the implementation. The irony is that only doctors discuss medicine, economists know and talk its jargon but when it comes to politics, especially the International one, everybody tries their hands on it, enhancing dissemination of myths and confusions which steel statesmen in both the countries, who would have otherwise wanted to do something, of their political capital.
So dear Maroof, if it were the way you thought it to be, then India's official stance on Kashmir, would have been exactly what yours is i.e., let Pakistan withdraw first. I believe you would be in know of what not only is the Indian stance but the part of its constitution now—“The state of J&K is an inalienable and integral part of the Union of India including the P.o.K.’’ Since it is not, it may help you to understand my argument in a lucid way. I agree with your statement 100%. My only contention is that let the Indian PMO say exactly what you are saying. Then the ball will be in Pakistan’s court. Till then, you cannot use this argument. I hope the point is clear to you and all others like you.
)
source:greater kashmir

What a joke!! Your amswer to iron clad facts is opinion of a obviously biased journalist. I am sure I dont have eloquance of words of a harvardian. But she never challenged any facts but mannovered them according to his belief while jumping betwwen legal, moral & political arguements.
The topic was about legal aspects of the conflict not the whole issue.
Legally: India has stronger case
Morally: Word Kashmir is sanskrit word even mentioned Nilamata Purana(sacred texts).So it was not a muslim land by any stretch of imagination. Proxy war by Pakistan is as much to blame for the conditions their as is Indian forces.
kashmiri panditsAtleast we are punishing those soldiers who comitted war against humanity.
Politically: India has no problem with status quo it is not as if Pakistan is growing faster then us. Your politics is in turmoil. You are fighting war inside your country. So any deal should atleat be 60-40 in our favour.
Let me be even more brutally honest. Indians are not that crazy about kashmir. Had Pakistan not gone out of its way to make India its enemy the issue would have resolved easily.

 

[keyser]

After Pakistan lost the 71 war the shimla accords stated that Kashmir should he solved bilaterally.

No idea why they keep crying UN. Part of the terms of their loss of the 71 war is the shimla agreement.

 

[KingKhanWC]

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/47(1948)
https://youtu.be/PeMrcFO4O2w
First of all whenever you are discussing kashimir their cam be two types of arguement one legal and one moral. I wont delve in moral arguement as their were sins and atrocities commited against kasmiris by establishment of both India & Pakistan. However legal arguement of that Pakistani intelligencia put forward has no leg to stand on. These are their claim:
1. Kashmir should have been part of the Pakistan as per muslim majority rule. (This is not true as this rule applied on the areas which were directly under british control. The fate of princely states were to be decided by their rulers. Further Pakistan had accepted the Kashmir as a seperate nation when they signed traty with the king before attacking him. )
2. Plebicide should be conducted in kashmir as per UN resolution. This is said by every Pakistani leader in general assembly. (Most Pakistanis and many Indians believe that Pakistan has stronger case on this and India gets away repetedly only because of superior diplomacy. Well this is not true. Fist the resolution clearly states that Pakistan has to remove all its forces from the valley ALL. After that India has tp withdraw bulk of its forces (Not ALL). As Pakistan never fulfilled first condition the blame squarely lies on Pakistan for plebicide never happening..
3. It was Pakistan who requested to remove option of freedom of Kashmir from plebicide. So they now claiming to fullfill the wishes of kashmiris seems futile.

Knowing all this I am amazed why the pakistani rhetoric even mentions UN resolutions and why indian commentators never counter it.

This is where Indians who defend the occupation of Kashmir struggle to understand a simple point.

Pakistan will only consider removing it's forces ONCE India agrees to holding the plebiscite.

Does India agree to hold a plebiscite if Pakistan removes it's troops?

 

[cricketjoshila]

This is where Indians who defend the occupation of Kashmir struggle to understand a simple point.

Pakistan will only consider removing it's forces ONCE India agrees to holding the plebiscite.

Does India agree to hold a plebiscite if Pakistan removes it's troops?

Has Pakistan removed its forces that India will hold a plebicite?The resolution doesnt recognise Pakistan's presence in Kashmir and asks for withdrawl of its forces which didnt happen.

Pakistan didnt have any right to be in J and K.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Has Pakistan removed its forces that India will hold a plebicite?The resolution doesnt recognise Pakistan's presence in Kashmir and asks for withdrawl of its forces which didnt happen.

Pakistan didnt have any right to be in J and K.

Surely you can't be this daft ?

Will india hold a plebiscite if Pakistan withdraws? Yes or No ?

 

[ftbno1]

Surely you can't be this daft ?

Will india hold a plebiscite if Pakistan withdraws? Yes or No ?

You are putting cart before the horse. My point was blame of plebicide not happening lies on Pakistan. Right now the plebicide is not possible as large pakistani population has migrated in POK. Further Kashmiri pandits were forced out.

 

[ftbno1]

Has Pakistan removed its forces that India will hold a plebicite?The resolution doesnt recognise Pakistan's presence in Kashmir and asks for withdrawl of its forces which didnt happen.

Pakistan didnt have any right to be in J and K.

India has never officialy refused to hold plebicide in UN. On the other hand asked UNO to remove the option of kashmiri indipendence from plebicide

 

[Zak_Fan]

Surely you can't be this daft ?

Will india hold a plebiscite if Pakistan withdraws? Yes or No ?

Did Pakistan ever want a plebiscite? No.

If Pakistan withdrew it's forces back in the day, Kashmir would be an independent country today.

Things are not the same now, we have Shimla agreement, so irrespective of what Paksitan does today, we are keeping Kashmir like you are keeping yours.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

If you are trying act like a wise and neutral person then you must mention why Indian army attached Hyderabad against the will of the the ruler of Hyderabad who wanted to join Pakistan .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because Pakistan army attacked Kashmir when discussions were going on in 1947 and Indians cited that and attacked Hyderabad in 1948 (that too after a lot of problems and mess in that place).

Plus Mountbatten said ONLY those places could accede to Pakistan that had shared a border with it. Hyderabad had no question of accession anyways.

Junagadh same problem. No border with Pakistan but ruler threw a hissy fit saying border can be connected via water route.

If you really dig in, no party has the moral high ground reg Kashmir. A lot of important facts get missed out in the whole debate.

The only people who truly can claim moral high ground are the people of Kashmir only.

 

[hussain123]

Because Pakistan army attacked Kashmir when discussions were going on in 1947 and Indians cited that and attacked Hyderabad in 1948 (that too after a lot of problems and mess in that place).

Plus Mountbatten said ONLY those places could accede to Pakistan that had shared a border with it. Hyderabad had no question of accession anyways.

Junagadh same problem. No border with Pakistan but ruler threw a hissy fit saying border can be connected via water route.

If you really dig in, no party has the moral high ground reg Kashmir. A lot of important facts get missed out in the whole debate.

The only people who truly can claim moral high ground are the people of Kashmir only.

sif,i would disagree that pakistan had as much of claim over erstwhile jandk as india.it is that correct.even if we keep aside the fact that 80 percent of population was Muslim,Kashmir had natural linkages with west punjab,kpk, and infact the only natural linkage of Kashmir with outside world since thousands of years has been through silk route.infact economically,geographically,culturally,emotionally it is a natural part of central asia and pakistan claim over Kashmir is justified even on grounds other than religion.although o personally want Kashmir to be an independent secular nation.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

sif,i would disagree that pakistan had as much of claim over erstwhile jandk as india.it is that correct.even if we keep aside the fact that 80 percent of population was Muslim,Kashmir had natural linkages with west punjab,kpk, and infact the only natural linkage of Kashmir with outside world since thousands of years has been through silk route.infact economically,geographically,culturally,emotionally it is a natural part of central asia and pakistan claim over Kashmir is justified even on grounds other than religion.although o personally want Kashmir to be an independent secular nation.

That I agree.

Never said one country doesn't have any moral claim over Kashmir.

I was talking about what happened and moral high ground with respect to what happened.

 

[hussain123]

That I agree.

Never said one country doesn't have any moral claim over Kashmir.

I was talking about what happened and moral high ground with respect to what happened.

for me pakistan had Kashmir in its bag if it had convinced sheikh abdullah that he would be the made the head of the jandk province once it gets integrated to pakistan the possiblity of kashmir even joining india won't have arisen.at the most the hindu dominated areas of jandk would have ceded to india.the snub from jinnah to abdullh was where nehru saw his chances and craftly brought him into his fold and there is where things started falling apart for pakistan..infact at one time if there was one territory jinnah was sure on would be a part of pakistan was kashmiralthough i completely agree with you that there are no moral high grounds in politics.

 

[Romali_rotti]

This thread was not needed, there are plenty of threads discussing Kashmir. Why in the world would India give Kashmir to Pakistan, so China can eventually take it ? ... The whole world, including god all mighty knows Pakistan will never sniff an inch of India Kashmir, accept reality, stop the fighting, move on with your lives....

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Kashmir being a border area and in turmoil for such a long time, should be allowed for a referendum where they are given 3 options to either be with India/ Pak/ autonomous nation.

Or

Pak should allow people who want to be with them to be moved to other side of Kashmir and leave the land this side once and for all.

No point spending so much of tax payers money every year hampering overall progress and growth.

 

[Romali_rotti]

No point spending so much of tax payers money every year hampering overall progress and growth.

Do you think their ISI & Army that is running Pakistan would want the above ? The whole point of Kashmir is so the ISI & ARMY can fool their gullible citizens about how Kashmir rightly belongs to Pakistan and India has stolen it blah blah blah, by doing this majority of the money generated from whatever economy they have goes to the Army...... Democracy in Pakistan would see it progressing economically, politically etc that is something Pakistani ARMY cant have and sad thing is that their gullible citizens buy into it, the result is what we see now; Pakistan that is going round and round and going nowhere....

 

[Asim2Good]

there is no point in discussing now after all these years.
now both countries should settle on LOC now and focus on improving daily life of their own people instead of wasting their resources on this issue which is not gonna b solved.

what British wanted, they got it. Otherwise there would be clear cut borders between 2 countries.

Tellingly, although Pakistan celebrated its independence on 14 August and India on 15 August 1947, the border between the two new states was not announced until 17 August.

It was hurriedly drawn up by a British lawyer, Cyril Radcliffe,who had little knowledge of Indian conditions and with the use of out-of-date maps and census materials.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml

 

[Tera Gawaandi]

there is no point in discussing now after all these years.
now both countries should settle on LOC now and focus on improving daily life of their own people instead of wasting their resources on this issue which is not gonna b solved.

what British wanted, they got it. Otherwise there would be clear cut borders between 2 countries.

Only sensible post in this thread. Convert LOC to IB.

India is happy with status quo, all these talks etc are hogwash. Pakistan should accept it and fully integrate their part of Kashmir into Pakistan and work towards development of the region.

India will not give Kashmir, it's unthinkable. India will go to any extent even if it means total annihilation of Kashmir.

 

[hussain123]

[MENTION=78116]Tera Gawaandi[/MENTION] i didn't get what you mean by total annihilation of kashmir.but if you mean india would annihilate kashmirIs as a nation if that is what takes to secure Kashmir.then you are farther from the truth.even during holocaust of jews one of the worst genocide ever it wasn't a total annihilation.at the start of 90s india did have plans of wiping out a very significant portion of kashmiris like they what did in jammu in connivance with regime dogra in 1947.but in a globalised world that is fairly impossible i would say if that is what you are insinuating.

 

[Tera Gawaandi]

[MENTION=78116]Tera Gawaandi[/MENTION] i didn't get what you mean by total annihilation of kashmir.but if you mean india would annihilate kashmirIs as a nation if that is what takes to secure Kashmir.then you are farther from the truth.even during holocaust of jews one of the worst genocide ever it wasn't a total annihilation.at the start of 90s india did have plans of wiping out a very significant portion of kashmiris like they what did in jammu in connivance with regime dogra in 1947.but in a globalised world that is fairly impossible i would say if that is what you are insinuating.

No, don't take it literally. It was a phrase, similar to 'We will destroy it, in order to protect it'. Means India is ready to take heavy losses.

 

[hussain123]

No, don't take it literally. It was a phrase, similar to 'We will destroy it, in order to protect it'. Means India is ready to take heavy losses.

Which means keeping the genocide going??

Sent from my SM-J710F using Tapatalk

 

[sshakir411]

Do you think their ISI & Army that is running Pakistan would want the above ? The whole point of Kashmir is so the ISI & ARMY can fool their gullible citizens about how Kashmir rightly belongs to Pakistan and India has stolen it blah blah blah, by doing this majority of the money generated from whatever economy they have goes to the Army...... Democracy in Pakistan would see it progressing economically, politically etc that is something Pakistani ARMY cant have and sad thing is that their gullible citizens buy into it, the result is what we see now; Pakistan that is going round and round and going nowhere....

oh look another Indian expert on ISI and Pak Army. Seems like universities in India are handing out free degrees in ISI and Pak Army education. Every 2nd Indian seems to know more about ISI than the average Pakistani )

 

[Ind_Yeah]

There is no "case" on Kashmir. The day Pakistan starts acting according to documents their government signed (more than once), the issue disappears. Once that is done, the Indian government will have the space to grant further autonomy to the valley Kashmiris who desire it. Jammu and Ladakh don't want it, they wish for greater integration with India.

Pak signed standstill agreement with J&K King, promptly violated it. Invaded illegally in 1965, ended up losing land. Lost badly in 1971 and signed Shimla agreement, and to this day pretends that the Shimla agreement did not happen. Invaded illegally in 1999 and had to run to Massa Clinton for a face-saving withdrawal. Now there is a changing of the Massa, but the rest of the story remains the same.

 

[hussain123]

There is no "case" on Kashmir. The day Pakistan starts acting according to documents their government signed (more than once), the issue disappears. Once that is done, the Indian government will have the space to grant further autonomy to the valley Kashmiris who desire it. Jammu and Ladakh don't want it, they wish for greater integration with India.

Pak signed standstill agreement with J&K King, promptly violated it. Invaded illegally in 1965, ended up losing land. Lost badly in 1971 and signed Shimla agreement, and to this day pretends that the Shimla agreement did not happen. Invaded illegally in 1999 and had to run to Massa Clinton for a face-saving withdrawal. Now there is a changing of the Massa, but the rest of the story remains the same.

34 percent of population in jammu is muslim and even dogra hindus though don't want secession or independence and are fierce indians in that sense but they are also very protective and proud of their cultural and ethnic identity.infact the jammu chambers of commerce supports greater autonomy;they know have milked article 370 a lot for their good.infact lots of dogra hhindus are already seeing through the deceit of bjp.about ladakh,it too has 45 percent muslim population.there was an political organisation names ladakh autonomous hill development which called for turning ladakh into a union territory now and infact did well to begin with but even Buddhist ladakhis soon realized that they will turn themselves very miniscule refugee if it integrates fully with india and i am not even talking for 45 percent muslim ladakh that is for independence.so in both cases "natural" assimilation of any part of indian controlled Kashmir is not possible.as far as un resolutions they are redundant although in a hypothetical world if they ever get implemented pakistan is gonna win it hands down without a question and india knows it especially there is no 3rd option of independence in un resolutions.

 

[nish_mate]

India in it's handling of Kashmir has been a lot more diplomatic and softhanded than that of their neighbours when faced with similar issues.

Unlike our neighbour to the west we have not sent our fighter jets to bomb our own people and unlike our neighbour to the north we have not social engineered the demographics of Kashmir- which if India wanted could have done and be dusted.

Small point but worth considering that India could have been much more heavy handed in its approach if it wished.

 

[Ind_Yeah]

India in it's handling of Kashmir has been a lot more diplomatic and softhanded than that of their neighbours when faced with similar issues.

Unlike our neighbour to the west we have not sent our fighter jets to bomb our own people and unlike our neighbour to the north we have not social engineered the demographics of Kashmir- which if India wanted could have done and be dusted.

Small point but worth considering that India could have been much more heavy handed in its approach if it wished.

Stop throwing reality bombs, you truth terrorist!

 

[Saeed]

India in it's handling of Kashmir has been a lot more diplomatic and softhanded than that of their neighbours when faced with similar issues.

Unlike our neighbour to the west we have not sent our fighter jets to bomb our own people and unlike our neighbour to the north we have not social engineered the demographics of Kashmir- which if India wanted could have done and be dusted.

Small point but worth considering that India could have been much more heavy handed in its approach if it wished.

Dishonest post. Pakistan is fighting people who have been failed by Pakistan's conservative society, not just random people who want freedom from an occupying force. Pakistan evacuated most of its people from the conflict zone, provided them shelter, food and security. Some people from the conflict zone went to Afghanistan and Pakistan is already taking them back. Now Pakistan is rebuilding the area, providing people with schools, hospitals and jobs. Can't remember many nations that did this. May Kashmir be free from Indian occupation.

 

[Zak_Fan]

I think South Asia will prosper if Pakistanis stop dreaming about Kashmir. That will make sure that India too stops playing it's proxy wars in Balochistan, leading to better stability in two countries.

 

[Saeed]

Other Indian states have insurgency issues but not a high ratio of military- ask why? Because not surrounded by a back stabbing neighbour like Pakistan, even Arunachal Pradesh is claimed by China, but there is a reason why not half a mill troops are there

Backstabbing neighbor? Pakistan never claimed to be India's friends. You have millions of troops because it is a disputed territory unlike other small time conflicts.

 

[nish_mate]

Backstabbing neighbor? Pakistan never claimed to be India's friends. You have millions of troops because it is a disputed territory unlike other small time conflicts.

Readup on Arunachal Pradesh that is a disputed territory and India did a lose a war over it, but there is a reason why there are not millions or half a million (make up your mind chaps) troops there. China is not India's friends either but did not send thousands of militants into India or be a staging ground for promoting terror within India.

 

[nish_mate]

Dishonest post. Pakistan is fighting people who have been failed by Pakistan's conservative society, not just random people who want freedom from an occupying force. Pakistan evacuated most of its people from the conflict zone, provided them shelter, food and security. Some people from the conflict zone went to Afghanistan and Pakistan is already taking them back. Now Pakistan is rebuilding the area, providing people with schools, hospitals and jobs. Can't remember many nations that did this. May Kashmir be free from Indian occupation.

Was actually referring to Balochistan and since we know Indian media is garbage here is something from more neutral or should I say more muslim

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...es-armed-resistance-ba-20145665338680350.html

Nothing dishonest or intellectually lazy about that.

 

[Saeed]

Readup on Arunachal Pradesh that is a disputed territory and India did a lose a war over it, but there is a reason why there are not millions or half a million (make up your mind chaps) troops there. China is not India's friends either but did not send thousands of militants into India or be a staging ground for promoting terror within India.

Where is the proof of militants? India blames Pakistan for everything so hard to believe any "evidence" India presents. You don't have millions in Arunachal because people don't want to be free from Indian occupation. Kashmiris want to be free.

 

[Saeed]

Was actually referring to Balochistan and since we know Indian media is garbage here is something from more neutral or should I say more muslim

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...es-armed-resistance-ba-20145665338680350.html

Nothing dishonest or intellectually lazy about that.

Lets use something recent. Pakistan has learned from its mistakes and is doing a lot to maintain security an develop Baluchistan. There is a reason many Baloch nationalists are giving up arms.

 

[nish_mate]

Where is the proof of militants? India blames Pakistan for everything so hard to believe any "evidence" India presents. You don't have millions in Arunachal because people don't want to be free from Indian occupation. Kashmiris want to be free.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4416771.stm

Proof- albeit from 2010, but good enough for you.

Another from Beebs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18738906

Sure you can deny them as well- evidence see when your parade a chap on telly proclaiming to be Indian that is proof enough, but when India gives evidence, for example Mumbai it's all imaginary.

 

[nish_mate]

Lets use something recent. Pakistan has learned from its mistakes and is doing a lot to maintain security an develop Baluchistan. There is a reason many Baloch nationalists are giving up arms.

2 years old - not a prehistoric one.

India can use the same line as you did but then you would still cry murdrer

 

[Saeed]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4416771.stm

Proof- albeit from 2010, but good enough for you.

Another from Beebs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18738906

Sure you can deny them as well- evidence see when your parade a chap on telly proclaiming to be Indian that is proof enough, but when India gives evidence, for example Mumbai it's all imaginary.

I will always deny Indian sources. Did India move those millions of troops in past decade? They have been always there and these militants are useless without local support. Though Pakistan shouldn't support terrorists. We should send military to liberate Kashmir.

 

[sshakir411]

I think South Asia will prosper if Pakistanis stop dreaming about Kashmir. That will make sure that India too stops playing it's proxy wars in Balochistan, leading to better stability in two countries.

ah the surprising confession of involvement in Balochistan. This can't be real...the picture was painted of Indian intelligence being bathed with milk and honey. Wonder why the uproar and cries when India is on the receiving end of the proxy war?...oh I know what this genius is going to say "but you did it first"

 

[Saeed]

2 years old - not a prehistoric one that you can rip up like you did with your Afghan bros.

India can use the same line as you did but then you would still cry murdrer

2 year is a lot of time. Many militants have gave up their weapons since then and violence these days is mostly related to non-nationalist terrorists.

Rightfully so. Kashmir is a disputed territory. India is the occupying force.

 

[Zak_Fan]

ah the surprising confession of involvement in Balochistan. This can't be real...the picture was painted of Indian intelligence being bathed with milk and honey. Wonder why the uproar and cries when India is on the receiving end of the proxy war?...oh I know what this genius is going to say "but you did it first"

Its not confession, but common sense that there is every reason for India to interfere in Balochistan. If I was Indian PM, I would do the same. Pakistan's actions in the last many decades deserve this response.

Not to mention, Balochistan needs to be free from Pakistani oppression, so there is also a humanitarian side to the intervention.

 

[nish_mate]

I will always deny Indian sources. Did India move those millions of troops in past decade? They have been always there and these militants are useless without local support. Though Pakistan shouldn't support terrorists. We should send military to liberate Kashmir.

your chaps did try again and again with the military as well, latest was Mian Mushy- Read up when India beefed up the military in Kashmir- 89 onwards, when the Mujjo Bros appear in Kashmir from 89 onwards.

 

[Saeed]

your chaps did try again and again with the military as well, latest was Mian Mushy- Read up when India beefed up the military in Kashmir- 89 onwards, when the Mujjo Bros appear in Kashmir from 89 onwards.

We got half of the Kashmir and someday the other half will be liberated. What difference does numbers make. Your army is the occupying force and has been since 1940s.

 

[Saeed]

Its not confession, but common sense that there is every reason for India to interfere in Balochistan. If I was Indian PM, I would do the same. Pakistan's actions in the last many decades deserve this response.

Not to mention, Balochistan needs to be free from Pakistani oppression, so there is also a humanitarian side to the intervention.

Your little interference has already failed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malik-siraj-akbar/the-end-of-pakistans-balo_b_6090920.html

Even other Balochs don't support these terrorists. Inshalllah they will be non exntity after Pakistan educate them on why Pakistan is the best country in the world.

 

[sshakir411]

Its not confession, but common sense that there is every reason for India to interfere in Balochistan. If I was Indian PM, I would do the same. Pakistan's actions in the last many decades deserve this response.

Not to mention, Balochistan needs to be free from Pakistani oppression, so there is also a humanitarian side to the intervention.

lol. common sense when it comes to you but terrorism when it's Pakistan. You Indians have disgusting double standards as you were kind to point out yourself. Pakistan has known this since 47 and does not give two hoots with how loudly you cry to the UN, US, or wherever.

 

[hussain123]

Other Indian states have insurgency issues but not a high ratio of military- ask why? Because not surrounded by a back stabbing neighbour like Pakistan, even Arunachal Pradesh is claimed by China, but there is a reason why not half a mill troops are there.

Troops deployment only went up late 80's onwards, when the valley started going all Mujjo and shouting slogans like "Azadi ka matlab kyaa" and all that BS and took up the guns and started producing peaceful groups like Hizb Ul Mujds, JeM, LeT, JKLF and others whose name s one wouldnt remember offhand.

No one is disputing that there have been human rights violations and have been incidences of Army brutality and I can only apologise for that if it is of any solace and AFSPA needs to be repealed and more officers and soldiers need to be booked and tried for war crimes- there is no excuse for that.

Rest what happens in Kashmir is nothing different to what Muslim Army of TURKEY does in Kurdistan, Pakistan in Balochistan, Atheist China in Tibet and Xinjiang amongst others- this is realpolitik.

Not living in a bubble at all but understand how the world moves.

Folks here cry about Kashmir because its a Hindu majority India doing it, but forget about their Muslim brothers doing worse than India in their countries.

Next time please use punctuation marks.

Iet me remind you starting from 1947 when pakhtun invaders attacked kashmir in a move to liberate kashmir they faced stiff resistance from kashmiri muslims who at that time stood by their brethern community "pandits" at a time when just across the pir panjal range half a million jammuite muslims were getting killed with military precision.retrospectively kashmiris may have be just about been fighting against their own liberators(pakhtuns).in 1965 war pakistan tried to push fidayeens in kashmir but found no takers here and in fact locals aided indian military in their endeavour to nab the intruders which they(pakistan) thought was sheer backstabbing from the people they fought the war for.had a fraction of 90s militancy been a part of 65 the Kashmir may not even been an issue by now.i would suppose that you would know how jl nehru shamelessly backstabbed a person (shwikh abdullah) who in UN says that kashmiris on their own have taken the decision to side with india) and the absolute muck that followed.how puppet regimes were getting changed and chopped to the liking of indian state.they were bound to face a resistance at some stage.and hizbul mujahidden supremo had a pikitical party which was winning the 1987 rigged elections.if not for rigging,the man would been cm of the jandk state (altgough elections in jandk are a smokescreen with the choicest boot licker getting elected) but it is not just one event it is a barrage of events culminating to the militancy.i agree that india is doing what any occupier country does and would do.so
You could have spared yourself with the typical whataboutery cases.it has done every thing a brutal merciless occupier country can do against a people that it knows it can nail.

 

[street cricketer]

34 percent of population in jammu is muslim and even dogra hindus though don't want secession or independence and are fierce indians in that sense but they are also very protective and proud of their cultural and ethnic identity.infact the jammu chambers of commerce supports greater autonomy;they know have milked article 370 a lot for their good.infact lots of dogra hhindus are already seeing through the deceit of bjp.about ladakh,it too has 45 percent muslim population.there was an political organisation names ladakh autonomous hill development which called for turning ladakh into a union territory now and infact did well to begin with but even Buddhist ladakhis soon realized that they will turn themselves very miniscule refugee if it integrates fully with india and i am not even talking for 45 percent muslim ladakh that is for independence.so in both cases "natural" assimilation of any part of indian controlled Kashmir is not possible.as far as un resolutions they are redundant although in a hypothetical world if they ever get implemented pakistan is gonna win it hands down without a question and india knows it especially there is no 3rd option of independence in un resolutions.

One thing I can't understand is how does the cultural and ethnic identity of a region get diluted when it becomes a part of a bigger country?

Personally I think if and when the referendum happens, I don't think the independence option would receive the majority votes, rather it would be in favour of accession to Pakistan. So that would definitely play in the minds of the Dogra hindus, buddhists, and probably even the Shias and the Ahmedis to an extent.

 

[Zak_Fan]

lol. common sense when it comes to you but terrorism when it's Pakistan. You Indians have disgusting double standards as you were kind to point out yourself. Pakistan has known this since 47 and does not give two hoots with how loudly you cry to the UN, US, or wherever.

In India's case, the choice is easy. We cannot allow a little bully to destabilize a country 7 times it's size.

Imagine a little brat kicking you once, twice, thrice... you can't ignore it forever.

 

[sshakir411]

In India's case, the choice is easy. We cannot allow a little bully to destabilize a country 7 times it's size.

Imagine a little brat kicking you once, twice, thrice... you can't ignore it forever.

lmao...I'm not sure what you consider a successful..because if you're talking about what India has achieved in Balochistan...then you guys really do make a bunch of village cavemen (LET, etc) look like US Marines

 

[Zak_Fan]

lol. common sense when it comes to you but terrorism when it's Pakistan. You Indians have disgusting double standards as you were kind to point out yourself. Pakistan has known this since 47 and does not give two hoots with how loudly you cry to the UN, US, or wherever.

Crying in front of the UN or US? I'll be surprised if this doesn't sound familiar to you

 

[Zak_Fan]

lmao...I'm not sure what you consider a successful..because if you're talking about what India has achieved in Balochistan...then you guys really do make a bunch of village cavemen (LET, etc) look like US Marines

Le bhai, Kashmir banega Pakistan. Khush ho ja..mera peecha chorr ab.

 

[Ind_Yeah]

Do Pakistanis realize the height of hypocrisy when criticizing India for fighting separatism in J&K while their army fire-bombs Balochistan? Do they realize that the Baloch have a stronger case for independence than the Lota kashmiris who are landlocked and completely inviable as a nation?

They should make up their minds and not selectively support "freedom" and "independence" in one area while crushing it ruthlessly in another.

Oh, and make damn sure you keep mouths shut about China's oppression of the muslim "ummah" in Xinjiang. Where Mullahs are forced to dance, and Muslims forced to shave and barred from fasting for Ramzaan.

Reality is Pak doesn't care about the Kashmiris or their freedom, they just want the land to be part of their country.

In a way its good, our competitor nation keeps wasting its limited resources on a hopeless agenda. Too bad for the "awaam" and their prospects though.

 

[hussain123]

One thing I can't understand is how does the cultural and ethnic identity of a region get diluted when it becomes a part of a bigger country?

Personally I think if and when the referendum happens, I don't think the independence option would receive the majority votes, rather it would be in favour of accession to Pakistan. So that would definitely play in the minds of the Dogra hindus, buddhists, and probably even the Shias and the Ahmedis to an extent.

Diluted in the sense that a country usually enforces a degree of homogeneity across various regions.it may be or may not respect or promote the indigenous culture.like when kashmir acceded to india was the time the dispossession of kashmiris started economically making completely dependent for basic needs on india,culturally in a way that kashmiris were forced to accept an identify which they were not.politically Kashmiri leaders were rendered useless with absolutely no political or administrative authority whatsoever.religion too plays a role here .ethnic dilution one can see in state like punjab where punjabis if i am not wrong hardly make even 60 percent of the total population as of now.if independence is an option i personally think people will vote enmasse for it.shias are pro independent mostly.some big names like aga shahid ali,mirza waheed etc the most vocal pro independent kashmiri voices are shias.infact a socio polito religious group headed by maulana abbbas is affliated to hurriyat m (mirwaiz) has almost 70 percent shia following in kashmir.ahmadis make somewhere around .15 percent or something like that of total population of jandk which is marginal.Buddhists of late have thrown their weight around kashmiri centric national conference and they culturally identify more with kashmiris than dogras.dogras as usual are fierce indians there isn't a question about it but they prefer something like article 370 or more autonomy but are totally against any idea of independence.but come on we all know referendum is almost impossible in today's date.i personally think a more improved version of Musharrafs 4 point formula can be the solution or a quasi independent kashmir.

 

[Ind_Yeah]

Diluted in the sense that a country usually enforces a degree of homogeneity across various regions.it may be or may not respect or promote the indigenous culture.like when kashmir acceded to india was the time the dispossession of kashmiris started economically making completely dependent for basic needs on india,culturally in a way that kashmiris were forced to accept an identify which they were not.politically Kashmiri leaders were rendered useless with absolutely no political or administrative authority whatsoever.religion too plays a role here .ethnic dilution one can see in state like punjab where punjabis if i am not wrong hardly make even 60 percent of the total population as of now.if independence is an option i personally think people will vote enmasse for it.shias are pro independent mostly.some big names like aga shahid ali,mirza waheed etc the most vocal pro independent kashmiri voices are shias.infact a socio polito religious group headed by maulana abbbas is affliated to hurriyat m (mirwaiz) has almost 70 percent shia following in kashmir.ahmadis make somewhere around .15 percent or something like that of total population of jandk which is marginal.Buddhists of late have thrown their weight around kashmiri centric national conference and they culturally identify more with kashmiris than dogras.dogras as usual are fierce indians there isn't a question about it but they prefer something like article 370 or more autonomy but are totally against any idea of independence.but come on we all know referendum is almost impossible in today's date.i personally think a more improved version of Musharrafs 4 point formula can be the solution or a quasi independent kashmir.

Sorry, but this doesn't make much sense. How is a gujarati any less of a gujarati, or a Kashmiri any less of a Kashmiri as a part of India? Or a muslim or christian? They all have full rights under the Indian constitution. They don't have to denounce any other religion such as Ahmediyas or Shias in order to maintain their Nationality. Nor do they give up their language or culture. Nor are their natural resources being taken from them. This whole narrative of giving up identity is artificial.

 

[street cricketer]

Diluted in the sense that a country usually enforces a degree of homogeneity across various regions.it may be or may not respect or promote the indigenous culture.like when kashmir acceded to india was the time the dispossession of kashmiris started economically making completely dependent for basic needs on india,culturally in a way that kashmiris were forced to accept an identify which they were not.politically Kashmiri leaders were rendered useless with absolutely no political or administrative authority whatsoever.religion too plays a role here .ethnic dilution one can see in state like punjab where punjabis if i am not wrong hardly make even 60 percent of the total population as of now.if independence is an option i personally think people will vote enmasse for it.shias are pro independent mostly.some big names like aga shahid ali,mirza waheed etc the most vocal pro independent kashmiri voices are shias.infact a socio polito religious group headed by maulana abbbas is affliated to hurriyat m (mirwaiz) has almost 70 percent shia following in kashmir.ahmadis make somewhere around .15 percent or something like that of total population of jandk which is marginal.Buddhists of late have thrown their weight around kashmiri centric national conference and they culturally identify more with kashmiris than dogras.dogras as usual are fierce indians there isn't a question about it but they prefer something like article 370 or more autonomy but are totally against any idea of independence.but come on we all know referendum is almost impossible in today's date.i personally think a more improved version of Musharrafs 4 point formula can be the solution or a quasi independent kashmir.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the dilution theory because the southern states are as unique as Kashmir as well. Ditto with the north eastern states. In fact, you have more chances of communicating better with hindi in Kashmir than in say TN or Meghalaya. I don't think the culture of either of these states have been diluted in any way.

As for the Punjab example, the simple reason is that we are living in an era of globalisation. So it is common to see people migrating from place to place for work. A lot of punjabis are working in Delhi and in many other parts of India. A lot more have emigrated to places like Canada, UK. In Chennai, over 30% of the population is telugu. Bangalore has a lot of people from the north and Maharashtra. It is unreasonable to expect a monolithic community in a region in this age and most developed nations have become multicultural.

The main differing point is the religion which plays the biggest role of all. Kashmir is the only muslim majority state in India and eventhough there are about 200 million muslims in India as well, the muslim majority Kashmiri populace identify more with Pakistan rather than India because the islamic culture is more pronounced in Pakistan and not to mention some ancient cultural links too. I think the independence will not gather a majority, I'm sure an overwhelming majority of AJK will vote for accession to Pakistan, not sure about GB, etc. Even in Indian Kashmir, I think the majority will vote for Pakistan rather for an independent state.

 

[hussain123]

One thing I can't understand is how does the cultural and ethnic identity of a region get diluted when it becomes a part of a bigger country?

Personally I think if and when the referendum happens, I don't think the independence option would receive the majority votes, rather it would be in favour of accession to Pakistan. So that would definitely play in the minds of the Dogra hindus, buddhists, and probably even the Shias and the Ahmedis to an extent.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the dilution theory because the southern states are as unique as Kashmir as well. Ditto with the north eastern states. In fact, you have more chances of communicating better with hindi in Kashmir than in say TN or Meghalaya. I don't think the culture of either of these states have been diluted in any way.

As for the Punjab example, the simple reason is that we are living in an era of globalisation. So it is common to see people migrating from place to place for work. A lot of punjabis are working in Delhi and in many other parts of India. A lot more have emigrated to places like Canada, UK. In Chennai, over 30% of the population is telugu. Bangalore has a lot of people from the north and Maharashtra. It is unreasonable to expect a monolithic community in a region in this age and most developed nations have become multicultural.

The main differing point is the religion which plays the biggest role of all. Kashmir is the only muslim majority state in India and eventhough there are about 200 million muslims in India as well, the muslim majority Kashmiri populace identify more with Pakistan rather than India because the islamic culture is more pronounced in Pakistan and not to mention some ancient cultural links too. I think the independence will not gather a majority, I'm sure an overwhelming majority of AJK will vote for accession to Pakistan, not sure about GB, etc. Even in Indian Kashmir, I think the majority will vote for Pakistan rather for an independent state.

Imagine whole of central asia integrated with india and forms a one single unit or a country ;in that case there wouldn't have been much case of insecurity in respect of being over possessive about kashmir's native identity .southern india as an whole is part of india.if suppose all of south india had been balkanised into independent sovereign nation states and tamil nadu hadn't been,the tendency to get out of indian rule would have as stronger as ever.i have few fb tamilian fb friends with a Marxist bend if their views are by any stretch are a sample to be extrapolated for the whole population then except brahmin tamils most tamilians want an independent nation of their.see religion does play in kashmiri aspiration for independence but it a part of problem not whole of it.infact kaahmiris be it Pandits,sikhs or muslims they are lot different than the hindus,sikhs and muslims of india and wherever they are in india they are usually the most maladjusted community in india.kashmiris are culturally extremely conservative and their numbers which are hardly around 6 or 7 million makes them even more vulnerable to such dilution.and the way indian state has dealt with kashmir over a period of six decades those fear get perpetually reinforced.
I could have talked of plebiscite and stuff but it is like beating a dead horse bcoz for india it is a foregone conclusion and as long as india exists as an entity rest assured there are more chances of pakistan acquiring kashmir through military intervention than through implementation of un resolutions.cheers

 

[gattaca]

Imagine whole of central asia integrated with india and forms a one single unit or a country ;in that case there wouldn't have been much case of insecurity in respect of being over possessive about kashmir's native identity .southern india as an whole is part of india.if suppose all of south india had been balkanised into independent sovereign nation states and tamil nadu hadn't been,the tendency to get out of indian rule would have as stronger as ever.i have few fb tamilian fb friends with a Marxist bend if their views are by any stretch are a sample to be extrapolated for the whole population then except brahmin tamils most tamilians want an independent nation of their.see religion does play in kashmiri aspiration for independence but it a part of problem not whole of it.infact kaahmiris be it Pandits,sikhs or muslims they are lot different than the hindus,sikhs and muslims of india and wherever they are in india they are usually the most maladjusted community in india.kashmiris are culturally extremely conservative and their numbers which are hardly around 6 or 7 million makes them even more vulnerable to such dilution.and the way indian state has dealt with kashmir over a period of six decades those fear get perpetually reinforced.
I could have talked of plebiscite and stuff but it is like beating a dead horse bcoz for india it is a foregone conclusion and as long as india exists as an entity rest assured there are more chances of pakistan acquiring kashmir through military intervention than through implementation of un resolutions.cheers

Lol tamils want a nation of their own this is news for me. Stop posting BS.

 

[hussain123]

One thing I can't understand is how does the cultural and ethnic identity of a region get diluted when it becomes a part of a bigger country?

Personally I think if and when the referendum happens, I don't think the independence option would receive the majority votes, rather it would be in favour of accession to Pakistan. So that would definitely play in the minds of the Dogra hindus, buddhists, and probably even the Shias and the Ahmedis to an extent.

Lol tamils want a nation of their own this is news for me. Stop posting BS.

read this again man.i don't think you read it properly.and you seem to have clue about eelam movement??do you???.

 

[cricketjoshila]

We got half of the Kashmir and someday the other half will be liberated. What difference does numbers make. Your army is the occupying force and has been since 1940s.

Half the Kashmir?Really?Rather less than 30% of Kashmir.And that too my defeating the Army of Maharaja of Kashmir.Since the Indian Army landed there Pak forcee were pushed from around Srinagar to the present area.

Secondly occupying or non occupying that Kashmiris can discuss with GOI not Pakistans place to say anything.

And you can keep.dreaming about J and K.

 

[cricketjoshila]

lol. common sense when it comes to you but terrorism when it's Pakistan. You Indians have disgusting double standards as you were kind to point out yourself. Pakistan has known this since 47 and does not give two hoots with how loudly you cry to the UN, US, or wherever.

No we dont cry.We actually create new countries eg.Bangladesh.

 

[Dman]

Wow, one can always learn new things on PP everyday. Had no idea that Tamils in India had secessionist tendencies and a common Goal to establish an independent Tamil Nation.

Valuable information.

 

[cricketjoshila]

read this again man.i don't think you read it properly.and you seem to have clue about eelam movement??do you???.

Please post a reference to the eelam movement you talk about.

 

[gattaca]

read this again man.i don't think you read it properly.and you seem to have clue about eelam movement??do you???.

Their is eelam movement in SriLanka not in India. you seem to be confused between India and Srilanka tamil tough to understand geography when you are in up north.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Their is eelam movement in SriLanka not in India.

Na na Let him post the references na.Some people dont realise the difference between Indian and Lankan Tamils.

 

[www787]

No we dont cry.We actually create new countries eg.Bangladesh.

and my ancestor created 3 countries out of one.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Wow, one can always learn new things on PP everyday. Had no idea that Tamils in India had secessionist tendencies and a common Goal to establish an independent Tamil Nation.

Valuable information.

Most likely wrong information.

 

[cricketjoshila]

and my ancestor created 3 countries out of one.

Your ancestors sat in the British Parliament?

 

[www787]

Your ancestors sat in the British Parliament?

i don't know, enlighten me, all i know my ancestor created 3 countries out of 1, and those are the facts.

 

[cricketjoshila]

i don't know, enlighten me, all i know my ancestor created 3 countries out of 1, and those are the facts.

If your ancestor didnt sit in the British Parliament then he didnot create 3 countries or whatever lie you have been fed as fact.

 

[street cricketer]

Imagine whole of central asia integrated with india and forms a one single unit or a country ;in that case there wouldn't have been much case of insecurity in respect of being over possessive about kashmir's native identity .southern india as an whole is part of india.if suppose all of south india had been balkanised into independent sovereign nation states and tamil nadu hadn't been,the tendency to get out of indian rule would have as stronger as ever.i have few fb tamilian fb friends with a Marxist bend if their views are by any stretch are a sample to be extrapolated for the whole population then except brahmin tamils most tamilians want an independent nation of their.see religion does play in kashmiri aspiration for independence but it a part of problem not whole of it.infact kaahmiris be it Pandits,sikhs or muslims they are lot different than the hindus,sikhs and muslims of india and wherever they are in india they are usually the most maladjusted community in india.kashmiris are culturally extremely conservative and their numbers which are hardly around 6 or 7 million makes them even more vulnerable to such dilution.and the way indian state has dealt with kashmir over a period of six decades those fear get perpetually reinforced.
I could have talked of plebiscite and stuff but it is like beating a dead horse bcoz for india it is a foregone conclusion and as long as india exists as an entity rest assured there are more chances of pakistan acquiring kashmir through military intervention than through implementation of un resolutions.cheers

I kinda understand your central asian argument but there are definitely many perks to being a part of a bigger sovereign nation. And it's not like all the central asian nations are all doing great (except Kazakhs probably).

And I don't know what your friends in fb are saying but they seem to have been brainwashed with communist propaganda. TN is one of the top 3 performing states in India and it is doing relatively better in most indices. Secessionist movement happening in TN is whataboutery of the highest order.

Personally I haven't heard of the kashmiri pundits experiencing much difficulties in other parts of India, or sikhs for that matter. This is again news to me. And there are a lot of conservative muslims in India as well who find no difficulty in living in India.

Imo the independence rhetoric is just used to bolster the secessionist movement in Kashmir. If push comes to shove, I think Pakistan will get a major share of votes. Pakistan going through a lean patch in their history with respect to security and law order issues may be the only factor that may play a role for independence. Otherwise it won't even be a question imo. Anyway I don't expect a referendum to happen as well. It's upto the two nations to find an amicable solution.

 

[www787]

If your ancestor didnt sit in the British Parliament then he didnot create 3 countries or whatever lie you have been fed as fact.

fact is 3 countries were created out of 1 and the 1 country was against for breaking into 3. those are the facts now matter how you look at it and whatever excuse you want to use to make yourself happy.

and my ancestors were muslims, so yea, they forced 3 countries out of 1

 

[cricketjoshila]

fact is 3 countries were created out of 1 and the 1 country was against for breaking into 3. those are the facts now matter how you look at it and whatever excuse you want to use to make yourself happy.

Fact is 2 countries were created by the act of British Parliament.Your ancestor had no role in it.None whatsoever.So whoever told you the false story,sad.

And both countries accepted the partition.

24 years after the partition one country lost a war to the other and the victor created a third country.

These are the facts.

 

[hussain123]

One thing I can't understand is how does the cultural and ethnic identity of a region get diluted when it becomes a part of a bigger country?

Personally I think if and when the referendum happens, I don't think the independence option would receive the majority votes, rather it would be in favour of accession to Pakistan. So that would definitely play in the minds of the Dogra hindus, buddhists, and probably even the Shias and the Ahmedis to an extent.

Their is eelam movement in SriLanka not in India. you seem to be confused between India and Srilanka tamil tough to understand geography when you are in up north.

You again didn't read my post properly.read it again."opinion formed on the views of tamilian fb friends." That was so explicit.And it was just a reference.no need to jump the gun.take it easy

 

[street cricketer]

You again didn't read my post properly.read it again."opinion formed on the views of tamilian fb friends." That was so explicit.And it was just a reference.no need to jump the gun.take it easy

I think you must be mistaking the Lankan tamils for the Indian tamils.

 

[hussain123]

One thing I can't understand is how does the cultural and ethnic identity of a region get diluted when it becomes a part of a bigger country?

Personally I think if and when the referendum happens, I don't think the independence option would receive the majority votes, rather it would be in favour of accession to Pakistan. So that would definitely play in the minds of the Dogra hindus, buddhists, and probably even the Shias and the Ahmedis to an extent.

Please post a reference to the eelam movement you talk about.

Well sir there is google for those things.and honesty tell didnt LTTE enjoy a significant support amongst indian tamilians and disnt LTTE have ambitions of carving a sovereign nation outta indian tn as well???you can correct me if am wrong.

 

[www787]

Fact is 2 countries were created by the act of British Parliament.Your ancestor had no role in it.None whatsoever.So whoever told you the false story,sad.

And both countries accepted the partition.

24 years after the partition one country lost a war to the other and the victor created a third country.

These are the facts.

again, fact remain the fact, My ancestors who were Muslims demanded new countries and their demands were met and 3 countries were created out of one, initially against the will of 1 but then that 1 country had to no choice. fact remain the fact, 3 countries were created out of 1 no matter how were they created. so yea, my ancestor being Muslims, used to be Hindu, but now Muslims forced 3 countries out of 1.

 

[street cricketer]

Well sir there is google for those things.and honesty tell didnt LTTE enjoy a significant support amongst indian tamilians and disnt LTTE have ambitions of carving a sovereign nation outta indian tn as well???you can correct me if am wrong.

That is like saying Pakistani muslims want a chunk of Israel to create a separate country for them.

And no, LTTE's ambition wasn't that.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Well sir there is google for those things.and honesty tell didnt LTTE enjoy a significant support amongst indian tamilians and disnt LTTE have ambitions of carving a sovereign nation outta indian tn as well???you can correct me if am wrong.

LoL.There is no Eelam movement in India.LTTE wanted a separate nation out of Lanka and not India.Seems you mistook Tamil Separatists from Lanka for Indians.

So you are totally wrong.