With all do respect. The option of independance was never an option when the two countries were formed...
As Yahoo pointed out, the princely states did have the option to remain independent. I agree, this was not a viable option in most cases as the vast majority of these states were little more than glorified jagirs and zamindaris, and consisted of a few villages and a fortress. Even the larger princely states like Hyderabad, Bhopal, Udaipur, Mysore, etc were completely landlocked and surrounded by Indian territory on all sides. Jammu & Kashmir, however, was different - it was one of the largest and most prominent princely states in British India, and it shared borders with Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, China, and Tibet.
But I see no reason why a Kashmir free of Indian domination, would not profit from a stable and prosperous Pakistan...And as a Landlocked state, that is far better conected to Pakistan then to India, as far as I know, you would profit from having access to Pak.
I agree that Kashmir would benefit from having access to (and friendly relations with) a stable Pakistan. To this day Kashmir has no reliable all-weather roads linking it to India; its only land link that's usable year-round is the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad-Rawalpindi road, a vital economic link that has essentially been closed since 1948.
That said, I think the overwhelming majority of Kashmiris are not particularly interested in becoming citizens of Pakistan. While general opinions on Pakistan remain fairly positive, people have become increasingly critical of the fact that by the early-mid '90's, Pakistan had essentially cut off the pro-independence, native-Kashmiri groups and shifted its support to foreign, right-wing Islamist militants who favor merger with Pakistan. Today, the only people in Kashmir who do support union with Pakistan are the Jamaat-e-Islami and other groups, who really only represent a fringe-minority in the region.
This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have heard of late. Under what international law can Pakistan "take over an independent k"?A country cannot invade and occupy a country now, much less a newly independent one.
I think ur argument r out of context. Read the entire exchanges of our posts before commenting on just one post.
Anyways,
Under the same internation laws that pakistani invited guests provided (aka freedom fighters) help to the kashmiris and indian guests provided help to mukti bahini. Did usa consult u when they carpet bombed iraq or afgh? NO.
In case you missed it, Iraq, eyeing the vast oil resources of Kuwait, tried to invade Kuwait but that didn't go very well, did it? Even more than three decades ago not even, geographically speaking, "mini me" Bangladesh became part of India even though, lets face it, East Bangal was part of British India and there were lots of similarities between Bangalis and Bangladeshis.
Also there is no need to inflate ad nauseum the importance of just one river, which starts in Kashmir, to Pakistan. Besides, unless you live in a cave you should know that negotiation between two states, irrespective of their areas, populations or power dynamics, is perfectly possible and unremarkably frequent.
I think ur missing the point if kuwait/saudis were not strategically important to US oil supply, nobody (specially USA) would have given a damn and saddam will still be alive. If kashmir vale is deemed strategically important to pakistan or indian establishment (and i think it is), there wont be any independent kashmir. World at large has more interest in regional power, pak and india than a "mini me" independent kashmir. The best the vale of K is going to get is free movement of good and people across LOC
India DID NOT want bangla desh. Her only goal was to cut pak in half. India had nothing to gain strategically by owning bangadesh, an independent bangadesh was her goal. Unless india's goal was to increase her numbers of poor people.
Same as pak wants friendly gov. in afgh., we dont wanna add more miseries by bringing afghanistan in our fold.
[/QUOTE]
Besides, unless you live in a cave you should know that negotiation between two states, irrespective of their areas, populations or power dynamics, is perfectly possible and unremarkably frequent.
Like pakistan and india have been negotiating for last 60+ years? I guess pak & india both live in caves.
With all do respect. The option of independance was never an option when the two countries were formed...
Culturally, Kashmiris arent that far removed from Pakistanis. .
Most of the Muslims of Kashmir are converted Pandits; they are as much the "original inhabitants" as any Pandit. ...
if a=b and b=c, doesnt that imply a=c?
Are u saying that pakistanis are culturally similar to hindus, specially brahmin pandits? Wow! Here ur posting day after day how pakistanis are different from hindus and u contradict urself! Make up ur mind will u?
The option of independance was never an option when the two countries were formed... .
This is the crux of arguments we r having. My point is at these juncture after both pakistan and india having spend much of their resources on control over vale of K. Independence is not a possibility. The best thing to hope is soft border btw both side of K and have free movement of people and goods. Thats as good as it is going to get. To cede K is polical suicide for both the countries.
Neither did I. Is that your best excuse for your miserable reading/writing skills?
You’re delusional. You think a couple hundred militants have tied down 700,000 Indian soldiers? I suppose next you’re going to tell me about how 1 Pakistani javaan can single-handedly defeat an entire Indian battalion. :k:
Let me explain something to you very clearly - the militancy has failed, and a smouldering, low-intensity guerrilla conflict is not going to accomplish anything. Kashmiris realized this 15 years ago; most native-Kashmiri militant groups laid down their arms in the mid-90’s and decided to pursue the right to self-determination through more peaceful & diplomatic means. Your militants aren’t accomplishing anything right now, and they certainly aren’t “tying down” the Indian army. The army is present in Kashmir today as an occupation force; they are there in an effort to keep the 5.5 million Kashmiris, who are still largely hostile to Indian rule, in check.
Apparently your reading comprehension is every bit as poor as your writing skills. I said that the militants primarily targeted Pandits who were connected to the Indian government. I never claimed that they killed every single Pandit on the face of the Earth who ever had anything to do with the GoI. Do you understand the distinction now?
It’s best not to prattle on about nonsense when you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
219 people killed over 20 years of conflict, while shameful in its own right, certainly is not genocide or ethnic cleansing.
The mass exodus of refugees from Swat began during the Pakistani military offensive against the TTP. The area became a war zone with air strikes and artillery bombardment over villages. Needless to say, no one ever launched air strikes over the Pandit neighborhoods.
Even when Swat became a war zone, the vast majority of the population stayed put. UN estimates put the total number of refugees at 200,000 (or approximately 16% of Swat’s total population). Somehow, with bombs falling from the sky on one side, and the TTP beheading people on the other, almost 85% of Swat didn’t flee. But somehow, 219 killings over 20 years became sufficient impetus for 95% of the Pandit community to leave. If you had even an iota of common sense, you’d realize how ridiculous the idea is.
Yes, random villagers being surveyed for a poll all somehow magically colluded with each other and decided to launch an organized propaganda campaign through their survey responses to try and fool you. It makes perfect sense.
You do of course realize that, according to the Indian propaganda that you seem to fully believe, it was your foreign militants who ran around allegedly massacring the Pandits for whom you’re now shedding your crocodile tears? Do you honestly not see the inherent stupidity, and utter lack of internal consistency between your various rambling arguments?
Having a favorable view of Pakistan doesn’t mean we want to join Pakistan. And if all Pakistanis were as belligerent and hateful as you (thankfully I know they aren’t), I’m sure that goodwill towards Pakistan wouldn’t exist.
Do you know what locus standi (that’s how it’s spelled, BTW) even means? By the standards of international law and the UN, Kashmir remains a disputed territory whose soverignty is yet to be determined. India’s purported secularity has absolutely no bearing on our locus standi.
When the British left India & Pakistan, did they rip up all of their railroads and roads, tear down their airports, schools, and colleges, and take their telegraph, telephone, and postal infrastructures with them? Did they pick up New Delhi, Calcutta, Faisalabad/Lyallpur, Jacobabad, most of Karachi and all the other cities they established and ship them back to England?
if a=b and b=c, doesnt that imply a=c?
Are u saying that pakistanis are culturally similar to hindus, specially brahmin pandits?Wow! Here ur posting day after day how pakistanis are different from hindus and u contradict urself! Make up ur mind will u?
Are you honestly rambling so much you can't even keep track of your own arguments? I never said anything about "cultural similarities." You claimed the Pandits were "the original inhabitants of Kashmir." I pointed out that most Muslims in Kashmir are converted Pandits and are therefore as much the "original inhabitants" as the Pandits. I also never claimed that Kashmiris are culturally similar to Pakistanis...if you actually knew how to read, you'd realize that the first quote was from another poster.
For future reference, putting your (incredibly asinine and patently false) arguments in bold text only makes you look even more ridiculous.
BTW,
How did we get here from farmers eating muds in india ?
Mostly you and your irrelevant, inflammatory tirades.
I think ur missing the point if kuwait/saudis were not strategically important to US oil supply, nobody (specially USA) would have given a damn
janab-e-Khalee,
All these ridiculous rambling to hammer in ur head that independent vale of K is a pipe dream. It aint happening. The big dogs in the neighbourhood (aka pak, ind) have too much at stake. Little chihuahua puppy aka independence wallah can bark all u want.
UN resolution is dead and has been dead. UN resolution is for entire state of J&K including baltistan,northern areas,siachen and part of the terretorie gifted to china (our all weather friend)
Are you honestly rambling so much you can't even keep track of your own arguments? I never said anything about "cultural similarities." You claimed the Pandits were "the original inhabitants of Kashmir." I pointed out that most Muslims in Kashmir are converted Pandits and are therefore as much the "original inhabitants" as the Pandits. I also never claimed that Kashmiris are culturally similar to Pakistanis...if you actually knew how to read, you'd realize that the first quote was from another poster.
For future reference, putting your (incredibly asinine and patently false) arguments in bold text only makes you look even more ridiculous.
Mostly you and your irrelevant, inflammatory tirades.
And what oil is Kosovo sitting on?
keep on rambling all u want, the fact is "mini me" 2m+ people of vale of K does not matter to the world at large. Specially since ur movement for independence was highjacked by violent factions. In post 9/11 scenario u dont have any justification for indepence so long as the world, rightly or wrongly, recognizes india as a vibrant multi-cultural and multi-ethnic democracy and perhaps a very important growing economic power . However, u have right to dream. So dream on!
Specially since ur movement for independence was highjacked by violent factions.
Amazing. In one post you ramble endlessly about how Kashmiris should be grateful to Pakistan for dumping foreign Islamist militants in Kashmir, and in the next you're talking about how the very same people have "hijacked" the movement and ruined Kashmir's chances of getting its independence. There's absolutely no logical consistency between any of your various tirades...but I'm guessing the irony is lost on you entirely.
Amazing. In one post you ramble endlessly about how Kashmiris should be grateful to Pakistan for dumping foreign Islamist militants in Kashmir, and in the next you're talking about how the very same people have "hijacked" the movement and ruined Kashmir's chances of getting its independence. There's absolutely no logical consistency between any of your various tirades...but I'm guessing the irony is lost on you entirely.
No the whole argument is about independence of vale of K and its not happening. Thats all!
Returning to the original post and the plight at hand, please do talk about this at your dinner table tonight before you dig into your food. We are no different than dogs when we dive into our food without truly being thankful to Allah for the grub.
if a=b and b=c, doesnt that imply a=c?
Are u saying that pakistanis are culturally similar to hindus, specially brahmin pandits?Wow! Here ur posting day after day how pakistanis are different from hindus and u contradict urself! Make up ur mind will u?
This is the crux of arguments we r having. My point is at these juncture after both pakistan and india having spend much of their resources on control over vale of K. Independence is not a possibility. The best thing to hope is soft border btw both side of K and have free movement of people and goods. Thats as good as it is going to get. To cede K is polical suicide for both the countries.
Compare an average Pakistani in Punjab to a Punjabi in India... Minus the religion, and the nationalities, and what remains? there are many populations in Pakistan with a counterpart in India, with the only difference being relgion.
Pakistanis are very similar to North Western Indians. The Kashmiris even more so as they have been far more connected to the people of Pakistan then India.
We share a common relgion, a common history, common or similar language.
By all rational, Kashmiris are far more like Pak then India. Its should have naturally been Pakistans fifth province.
As Yahoo pointed out, the princely states did have the option to remain independent. I agree, this was not a viable option in most cases as the vast majority of these states were little more than glorified jagirs and zamindaris, and consisted of a few villages and a fortress. Even the larger princely states like Hyderabad, Bhopal, Udaipur, Mysore, etc were completely landlocked and surrounded by Indian territory on all sides. Jammu & Kashmir, however, was different - it was one of the largest and most prominent princely states in British India, and it shared borders with Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, China, and Tibet.
I agree that Kashmir would benefit from having access to (and friendly relations with) a stable Pakistan. To this day Kashmir has no reliable all-weather roads linking it to India; its only land link that's usable year-round is the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad-Rawalpindi road, a vital economic link that has essentially been closed since 1948.
That said, I think the overwhelming majority of Kashmiris are not particularly interested in becoming citizens of Pakistan. While general opinions on Pakistan remain fairly positive, people have become increasingly critical of the fact that by the early-mid '90's, Pakistan had essentially cut off the pro-independence, native-Kashmiri groups and shifted its support to foreign, right-wing Islamist militants who favor merger with Pakistan. Today, the only people in Kashmir who do support union with Pakistan are the Jamaat-e-Islami and other groups, who really only represent a fringe-minority in the region.
By profiting from a stable and prosperous Pakistan I meant as one of its provinces... Details aside, I believe Kashmir has much to gain from being a part of a much larger and ready established nation such as Pak.
keep on rambling all u want, the fact is "mini me" 2m+ people of vale of K does not matter to the world at large. Specially since ur movement for independence was highjacked by violent factions. In post 9/11 scenario u dont have any justification for indepence so long as the world, rightly or wrongly, recognizes india as a vibrant multi-cultural and multi-ethnic democracy and perhaps a very important growing economic power .However, u have right to dream. So dream on!
lol... Arrogant much?
All people have a right to independence. Human rights are not beholden to the whims of the global community.
If tomorrow the world decided India were a nation deserving of being balkanized, as they rightly should, then by this same logic, you should also support breaking India up.
