Kashmir:-India's, Pakistan's, or Independent ?

Good luck solving this problem. The Indian government wants it, the Pakistan government wants it, and the people living in Kashmir want to be an independent country. Seems like an issue that won't likely be resolved anytime soon.

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by prelude
The Chinese had also captured a part of it.(correct me if I am wrong )

Yes i will. The Chinese controlled part is called "Aksin Chin" and was ceded by pakistan to china to win the latter's support

correction askin chin is the part china got off pakistan and the bit china took back from india

Sorry it took so very long to reply to this thread (months!) Truth be told, I had forgotten about it.


If you want to talk about Kashmir, let's do it. Starting first with its main problem... terrorism.

Every single terrorist group active in Kashmir -- Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harkat-ul Mujahideen/Ansar -- are all Pakistan-based militant deobandi ideologists. For those who don't know what Deobandi Islam is, it is one of the most intolerant, exremist forms of militant Islamism, even more radicalized and militant than the wahabi sects of Saudia that formed the ideological basis for the Taleban. Of course, Deobandis and Wahabis are good ideological friends, and Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan are largely funded by billions of dollars of Saudi "aid."

And not surprisingly so, these terrorist groups are not comprised of Kashmiris, but of ethnic Pakistanis (Punjabis, Mirpuris) and Afghanis. The Indian police forces they are combatting are 100% ethnic Kashmiri, as are many Kashmir-based Indian army regiments and paramilitary forces, and as are the tens of thousands of civilians they've brutally killed. The vast, vast majority of Kashmiris reject the Pakistani militant groups and that there is virtually no support for their one-sided "struggle" in Kashmir.

Since the early 1990s, Kashmiris themselves have renounced the violence, and due to increasing Pakistani involvement in the terrorism, all the insurgent groups quickly grew in size and power, and are overwhelmingly comprised of Pakistanis -- not Kashmiris! -- from Pakistan... mostly Pakistani Punjabis who have influxed into Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir, displacing the indigenous Kashmiris in the same way China brought in Han populations into China, to dilute the local Tibetan culture. (This itself is in stark comparison to India, who has restricted other Indian influx into Kashmir and has maintained Kashmiri idenity there and thus have them comprise 100% of the population even after nearly 60 years.)

The stated aim of all of these groups and sects is complete capitulation of India, and Islamic caliphate rule of the entire subcontinant over the kaffir. Even if the Kashmiri, pro-India voice was suppressed and Kashmir given to Al Queda on a silver platter, they will not stop there. Next they will demand their flag flying from the ramparts of the Red Fort in Delhi.


That is exactly why that every single opinion poll conducted by a third party -- including the most extensive and the most reputable, a poll conducted by Mori (which was sponsored by a Pakistani JKLF (Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front)-backer in London, who had bought into his own propaganda and was completely stunned at the result) -- showed that the vast, vast majority of Kashmiris are in favor of union with India, and virtually no one for independance or for Pakistan.

And really, why wouldn't they be. Because also, in every independant analysis of political freedom in the world, including the biggest study, undertaken by Freedom House Intl. in their Freedom in the World 2005 index, shows the obvious that Kashmir, despite it being the victim of cross-border state terrorism by Pakistan, because of the democracy, strong judiciary and rule of law in the state, is rated overall as a 'partly free' state', despite it and because of it being an active warzone. (PDF file) ...Something unheard of compared to all active warzones in the world.

Even last election, Jammu and Kashmir state was universially declared fair on the Indians by America, Britian, UN, etc. but not free only because Pakistani terrorist groups threated (and tried to) to kill anyone who participated in the democratic process. Yet even then, the voter turnout was greater than that of the last election here in America.


And moreover, Jammu and Kashmir state of India -- the 'disputed' region suffering 'oppression' and yadda yadda by India -- is actually rated very significantly higher in the freedom index itself than Pakistan, which is rated as a very low 6.5 -- 'not free' at all. (PDF file).

I.e., the so-called Kashmiri vicitim of 'oppression' that the Pakistani opines for against actually enjoys much more freedom, democracy, economic development, education, connectivity, and lack of oppression than the much-more supppressed Pakistani populace themselves!

In this last report (2005) Pakistan wouldn't allow the researchers to even enter so-called "Azad (free) Kashmir", the part of Kashmir it invaded in 1947 and continues to occupy. But the survery addresses the oppression there and rates it lower than freedom in even Pakistan. It is a virtual armed camp, and the people unfortunate enough to live there are virtual slaves to the Paki army. The 2004 report, in fact, it ranks as one of the least free, most oppressed places Earth.

Incidently, or really, not so, India is rated a very high 2.3 in the index -- free.


And what's even more funny in all of this, Pakistan "gifted" twenty-six thousand square kms of this "Azad" Kashmir to China -- all without refferendum, etc., etc. and of course, without any even semblance of village-level democracy. (And this is the military state that laments 'lack' of democray in Kashmir!)

All the while demanding from India that it accede to the 1947 UN resolutions on Kashmir. The UN resolution categorically stated Pakistan was an aggressor nation who invaded Kashmir in 1947. The UN resolution demands that Pakistan not only withdraw from its occupied territory (Azad K, Gilgit, Baltistan, etc.) but also allow India, the victim nation, to occupy fully all territories Pak captured, and be responsible for its security. Then, and only then, shall a refferendum be held.

However, Pakistan obviously refuses to vacate territories it invaded. And in the last 50 years not only completely destroyed the democgraphic purity in its occupied territory by importing Pakjabis wholescale, but then ethnically cleansed all religious minorities in Kashmir it occupied to literally nothing. And further they created Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir into a giant military base, literally restricting peoples freedom there worse than the North Korean government does to its own citizens.

India on the other hand created democracy in Kashmir and kept the demographics pure (except for the terrorist groups who themselves ethnically cleansed some 300,000 minorities into refugee camps all over India). This democratic government of Kashmirs, elected by Kashmiris in universially regarded as free and fair elections, even by the harshest critics in the US State Dept., has time and time again, through their own democratic voice and representation, affirmed their wish that Kashmir state stay with India.

Even Kofi Annan has stated again and again on record on the floor of the General Assembly, to Pakistani delegates who kept bringing it up ad nauseum, that the old UN resolutions on Kashmir are not relevant, and that the Kashmiri democracy (i.e. India) should rightfully be heard.


Apart from Paksitan and Azerbaijan, there is not a single country in the world that supports the Paksitani stand on Kashmir (and even the latter simply only because Pakistan supports them over their territorial dispute with Armenia.)

Even bestest Pak ally and sugar daddy China doesn't support them. That, alone, should say something.

Cheers,
Raj

[edit on 12-10-2005 by rajkhalsa2004]

Prelude, I'll reply to the rest of your specific queries later tonight, when I have time to write.

Cheers,
Raj

Kashmir is Indian and it cannot be anything else...thats it..
India is secular, And Indian muslims are IMO the best kind of muslims in the world..
All muslims should aim to be of that sort..
They are tolerant, and live with respect for other religions..

95% of Indians are NOT hindus.Its somewhere around 80%.
and another thing is certain..
More than 95% of hindus are tolerant.. That is the basis of our religion..
IMHO Stealth Spy represents a minority, which will shrink even more in number as time progresses..
India is secular, that will never change.
I take more pride in being a member of a secular country than in being a hindu..

Answers for prelude:

Kashmir cannot be decided at the UN for a simple reason that it is a bilateral issue and nobody else can have a better perspective than India or Pakistan..
You cannot have states just breaking off and declaring independance..
Next thing you'll have a soviet-style collapse on your hands.
Prelude, you're talking about the hurriyat..
They don't represent the majority of kashmiris. They could have taken part in the recent elections, which had foreign observers, but they boycotted it for their performance would have shown the true extent of support they have in the region.

Pakistan has been brought up on the Kashmir issue..
Besides Israel and Kashmir, Pakistan has no future.. They survive as a nation on the Kashmir issue.
If it were to be solved w/o them getting it, then Pakistan would cease to exist as a nation as the very core of what drives their people would have been extinguished..

India did not attack Pakistan in 99' or 01' only because Pakistan had nukes and had publicly threatened to use them if they were on the backfoot in any conflict..
If we had attacked camps in PoK after 99'/01' then there was no guarantee that Pakistan would not retaliate..
Since they lack that capacity in Kashmir, they would most probably retaliate by opening fronts down south.
That would also not give them much as they would be pushed back and overrun, due to their inferior air capabilities..
So we were staring nuclear war in the face in any situation..
And as of now, any conventional war between India and Pakistan will see India having air superiority in under a week, naval superiority, in a few days and, overall superiority in under a fortnight..
Thus a perfect situation for the use of nukes by Pakistan..
We cannot risk a nuclear war on the subcontinent..

Also answering your query about your kashmiri friend..
IT is true that the kashmiris have been stigmatised y the Indian army but that
ufortunately was inevitable..
The army has been in Kashmir since 1990 and has been the target of sooo many suicide/terrorist attacks from ppl who mingle amongst the locals that it is extremely extremely difficult to judge at face value..
Distrust exist on both sides.
If we pull the army out of Kashmir, it will be over run by these freaks from across the border and they will stifle the cries of anybody who opposes them..
Ask your friend if he supports those terrorists who come from foreign lands..
Ask him whether he cares for the over 400,000 kashmiri hindus who have been terrorised and forced to flee the region..
They are indigenous to kashmir..
They've been there for 1000s of years. Nobody has the right to say that kashmir is only for muslims and the rest of India only for hindus.

The Kashmir issue will be solved only when Pakistan rids itself of this obsession. They have to look forward towards other goals.
Otherwise I personally do not give Pakistan more than 50 years of exixtence..
They are only being held together by a overbearing army which has complete control over EVERYTHING : politics, economy, social issues etc. etc..
And once this army falls Pakistan will crumble from inside; And a broken Pakistan is very very dangerous for India..
So Prelude, you do the Math; Look at Chechnya..not very different..

I say let the Indians and Pak's nuke it out, who surives who gets Kashmir or... they could just play a game on chess between their leaders, who wins who gets Kashmir.

I think independence should be the number one issue.

They are not indian or pakistani.

Amazing how many non-Indians and non-Kashmiris say 'let them be independent', not caring a jot what the Kashmiris themselves think of the matter.

Ignorance? Apathy? A combination of both?

Originally posted by rajkhalsa2004
Amazing how many non-Indians and non-Kashmiris say 'let them be independent', not caring a jot what the Kashmiris themselves think of the matter.

Ignorance? Apathy? A combination of both?

They want independence. maybe a survey or something could help your cause

Originally posted by rajkhalsa2004
Every single terrorist group active in Kashmir -- Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harkat-ul Mujahideen/Ansar -- are all Pakistan-based militant deobandi ideologists. For those who don't know what Deobandi Islam is, it is one of the most intolerant, exremist forms of militant Islamism, even more radicalized and militant than the wahabi sects of Saudia that formed the ideological basis for the Taleban. Of course, Deobandis and Wahabis are good ideological friends, and Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan are largely funded by billions of dollars of Saudi "aid."

Where else do you think they are based?

THe huge amount og thugs the indians hire to watch the kashmiris.

And what about JKLF?

Nearly, one third of the BSF is deployed in Jammu & Kashmir. As part of its occupation of Kashmir, the Indian Government has deployed more than half a million soldiers and a quarter of a million paramilitary forces. Beginning in 1990 the Indian central government deployed the full range of paramilitary forces to Kashmir, as the Army was unwilling to commit its forces to the counter-insurgency operation.

The indian peace bringers are no so peacful now are they
www.globalsecurity.org...

the country sounds free to me.

Since the early 1990s, Kashmiris themselves have renounced the violence, and due to increasing Pakistani involvement in the terrorism, all the insurgent groups quickly grew in size and power,

Good to here you say insurgent groups


Why do you think they rasie againest the indians? If the majority of the kashmiris hate these groups why did they grow quickly in size and power.?

and are overwhelmingly comprised of Pakistanis -- not Kashmiris! -- from Pakistan

How can you distinguish between a kashmiri from pakistan and india? or has india already settled the border lines?

mostly Pakistani Punjabis who have influxed into Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir, displacing the indigenous Kashmiris in the same way China brought in Han populations into China,

How can they be proved that they weren't there already?

(This itself is in stark comparison to India, who has restricted other Indian influx into Kashmir and has maintained Kashmiri idenity there and thus have them comprise 100% of the population even after nearly 60 years.)

Have you ever thought why the indian hindus fled kashmir? Why would anyone still want to go there?

Even if the Kashmiri, pro-India voice was suppressed and Kashmir given to Al Queda on a silver platter, they will not stop there. Next they will demand their flag flying from the ramparts of the Red Fort in Delhi.

WTF. this sounds just like the domino theory.

You must be insecure to think that is going to happen

That is exactly why that every single opinion poll conducted by a third party -- including the most extensive and the most reputable, a poll conducted by Mori showed that the vast, vast majority of Kashmiris are in favor of union with India, and virtually no one for independance or for Pakistan.[/url]

On the issue of citizenship, overall, 61% said they felt they would be better off politically and economically as an Indian citizen and only 6% as a Pakistani citizen, but 33% said they did not know.

You mean this??

Its a choice between pakistan and indian, No independence


Maybe you should re-read your link

Overall 55% support 'India and Pakistan granting as much autonomy as they can to both sides of Kashmir to govern their own affairs.

Its a small margin but its a start.

shows the obvious that Kashmir, despite it being the victim of cross-border state terrorism by Pakistan, because of the democracy, strong judiciary and rule of law in the state, is rated overall as a 'partly free' state', despite it and because of it being an active warzone. (PDF file) ...Something unheard of compared to all active warzones in the world.

Wow its so free that this happens

Even last election, Jammu and Kashmir state was universially declared fair on the Indians by America, Britian, UN, etc.

Fair on the indians?

And moreover, Jammu and Kashmir state of India -- the 'disputed' region suffering 'oppression' and yadda yadda by India -- is actually rated very significantly higher in the freedom index itself than Pakistan, which is rated as a very low 6.5 -- 'not free' at all. (PDF file)

Giving a state less freedom of speech doesn't make the country a better state.

Pakistan was given a low score because it is controlled by the military.

I.e., the so-called Kashmiri vicitim of 'oppression' that the Pakistani opines for against actually enjoys much more freedom, democracy, economic development, education, connectivity, and lack of oppression than the much-more supppressed Pakistani populace themselves!

You bet cha.

With all the kidnappings and para-military. any one would smile

In this last report (2005) Pakistan wouldn't allow the researchers to even enter so-called "Azad (free) Kashmir", the part of Kashmir it invaded in 1947 and continues to occupy.

Did they say a reason why.?

And what's even more funny in all of this, Pakistan "gifted" twenty-six thousand square kms of this "Azad" Kashmir to China

That bit of land was never been part of kashmir.

Look at any maps before 1850s and you'll know that they were only taken in the McMahon Line.

The UN resolution categorically stated Pakistan was an aggressor nation who invaded Kashmir in 1947.[/url] The UN resolution demands that Pakistan not only withdraw from its occupied territory (Azad K, Gilgit, Baltistan, etc.) but also allow India, the victim nation, to occupy fully all territories Pak captured, and be responsible for its security. Then, and only then, shall a refferendum be held.

THe victim?

India was asked to leave the minimum, minimum Amount of personal in kashmir because the fighters were actually pakistani tribesmen.

Did the indians leave the minimum amount of troops in kashmir. HELL NO.

However, Pakistan obviously refuses to vacate territories it invaded. And in the last 50 years not only completely destroyed the democgraphic purity in its occupied territory by importing Pakjabis wholescale, but then ethnically cleansed all religious minorities in Kashmir it occupied to literally nothing.

Importing.?

They choose to go there

And further they created Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir into a giant military base, literally restricting peoples freedom there worse than the North Korean government does to its own citizens.

Look at the Indian side.

750,000 indian soldiers controlling 10million or so people.

A ratio of almost 1 soldier to a cillivan. Now if that isn't a military camp what is



[edit on 13-10-2005 by chinawhite]

[edit on 13-10-2005 by chinawhite]

FIRSTLY before any debate I would like to give my condolances to all the Kashmiri brother and sisters, both in Jammu & Kashmir and in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir who have had to face such a terrible targedy as this earthquake in addition to the already difficult lives they are forced to live because of a few short-sighted and power hungry leaders on both sides and also within Kashmir itself.

May God bring peace to you soon, so that once again Kashmir be called 'Jannat' as it so rightly is

Originally posted by chinawhite


Where else do you think they are based?

THe huge amount og thugs the indians hire to watch the kashmiris.

And what about JKLF?

What about the JKLF?? It is headed by Yasin Malik now, who has renounced violence. Hence he is being heard by the Indian Government. Almost all important decisions about the Kashmiri people are taken only after consultation with the Hurriyat and its various factions. More than we can say for so called 'Azad Kashmir'

The indian peace bringers are no so peacful now are they
www.globalsecurity.org...

the country sounds free to me.

Atrocities have been commited. There is no debating that. The Indian Army BSF etc should hang their heads in shame for what they have done. But then what most people do not understand is the environment they are working under. Initially, when they were posted there, when militancy began, everybody in the region was a hostile. They did not know whom to trust. Much like it is for the Americans in Iraq right now. They did not know how to cope with the situation. Nothing could have prepared them for that. Now they are learning fast. Such incidents have gone down dramatically. The army trusts the people and the people are also beginning to slowly and surely trust the army.

Why do you think they rasie againest the indians? If the majority of the kashmiris hate these groups why did they grow quickly in size and power.?

You are selectively reading rajkhalsa's post. The groups grew in size and power because of the financial backing and logistical support they got from the Saudis and the Pakistanis respectively. Plus the million or so 'madarassas' in Pakistan churning out fundamentalist muslims with a totaly twisted set of morals does not help. Its not the fault of the people, they are simply seeing the world that they power hungry leaders want them to see.

How can you distinguish between a kashmiri from pakistan and india? or has india already settled the border lines?

We are not talking about Kashmirirs over here. Not even from POK. We are talking about Punjabis and Pathans and other ethnicities not even remotely related to Kashmir.

How can they be proved that they weren't there already?

Because they were not. Simple. The Punjabis were in Punjab and not in Kashmir. You really dont understand the different cultural groups in the Sub-Continent dont you. Ok let me make it simple. The Punjabis are from Punjab and by and large stay there. The Kashmiris are from Kashmir and by and large stay there. The Tamilians are from Tamil Nadu and by and large stay there. That is why the region is named for them (or they for the region) because they are the in the vast overwhelming majority. And i mean vaassst majority. So naturally demographics like that will not change overnight. And the only way to do so is by forcefull migration.

Have you ever thought why the indian hindus fled kashmir? Why would anyone still want to go there?

That statement is totally.....well i am speechless. I suggest you go and do some reading on the topic. The Hindus were slaughtered like lambs. Threatened with total extermination. Husbands were killed, daughters were raped, and children tortured. And it was all done systematically. This is the only grudge i have aginst the Kashmiris. They stood by and let this happen. Oh trust me they were not doing it themsleves. Whatever happened was at the instigation of someone else. But the Kashmiri Muslims did not stop it. Maybe they were afraid for their own lives, whatever, but they should have done something.

WTF. this sounds just like the domino theory.

You must be insecure to think that is going to happen

Actually no. He is very right about what he is talking about. That is the stated objective of most of the Militant Organizations

That is exactly why that every single opinion poll conducted by a third party -- including the most extensive and the most reputable, a poll conducted by Mori showed that the vast, vast majority of Kashmiris are in favor of union with India, and virtually no one for independance or for Pakistan.[/url]

Its a choice between pakistan and indian, No independence


Maybe you should re-read your link

Overall 55% support 'India and Pakistan granting as much autonomy as they can to both sides of Kashmir to govern their own affairs.

Maybe you should re-read it instead

A very clear majority of the population - 65% - believes the presence of foreign militants in Jammu and Kashmir is damaging to the Kashmir cause, and most of the rest take the view that it is neither damaging nor helpful.

Overall, two thirds of people in Jammu and Kashmir take the view that Pakistan's involvement in the region for the last ten years has been bad. Only 15% believe it has been good for the region, while 18% say it has made no real difference.

An end to militant violence in the region - 86%
Stopping the infiltration of militants across the Line of Control - 88%

There are also mixed views about the role and impact of the Indian security forces. In Srinagar and Leh, at least nine out of ten believe that security forces scaling down their operations in Jammu and Kashmir would help to bring peace, whereas in Jammu opinions are reversed.

There are clearly different perceptions of the behaviour of the Indian security forces. Nobody interviewed in Leh or Jammu believes that human rights violations by Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir are widespread, whereas in Srinagar 64% of the population think they are widespread.

Perceptions are different with respect to human rights violations by militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir. 96% of those in Jammu believe such violations are widespread whereas only 2% of those in Srinagar believe they are widespread (although 33% believe they are 'occasional').

Another thing i find interesting is that this sort of a poll by an International Agency can be conducted in Jammu & Kashmir is a statement to the freedom that the people enjoy there. Catch such a Poll being conducted in POK

Wow its so free that this happens

True these things did happen, but again you should not so easily discount the circumstances. At the beginning of militancy the common people would help ot the militants. The army did not know what to do. It was not a situation they had been in before. Excesses did take place. But as the attitude of the people has been changing so have the number of such instances going down. The army is learning to trust the people and the people the army

Fair on the indians?

Nofair for the Kashmiris. They had international observers and they voted the National Confrence out of power. Believe me it was in the Interest of the then Central Government to keep the National Confrence, but under the able guidance of then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the people of Kashmir took part in an election that was as fair as it can ever be. Not free cause the militants threatened to kill anyone who voted but as rajkhalsa pointed out the trunout was truly tremendous.

Giving a state less freedom of speech doesn't make the country a better state.

What exactly do you mean by that? If there is one allegation that can never hold true for India its that it does not give its people freedom of speech. The Kashmiris have as much freedom of speech as anyone else in India. Infact even more so. If they didnt have the freedom of speech do you think all those articles that you posted earlier about BSF atrocities would ever have surfaced in such large numbers. Please, you dont know what you are talking about

Pakistan was given a low score because it is controlled by the military.

Exactly. You mean to tell me that a military governemnt can ever be more free than a civilian one

You bet cha.

With all the kidnappings and para-military. any one would smile

It is so easy to just say the Indian Army is bad. It kidnaps people bla bla bla. But what you forget is that Kashmir is classified as a WAR-ZONE. And a geurilla war at that. I think the atrocities committed by the secutiry personnel are truly horrendous and that they should be punished for it, but then they are overworked, understaffed (yes even with all the huge anount of troops, simply because it is very very difficult terrain to patrol and guard) and in constant threat of attack from any direction by sucide bombers. Excesses are bound to happen. They are not perfect. Look at what the Americans did in Vietnam and then multiply it by 10. Thats what the Army faces in Kashmir. But that said the only way for the army to succeed is by stopping these atrocities, and they realise this and are actively working on that front.

Did they say a reason why.?

I dont know about that but i dont think they will have given one. They cannot justify the action in any way

That bit of land was never been part of kashmir.

Look at any maps before 1850s and you'll know that they were only taken in the McMahon Line.

Let us not get into that debate again. Fine China holds a part of Kashmir that India claims as its own. Thats it

THe victim?

India was asked to leave the minimum, minimum Amount of personal in kashmir because the fighters were actually pakistani tribesmen.

Did the indians leave the minimum amount of troops in kashmir. HELL NO.

Yes the victim. The ones who were attacked.

And you want India to leave a minimum force while the Pakistani tribals (along with army regulars) are showing no sign of letting up. Waiting and watching to attack again. The only way for India to leave a minimum force is when Pakistan reigns in these so called tribals and starts withdrawing as it was supposed to. Then and only then can Indian troops withdraw. Rather they will advance because they have to occupy the whole territory before the supposed plebiscite.

Importing.?

They choose to go there

It is more complex than that. Their choices are governed by various factors. State support, brainwashing in the State controlled madarassas etc etc. So yes indirectly importing.

Look at the Indian side.

750,000 indian soldiers controlling 10million or so people.

A ratio of almost 1 soldier to a cillivan. Now if that isn't a military camp what is

A military camp is a place where there is a restriction in the movement of people in and out of the territory. There are no such restrictions in Kashmir. People are free to move about. Infact the only restriction is on people from othe rparts of India trying to settle in Kashmir. This is done to maintain the demographics of the region as was promised by the Indian Government to the people of Kashmir

Originally posted by puneetsg
FIRSTLY before any debate I would like to give my condolances to all the Kashmiri brother and sisters, both in Jammu & Kashmir and in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir who have had to face such a terrible targedy as this earthquake in addition to the already difficult lives they are forced to live because of a few short-sighted and power hungry leaders on both sides and also within Kashmir itself.

Jesus christ.

Give the kashmiris aid......

australia gave kashmir the same amount of aid as they gave america.(the worlds most richest country)

Originally posted by chinawhite
What about the JKLF?? It is headed by Yasin Malik now, who has renounced violence. Hence he is being heard by the Indian Government. Almost all important decisions about the Kashmiri people are taken only after consultation with the Hurriyat and its various factions. More than we can say for so called 'Azad Kashmir'

JKLF might have renouced violence but it still wants independence. But they are trying in a less violent way.

Atrocities have been commited. There is no debating that. The Indian Army BSF etc should hang their heads in shame for what they have done. But then what most people do not understand is the environment they are working under. Initially, when they were posted there, when militancy began, everybody in the region was a hostile. They did not know whom to trust. Much like it is for the Americans in Iraq right now. They did not know how to cope with the situation. Nothing could have prepared them for that. Now they are learning fast.

You are comparing kashmir to iraq.

You are killing kidnapping raping.

You take your frustation out on civillans? Remember east timor. the indonesians killed some civillains and were forced to withdraw. the indians are killing thousands a year. where is the justice?

Such incidents have gone down dramatically. The army trusts the people and the people are also beginning to slowly and surely trust the army.

Have they now.?

Any proof that is from a international news agency?

You are selectively reading rajkhalsa's post.

No

The groups grew in size and power because of the financial backing and logistical support they got from the Saudis and the Pakistanis respectively. Plus the million or so 'madarassas' in Pakistan churning out fundamentalist muslims with a totaly twisted set of morals does not help. Its not the fault of the people, they are simply seeing the world that they power hungry leaders want them to see.

They might have recieved aid from out side sources but that doesn't explain why the large increase in number of supporters.

I dont believe people can brain-washed. it is their choice. they are not pressured into making that choice

We are not talking about Kashmirirs over here. Not even from POK. We are talking about Punjabis and Pathans and other ethnicities not even remotely related to Kashmir.

What have got againest punjabis? I have punjabi friends.

They are from india to.

How can they be proved that they weren't there already?

Because they were not. Simple. The Punjabis were in Punjab and not in Kashmir. You really dont understand the different cultural groups in the Sub-Continent dont you.

I asked how do you know that the punjabis didn't settle there brfore 1947

Have you ever thought why the indian hindus fled kashmir? Why would anyone still want to go there?

That statement is totally.....well i am speechless. I suggest you go and do some reading on the topic. The Hindus were slaughtered like lambs. Threatened with total extermination. Husbands were killed, daughters were raped, and children tortured. And it was all done systematically. This is the only grudge i have aginst the Kashmiris. They stood by and let this happen. Oh trust me they were not doing it themsleves. Whatever happened was at the instigation of someone else. But the Kashmiri Muslims did not stop it. Maybe they were afraid for their own lives, whatever, but they should have done something.

You have read wrong.

I said why would they go back to kashmir even if the indian government encouraged them after all the hindus in kashmir have gone through.

I know what they suffered in POK.

Actually no. He is very right about what he is talking about. That is the stated objective of most of the Militant Organizations

TO invade india.

Sounds just like them

Maybe you should re-read it instead

A very clear majority of the population - 65% - believes the presence of foreign militants in Jammu and Kashmir is damaging to the Kashmir cause, and most of the rest take the view that it is neither damaging nor helpful.

Overall, two thirds of people in Jammu and Kashmir take the view that Pakistan's involvement in the region for the last ten years has been bad. Only 15% believe it has been good for the region, while 18% say it has made no real difference.

An end to militant violence in the region - 86%
Stopping the infiltration of militants across the Line of Control - 88%

There are also mixed views about the role and impact of the Indian security forces. In Srinagar and Leh, at least nine out of ten believe that security forces scaling down their operations in Jammu and Kashmir would help to bring peace, whereas in Jammu opinions are reversed.

That is exactly why that every single opinion poll conducted by a third party -- including the most extensive and the most reputable, a poll conducted by Mori showed that the vast, vast majority of Kashmiris are in favor of union with India, and virtually no one for independance or for Pakistan.[/url]

He said that kashmir choose to be with india rather than pakistan or independence.

Now where in the link does it say that.

Perceptions are different with respect to human rights violations by militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir. 96% of those in Jammu believe such violations are widespread whereas only 2% of those in Srinagar believe they are widespread (although 33% believe they are 'occasional').

I am not here to compare what indians or militants do to the population.

I am comparing the indian police to world PR

Another thing i find interesting is that this sort of a poll by an International Agency can be conducted in Jammu & Kashmir is a statement to the freedom that the people enjoy there. Catch such a Poll being conducted in POK

It was conducted by the JKLF. Im not sure if it was in secret or not.

Well who knows

True these things did happen, but again you should not so easily discount the circumstances. At the beginning of militancy the common people would help ot the militants. The army did not know what to do. It was not a situation they had been in before. Excesses did take place. But as the attitude of the people has been changing so have the number of such instances going down. The army is learning to trust the people and the people the army

And why would the people help militants? because they sympathize for their cause.

I know that are a while the people might trust the army that killed so many but that is a big what if.

In those circumstances it hasn't worked. eg. vietnam or afganistan

Giving a state less freedom of speech doesn't make the country a better state.

What exactly do you mean by that? If there is one allegation that can never hold true for India its that it does not give its people freedom of speech. The Kashmiris have as much freedom of speech as anyone else in India. Infact even more so. If they didnt have the freedom of speech do you think all those articles that you posted earlier about BSF atrocities would ever have surfaced in such large numbers. Please, you dont know what you are talking about

I mis-typed that

what i meant to say is Giving a state more freedom of speech doesn't make the country a better state

Exactly. You mean to tell me that a military governemnt can ever be more free than a civilian one

What about their media.

It is so easy to just say the Indian Army is bad. It kidnaps people bla bla bla. But what you forget is that Kashmir is classified as a WAR-ZONE. And a geurilla war at that. I think the atrocities committed by the secutiry personnel are truly horrendous and that they should be punished for it, but then they are overworked, understaffed (yes even with all the huge anount of troops, simply because it is very very difficult terrain to patrol and guard) and in constant threat of attack from any direction by sucide bombers. Excesses are bound to happen.

Under staffed. may you give a better reason than that.

750,000 men for 10million is not understaffed. Not even the russians in afganistan had that much troops or america in vietnam.

And they were also facing a far larger and organized army

They are not perfect. Look at what the Americans did in Vietnam and then multiply it by 10. Thats what the Army faces in Kashmir. But that said the only way for the army to succeed is by stopping these atrocities, and they realise this and are actively working on that front.

the americans were fighting nearly the whole vietnamese population.

The indians are fighting 20 thousand or so men. You see the difference.

THe vietnamese also had a lot more support and weapons.

I dont know about that but i dont think they will have given one. They cannot justify the action in any way

Its their area to control. they dont have to let people in.

Why doesn't australia let the refugees in?

Let us not get into that debate again. Fine China holds a part of Kashmir that India claims as its own. Thats it

This is the question i want rak to answer.

Its one of the reasons i enter the disscusion.

Yes the victim. The ones who were attacked.

It attacked first.

THose fighters that attacked kashmir were not the pakistani army.

And you want India to leave a minimum force while the Pakistani tribals (along with army regulars) are showing no sign of letting up. Waiting and watching to attack again. The only way for India to leave a minimum force is when Pakistan reigns in these so called tribals and starts withdrawing as it was supposed to. Then and only then can Indian troops withdraw. Rather they will advance because they have to occupy the whole territory before the supposed plebiscite.

While this has dragged on for this much years already.

I think leaving the borders at the line of control is better for now. and a possible independent kashmir latter on

It is more complex than that. Their choices are governed by various factors. State support, brainwashing in the State controlled madarassas etc etc. So yes indirectly importing.

how can you be sure they are brainwashed.

If i was given a bigger piece of land i will take it.

A military camp is a place where there is a restriction in the movement of people in and out of the territory. There are no such restrictions in Kashmir. People are free to move about. Infact the only restriction is on people from othe rparts of India trying to settle in Kashmir. This is done to maintain the demographics of the region as was promised by the Indian Government to the people of Kashmir

Why the 750,000 men in kashmir?

The 20thousand fighters dont justify that large a number

India, Pakistan open frontier for civilians

TEETHWAL, India (AP) --

For the first time in 58 years, Indians legally walked into Pakistan on Saturday after a landmark decision to open divided Kashmir's heavily militarized border.

The temporary measure -- aimed at reuniting families after the earthquake that devastated the region -- may go a long way toward easing tensions between the two nuclear rivals.

www.cnn.com...

(Temporarily?) Independent/Neutral? This is welcomed news and a positive step for both countries, just a little sad that it took such a destructive force of nature to reach a temporary human truce. Hopefully it will last.


[edit on 19-11-2005 by Vajrayana]

Ahhhaa!! So this is whats been cooking when I was away aye??
Anyways..I'll dive into this a little later..

Don't feel bad/jealous cw..
We've handled Kashmir MUCH better than you've handled Taiwan..
Independance is a non-issue here.
That can be decided after all the non-muslim population, that was driven out by the militants, is re-habitated inot the Valley.
Actually an independant Kashmir will DEFINITELY become Osama's new "retreat state".
I can guarantee it!
In the end it'll spell trouble for all countries in the region who are fighting this islamic fundamentalism.
NOTE I say countries who are combating terrorism, not those who are actively aiding it and/or those who are giving "moral support".
The US is out of the picture as they know Kashmir is very sensitive to India, and they're counting on this new relationsip thing with India.
Russia's always supported India.
The EU is abstaining I suppose.
I don't think China is actively supporting Pakistan.Otherwise we would have at least seen some moral support during Kargil.
And except for the Middle East(also consider Kashmir a very low-priority issue), nobody else cares.
Summary: Kashmir stays as it is.

[edit on 20-11-2005 by Daedalus3]

Can you people simply state your own thoughts without doing the quote-response quote-response thing?

This does nothing more than indicate that you cannot read, comprehend and then formulate your own thoughts.

If you attempt this idea, please remember to use paragraphs; that will certainly help us read your thoughts, unlike the two new examples of cumbersome BS.

I am very interested about what this whole conflict is about. Why is Kashmir so special? Is it rich in minerals, ore, or something else? Does it hold a militarily strategic value much like the Golan Heights?

oh Daedalus3,

I am hardly jealous over indias handling over kashmir.

I sense some aggression from you over this subject. was it me?. I replied in complete disgust over raks paradise in kashmir. This has nothing to do with a indian chinese comparison you always try to make it out to be.

Cant two people talk about a subject where their nationality doesn't matter

[edit on 20-11-2005 by chinawhite]

One idea that hasnt been proposed yet has been the idea of a joint occupation by India and Pakistan in Kashmir. Now this idea may not seem possible givien the tension between the two countries, but the precedent does exist to show that it is possible.

The U.S. and Great Britian agreed to this plan shortly after the War of 1812 between the two countries, so they weren't exactly in good relations at the time. This continued sucessfully until the territory was split in a treaty signed in 1846.

My idea is ti give Kashmir what I am calling "bridge nation" status. They would write there own Constitution, but it can't directly conflict either the Pakistani or Indian Costitutions. The provinces within Kashmir would also write their own Constitutions that as long as they didn't conflict with the Kashmiri Constitution would be free to state what they wish.

Kashmir would be given a tricameral legislature. One house would consist of two people from each province using popular vote to fill each post. The 2nd house would be filled by the population as a whole using proportional representation. The 3rd would be filled by appointees of the Indian and Pakistani governments. If two of the houses pass a bill the other can only block it with a 2/3 majority against the bill. Ties in any one house would be broken by the Prime Minster, elected by a combined legislative vote in a plurality vote.

The government would be headed by a President who must be a Kashmiri citizen. He would have veto power over the Legislative branch. The Presidents of India and Pakistan however would have a combined veto power. Vetos can be overidden by a 2/3 majority in 2 of the houses and a 1/2 majority in the other house.

Citizens of Kashmir will be given citizen status in both India and Pakistan. They will not get the right to vote in federal elections in either country but can send representatives to both legislative branches. The region will be under the military protection of both nations with the commander of the troops in tha region appointed by the Kashmir President.

A baseline Kashmiri budget will be agreed upon and contributed to equally by India and Pakistan. The Kashmir government can also institute it's own taxes if additional funds are necessary. The Kashmir government will have the sole decision on how to use it's funds. Kashmiri citizens will be taxed 6%; 3% going each to India and Pakistan.

Actually Pakistan will seize this "joint ownership" deal if it is ever floated as they know it is their best chance of acquiring kashmir.
They cannot do it by pure force and have failed to do it by insurgency for over a decade.
Actually where does joint ownership,independance etc etc. come in to play when there is a general international consensus that one side HAS terror camps actively training militants that infiltrate into the other side and cause havoc.
There is no "freedom fighting" when the 90% of the fighters are coming from across the border!!
And why give joint ownership to a nation that actively sponsors cross-border terrorrism??!
The above mentioned facts are no secret to the international community. At least those who have the tech,time and effort to take sat phots of the Pak controlled area. Terror camps clearly visible.
And as we speak people die everyday in Kashmir at the hands of these blasts and terror attacks..
All this rubbish abt independance and joint ownership is preposterous when the is no "indigenous" freedom movement and the "other" country involved is /has been conducting a proxy war for more than 15 years!!
Kargil was no "freedom movement"!
And note Pakistan is not willing to accept Kargil as a war, i.e involving pak soldiers.
Then where did all those heavily armed/fortified troops come from?
Did they just magically appear on those mountain/hill tops?!

Please ppl (international comm on ATS).. What is the confusion all about??
It seems crystal clear to me!

As a Russian I ll try to play a bit straight forward in this Issue

Why not Solve this case according to the Rule of the Jungle...if you have the Might ...you get the Right....

I personally Think India shold ceaze Kashmir ....look at the scnario of the whole world... It tells only one thing .....BILATERAL TALKS ARE USELESS WHERE ISLAM/MUSLIMS are involved irrespective of all those steriotype views like "all muslims are not bad"n "Islam dosent teach about terrorism" The fact is that the Muslims have problem with everone else be it USA , Russia , Israel,France , Spain ,Britain or India .Infact I think 99%of todays international terror issues are islam related ......

you may say I am a racist ..etc etc etc ...but the fact is that when ever they have a problem they have something which they call Jehad (irrespective what the Koran says)....they know others cant afford to be as uncivilized as they are ...and thus they go on with their uncivilived acts and thereby gaining cheap popularity of being local heroes

......This is known to all but recognised by few ...so my opinion is when they want war why not give them a War ?whats the use of talking to those who dont want to listen?

India should be more strict while protecting her territories else she will have to pay for her so-called "greatness" as she has done in the past



[edit on 22-11-2005 by prelude]