Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

Ref sameerJB #13

[... It is true that Kashmir had Muslim majority state and did not end up in Pakistan. The problem is that legality of Muslim majority going to Pakistan was agreed upon by two makor political parties with colonial government.]

Not true at all.

The agreement that Muslim-majority areas will go to Pakistan applied only to British-India. The princely states could make up their own minds about what country to join. Kashmir was a princely state under Hari Singh and Hari Singh had the sole authority to decide which country to join. Bhopal, ruled by a Muslim nawab and having a goodly Muslim population, joined India even though the nawab`s family migrated to Pakistan later.

The real problem was Jinnah sending in the tribals to conquer Kashmir because Hari Singh wanted to test the possibility of remaining independent. If he had given Hari Singh a bit more time, the popular voice of Kashmiris would have been heard and either Kashmir would have joined Pakistan and Hari Singh would have packed off to New Delhi or Sheikh Abdullah would have supported accession to India (which he did anyway). The case would have been very clean. Jinnah muddied the waters.

He also muddied the waters with Junagadh and Hyderabad. But that is a different point. Or maybe not. Depends on your viewpoint.

Ref dost-mittar #11

[And the outside mediation will most likely result in, as you say, de jure recognition of the de facto borders, with some minor adjustments to placate the Pakistanis, and greater autonomy for Kashmiris.]

What exactly is the definition or meaning of greater autonomy? As it is, the louts are running Bihar with no control; the Sangilikkaruppans are in power in Tamil Nadu; SM Krishna of Karnataka thumbs his nose at the Supreme Court refusing to release water from the Cauvery river to Tamil Nadu; Kerala is building dams across a river that starts in Tamil Nadu, wanders a few miles into Kerala before returning to Tamil Nadu, so that they could divert the water into Kerala. One may not like Sheikh Abdullah, Farouk Abdullah or his son Omar but they were/are native Kashmiris who mismanaged the only state which got the greatest amount of handouts from the Center. True, that she-dog Indira Gandhi attempted to bring in a Congress govt through rigged elections in Kashmir but that was long ago and the National Conference came back to power. Does the Center interfere in the affairs of any state? It cannot because it is a coalition government that requires the support of Telugu Desam which is in power in Andhra, National Conference of Jammu & Kashmir (recently ousted in the elections), and those who want to share in the Center`s treasury such as DMK, Congress (N), Trinamool Congress, Janata Dal, and a total of 22 parties. The current chief minister of J&K himself used to be the Central Home Minister a while back whose daughter was kidnapped by the militants in Kashmir and he is trying to ``bring the healing touch`` to Kashmir. Of course when his daughter`s life was at stake, he got the Central govt to meet the militants` demands so that he could get her back but now he is releasing all those guys from prison without consulting the security authorities. How much more autonomy do you want?

J&K is not going to get its own currency, army or ambassadors to the rest of the world. They have to learn to behave like a part of India. Then, whoever gets elected can rip off the locals. Anyway, that is the aim of all these militants: how to get into power. It wasn`t that different in 1947 with Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan.

# 6
nazarhayatkhan
im reminded of something someone said wrt the agra summit which struck me as very true.. musharrafs personal victory at agra was at the cost of pakistan as a nation

...t dude, stick to being a cheerleader in a pink skirt for farceanna`s trash...the rest of your nonsense is exposed quite well in #16...

Temporal:

It should have been easier for all the three parties to backtrack on Kashmir now because:

1. The military for the first time has receded from its aggressive posture on Kashmir (i.e. from proxy war).

2. The Islamists are also talking about Simla Accord and Lahore Declaration. To a question to Maulana Fazal ur Rehman of Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (MMA) at ARY Digital TV on Islamic countries not supporting Pakistan on Kashmir as forcefully as Pakistan does on Palestine, he said that `its because Kashmir is a bilateral issue and we have signed agreements to this effect. The issue of Kashmir therefore, has to be resolved bilaterally and not internationally`. Professor Khurshid Ahmad of Jamaat-e-Islami (MMA) yesterday told the PTV interviewers that in response to belligerence being shown by India on the killing of Kashmiri Hindus, we need to be sympathetic to human misery there and keep inviting India to a negotiating table under the provisions of the two bilateral agreements.

Problem: Pakistan has decidedly gone against the USA on War on Iraq instead of maintaining a balanced position, hence our arm has to be twisted. Therefore,

1. Accusation of helping some 3rd country on nuclear technology have surfaced again.

2. Restrictions have been put on our exports once again.

3. And specifically on Kashmir, suddenly the totally non-motive oriented Kashmiri massacre has taken place and Indian Government has become belligerent. In a statement issued immediately after the gory event, General Musharraf had said that `unknown forces are playing in Indian held Kashmir`. I predict that such incidences will increase. There may be a hoax attack on some other Indian national symbol of pride or a hijack drama by these unknown forces. In a matter of factly way, I am suggesting that the USA will now be encouraging India to get back to work on Pakistan. The unknown forces will ensure that India does that.

So much for a radical approach for Kashmiris.

I think temporal aims to twist the facts. He started his article with the following note:

‘Kashmir is the key, let us discuss it first,’ says one side. ‘Let us discuss all bilateral issues,’ says the other.

Indian leaders have never meant to discuss all the bilateral issues. If they`re sincere then why don`t they start discussing all bilateral issues? Why did they get angry when Musharraf asked them to modify their statement as , ``Let us discuss all bilateral issues including Kashmir?``

When Indian leadership is not ready to include the word Kashmir in any of their statements regarding Pakistan then what kind of radical approach you want to suggest?

Do you want to befool others or just yourself?

-

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Pak-o-Ind relations would have been much better had Nehru fulfilled his promises which he made in the UNO to get a ceasefire in Kashmir. Earlier he made similar assurances to the Prime Minister of Pakistan Liaqat Ali Khan.

Jawaharlal Nehru sent the following telegram to Liaqat Ali Khan, the Prime
Minister of Pakistan:

``I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of people and we adhere to this view``

Unfortunately he did everything opposite to what he promised or said to make clear. The subsequent governments in India continued this policy of cheating.

I think Kashmir is a matter of a false prestige for Indians whereas it’s a matter of right and justice for Pakistanis.

--

Indians got the biggest piece of land only because of plebiscite. Why do they wish to deny a small piece of land to Kahmiris through the same process? Why do they wish to keep the Kashmiri families divided across LoC permanently? Why are they wasting a big part of their own resources only for this evil wish?

re: #3 by nakhok

A typical Indian response to Kashmir.. Pak army is the villain, everybody else including Indian politicians are the heroes. Tsk tsk, when will you every learn that Pakistanis are too smart to fall for this trap.

Basically, you have not said anything new except the same hardline policy that ignores the aspirations of Kashmiris and pegs the entire blame on Pakistan Army.. as if the Pakistani generals suddenly engineered an entire movement in Kashmir.

I am afraid you give more credit to Pakistani generals than they deserve:)

First, lets set the record straight.

1) Kargil was okayed by Mian Nawaz Sharif himself, in the presence of several cabinet members and military officers. Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain (the Interior Minister in Nawaz govt and a powerful Muslim League politician) was sitting in the same room when Kargil was being planned. This is common knowledge in Pakistan.

2) A common misperception in India is that Pakistan Army wants confrontation whereas Pakistani politicians/civilians want rapproachment. This is far from true.

The first Indo-Pak war in 1948 happened while the Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah was in power.

The second war in 1965 occurred when General Ayub Khan was in power. But the architect of Operation Gibraltar (that started it all) was Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a civilian.

The third war in 1971 happened when General Yahya was in power, but once again the architect of this war was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He threatened to break the legs of any PPP MNA who attended the National Assembly session in Dhaka. Until February 1971, the Army was quite willing to transfer power to Mujibur Rehman. Bhutto`s threats to boycott the session became shrill after Feb 17 and the rest is history.

And the near-war in Kargil itself was okayed by Nawaz Sharif.

3) Only a few Jihadi outfits dream of a ``Pakistani flag at Delhi``. The army, politicians and most of the Mullahs don`t share that dream. You are simply using the utterances of a few fanatics to draw incorrect conclusions about an entire nation.

4) And finally, the misconception that India is pro-peace and Pakistan is pro-War. Let me remind you of 1971.

Pakistan and India had already signed a bilateral agreement at Tashkent 5 years ago. Both countries were at peace. Cricket matches were being played, the spirit of friendship was in full swing, Indo-Pak relations couldn`t be better. Then suddenly Indian intelligence engineered the hijacking of an Indian Airliner. The intent was to cancel overflights from West Pakistan to East Pakistan.

The big neighbour was conspiring to breakup the little neighbour all through the 5 years from Tashkent. Mukhti Bahni was funded and given shelter in West Bengal. Indira Gandhi suddenly started making speeches about ``cracks in Two nation theory``. Instead of letting Pakistan take care of its internal problem, India attacked the status quo and broke all rules of Tashkent.

I ask the Indian chowkies: Why this hypocrisy?

If it was okay to uphold human rights and secession in 1971, why not in Kashmir in 1989? If it was okay to challenge the status quo in Dhaka, why not in Srinagar? If it was okay for Mukhti Bahni to kill Pakistani soldiers in East Pak, what is the big deal about Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar fidayeen attacking Indian army in Kashmir?

It is quite clear that there is a large constituency of Pakistan haters in India who will not stop at their machinations even if Kashmir issue is resolved. For them, Pakistan is a defeat for their fantastic ideas of ``Akhund Bharat``.

-

Indian govt thinks that it could keep India united only by keeping its people focused towards Pakistan. If Kashmir gets independent then there`re many other states which are ready to demand their freedom from India. On the other hand if Pakistan gives up its stance on Kashmir then Indian govt will open some other sector. There was only one time in the history when Pakistan kept a low profile about Kashmir, then India moved towards Siachin. Therefore, it’s better for Pakistan not to ignore Kashmir. It must settle this issue first with India before talking something else.

Never turn your face away from a dog when it’s still unleashed.

-

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Kashmir issue is created by the British rulers who failed to rule over Kashmiris directly. First of all they sold Kashmir to Maharaja Gulab Singh against the will of Kashmiris. Then they paved the way of illegal Kashmiri acession to India by giving the district of Gurudaspur to India even when it appeared as a Muslim majority district in the Indian plebiscite. Without Grudaspur India had no geographical link with Kashmir.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts