Rethinking Plebiscite In Kashmir

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

Kashmiris on both side of LOC have the right to fight for Freedom from the Tyrant India. It is not cross-border terrorism but a War of Independence. Both India and Pakistan should liberate the occupied territories and give Kashmiris the right of self-determination like East Timor. Until then Kashmiris should fight to the last Kashmiri. The tyranny may prolong with the blessings of Coloniast/Zionists but it will not last for ever. Kasmiris want Azadi- Azadi from the Tyrant India and American-agents coward Pakistani leadership.

To many of the inter-actors on this, and other, threads at chowk, I would like to just state one simple fact - the roads to Delhi for friends and neighbours do not lead only through Kashmir.

This, by the way, is a slight variation of what Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose said in 1942, to people gathered in Singapore, dreaming of a free sub-Continent.

arjun,

..... i think you and romair should get married ................

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

mohar11 #108
``And after back-to-back brushes with death - Musharraf has understood the terrorist menace perfectly well, or so one hopes.``

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_27-12-2003_pg7_34

``He [Federal Information Minister Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed] also said the jihadi culture in Pakistan could not be changed and he who denied jihad had no place in Islam, adding “But whether or not it is jihad can only be decided by the State.”


Aaisa hai ki God has subcontracted the doors of heaven to the Pakistani State. ``Get a permit from the Pakistani government, get your 72 houris for eternity``. Simble.

Now imagine God`s subcontractor having to say to permit holders, ``Na na naughty naughty, CEO of God`s subcontractor is off limits, no eternity or houris for you now.`` Not so Simble.



The SAARC summit must not be put off for such a reason, but its clear Vajpayee and other S. Asian heads of government will be putting themselves at considerable personal risk by attending.

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

#99 by HisExcellency on December 28, 2003 8:32am PT
//... However, this is not a new offer...Musharraf had already hinted at this during Agra. But India chose to ignore the offer then. And I believe India will pretend not to heed it this time either.//

Exactly. The reason is: the the issue of UN resolution is a dead one, except in collective-minds of deluded pakistanis. By ``offering`` to accept the ground realities, Musharraf is NOT doing India any favor. At best - he is preparing pakistanis for the eventuality - waking them up after years of delusional slumber.

So it makes no difference to India, makes no difference on ground. Only thing that makes a difference on ground is the cessation of cross-border terrorism and complete and permanent destruction of their training facilties inside Pakistan.

That is why Vajpayee is not going to bother about Musharraf`s ``breahtakingly bold`` offer. Only thing he is going talk about the the terrorism, cross-border or otherwise.

And after back-to-back brushes with death - Musharraf has understood the terrorist menace perfectly well, or so one hopes. Any case - He is hardly in a position to moralize about ``freedom-fighting`` to deflect the accusations of cross-border terrorism.

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

If India really wants to push the cross-border terrorism line of thinking and argument, it needs to make a few changes in the way it pursues it:

1. Pakistan (and the world) has proposed the monitoring of the LOC by the following agencies, to highlight cross-LOC happenings:

- A UN Observors group
- SAARC forces
- An international military

India has refused to accept any of these offers. It wants to ensure the LOC is not monitored by anyone. In fact, there is actually a UN Obserovors group in Indian Kashmir, yet India does not allow it to go and monitor the LOC. Hence, it becomes very difficult to accept, or at least quantify, the Indian claims of any cross-border activity and its magnitude. Thus India is shooting itself in the foot, by first bringing up cross-border activity, and then itself banning any quantification of it.

This basically leaves it up to India to decide when and how it is happening. It would be much better off allowing neutral bodies to monitor the LOC.

2. The second part is regarding the terrorism. The best people to justify this are the people against whom the terrorism is occuring. In case of Indian Kashmir, both Pakistanis and Indians outwardly show a concern for the Kashmiris. India states that Pakistani terrorists are killing them. And Pakistan states that Indian military forces are killing them. Pakistan calls Indian military forces state terrorists, while it considers the civilian fighters to be freedom fighters. While India considers the opposite.

So the solution would be to ask the Kashmiris whom they consider to be the terrorists and the freedom fighters. And then accept the answer. However, India is completely refusing to ask the Kashmiris, and is just bent upon speaking for them, regarding who they consider to the be the real enemy, i.e. the Indian forces or the civilian fighters.

3. The third part is to allow access to the international human rights organizations into Kashmir to validate India`s claim of terrorism in Kashmir. Obviously, one cannot just accept the claims of the Indian (or Pakistani) govts. on who is at fault in the area.

Yet India has completely banned all HR organizations and international press in the area. Every military action of the US in Iraq is reported and monitored internationally. Every military action of the Israelis in Palestine is reported and monitored internaitonally, since USA and Iraq have not banned any HR or media organization. Yet not a single military action or civilian military action in Kashmir is allowed to be monitored or reported internationally.

Once again, the only statement that comes out is the one by the Indian govt., about what is happening.

Based on this, as someone with ties to Kashmir, I really find it frustrating and bloody-minded of the Indian authorities to, on the one hand hinge any solution to Kashmir on, ``cross-border terrorism`` and on the other hand go out of its way to ensure that the border is not monitored and the terrrorism is not monitored either.

Why is it doing that? What is it hiding? And how can one reach a solution to the problem, when one country is completely unwilling to expose the problem to the rest of the world, and is bent upon forcing everyone to accept its view of the situaiton?

If whatever India states about terrorism in Kashmir is accurate, then I will be the first to state that the Kashmiris would be better off with India. The Kashmiris would themselves vote that way. Why wouldn`t they? But if India and Indians are so sure of their stance on terrorism in Kashmir, why don`t they encourage their own govt. to stop hiding it from the rest of the world?

I have a fear that Vajpayee will now come to Islamabad, repeat the whole cross-border terrorism mantra, will refuse any ideas on allowing neutral agencies to confirm his allegations, and we will be back to square one.

At the very least, well-meaning Indians, who want friendly relations with Pakistan, should encourage their govt. to open up Kashmir to the rest of the world, much like Palestine and Iraq are open, so at least the claims of their own Prime Minister can be validated. Until then, I don`t see how they, themselves, know what is going on in Kashmir, other than what is fed to them by their state media.

Opening up Kashmir is thus the best way for India to solidify its stance, and prove Pakistan`s stance to be wrong.

#100

Faruk to anew,

``All these human rights violations have been committed by the Pakistani military on the Pakistani people. How come your conscience does not provoke you to strive for the rights of the Pakistani people?``

Faruk saab, please don`t advice anew/Roamir about his job, ok ;)

#100 by Faruk on December 28, 2003 8:37am PT

Stop watching Zee News and Doordarshan. Beside them only Pakistani corrupt and inefficient politicians make such accusations.

India must end the human right violations in Kashmir and reduce its para-military forces in Kashmir.

ROMAIR

firstly, dont try the goebbelian trick of repeating the untruth to make it the truth. pakistan has NOT officially agreed to let the UN resolutions go. it was something musharraf himself half-denied later, along with stout denials by jamali et al. so this ``climbdown`` by musharraf is very dubious, because OFFICIALLY pakistan has not changed its position on kashmir yet. it is still OFFICIALLY not for an independent kashmir, and only wants the 1947 scenario options.

a) kashmir joining pakistan and kashmir staying independent? you claim earnestly that the people of pakistan will accept whatever the kashmiris accept. if so, why has no government of pakistan, at any point of time, agreed to a 3-choice plebiscite? why are all candidates in POK elections made to sign an undertaking supporting the entire kashmir joining to pakistan. a few weeks back, an ex-PM of POK....dont remember his name.......pushed for the chenab formula. now the chenab formula gives to pakistan land beyond all realms of reality. it leaves only part of jammu and whole ladakh with india. yet there was a big hue and cry about this statement by the dude.

why has pakistan been pumping money into POK? just to let it be independent after all? do you really think we all are born yesterday? pakistanis basically want kashmiris to joihn them. they will agree to ``whatever kashmiris want``, only as long as kashmiris keep wanting what pakistanis want. if that wasnt the case, the hurriyat wouldnt have split, and even after the split, the pakistani government would not have supported just one of the two factions.

b) ok i am kinda sick and tired of this junagarh-hyderabad-junagarh-hyderabad-junagarh-hyderabad-junagarh-hyderabad-junagarh-hyderabad-junagarh-hyderabad-junagarh-hyderabad-junagarh-hyderabad whine of pakistan`s. in 1947-48, at any time, did the government of Pakistan, liyaqat, jinnah et al, say that ``junagarh`s fate should be decided by the people of junagarh and not the king.``? or that the fate of hyderabad should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of hyderabad and not the nizam? they never said that. the government of pakistan kept drooling at the prospect of junagarh. they were drooling at the thought of the nizam of hyd saying he wante d to join pakistan so that they could have another east pakistan style disjointed territory. pakistan never renounced these 2 territories saying ``they are hindu majority, so we have no interest in them. please give us our kashmir and we will go home.`` in the same way, india was drooling over kashmir.

The only difference is that India managed to ``swallow`` Kashmir, while Pakistan failed miserably to ``swallow`` junagarh and hyd, and lost out kashmir in the process as well. to the victor belong the spoils etc etc.

c) the people of india do not believe that kashmiris want to stay with india. the people of india believe that the kashmiris alone have no business deciding where the territory of J&K goes. I assure you neither the people of India nor the government have any problems with Kashmiris becoming Pakistanis. Let them. However we have serious problems with Kashmiri land becoming pakistani land. the indian people also wonder that if kashmiris wanted just to join pakistan, then why did they not do anything during the 1965 war? see what happened in the 1971 war, the bengalis did not want to be part of pakistan, so they helped the indian army. why did the average kashmiri stay so aloof in 1965, and right through 70s? Why is it that until the 80s or so the azaadi movement was mainly a fringe movement and all these hurriyat leaders were members of the congress? the people of india realise that kashmiris are pissed off with india, because india....and/or indira.......screwed them over. in the 80s, the corruption was rampant, employment zilch, and situation deteriorating. next door, pakistan was doing very well in comparison, thanks to the afghan war dollars and the petro dollars. pakistan seemed a more viable alternative. for all this talk of army atrocities, please remember, that the Indian army moved in to kashmir only AFTER the insurgency started, almost 1-1.5 year AFTER the rubaiyya kidnapping. so the people of india feel that since the india of 20003 is not the india of 1980s, kashmiris have more to gain by staying with india. something that people of punjab and mizoram realised rapidly. once a hotbed of terrorism, punjab is one of the fastest growing states in india. the punjabis realised that staying with india is more profitable. indian people hope that the kashmiris will realise this too. forget the blunders of the 70s and 80s, and move ahead.

because one thing is for sure. plain and simple. we aint giving up an inch of land. we probably will sponsor a one way ticket to pakistan though, and have no problems with kashmiris becoming pakistanis. savvy?

the simple question is, why should india leave kashmir? nations do not really have hearts. britain did not grant us freedom because they melted at the satyagrahi`s plight. they did so because it was unprofitable to keep ruling. why did the soviets pull out of afghanistan? noty because they realised they were oppressing poor afghans, but because there was not much to gain. why did nixon pull out of vietnam? because they suddenly realised charlie was a nice guy? nope, too many body bags made it unviable to stay there. and why did pakistan accept the separation of bangladesh? because they realised the fundas behind bengali nationhood? nope, because sticking on to it wasnt worth it, and wouldve caused enough headaches.

why should india give up kashmir? pakistan has been trying very hard for over 5 decades to make the ``occupation``(there i said it) of kashmir unviable for india. hasnt worked. and until that doesnt happen, india will not budge. ur terrorists/jehadis could make it unviable for the soviets in afghanistan, but not for us.

all these grandiose dialogues about people`s will etc sound nice on petitions and in speeches, but in the hard real world, it is all about cost and benefit.

oh, and romair, is the pope thinking of conferring sainthood on you?

anew, another goebbelian tactic. which constitution are you talking about? the article 1 of the constitution of india says

THE UNION AND ITS TERRITORY

1. Name and territory of the union

(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.



The name of this country is India, as well as Bharat. What you wrote sounds as stupid as saying ``there is no country called germany, germany does not exist. the country is deutscheland.``

Idiot!!!!

Re : anew # 98
“The cruelties on defenseless citizens, illegal arrests, custodial killings, arson and blasting of residential houses and using rape as a weapon by the occupation forces are some of the main violations of basic human rights.”

All these human rights violations have been committed by the Pakistani military on the Pakistani people. How come your conscience does not provoke you to strive for the rights of the Pakistani people?

Regards,

Faruk

#94 by dost-mittar

+++
One would like to think that the peace process under way on the subcontinent is for real and not a continuation of scoring diplomatic and other points in the international arena.
+++
I don`t think this offer was made entirely for the purpose of gamesmanship. However, this is not a new offer. Musharraf had already hinted at this during Agra. But India chose to ignore the offer then. And I believe India will pretend not to heed it this time either. My prediction is that Vajpayee will strike a confrontational note at the SAARC conference and will revert to the ``cross-border terrorism mantra`` (despite acknowledging that infiltration stopped completely in November). If Vajpayee proves my prediction wrong, I would join you in celebrations.