Re: Kashmir..........How many of you do see chances of a solution?
LMAO! That is why you guys won't implement it yet we support it.
Re: Kashmir..........How many of you do see chances of a solution?
you can keep saying you support it but you don't. deeds matter more than words. show us in deeds. Less talk and more action should be your credo on this.
But NOOO, Pakistan will never do that because they know they don't have a leg to stand on - which is why they resorted to the cross border terrorism strategy in the firts place.
Of course Azad Kashmir is not represented in the Pakistan National Parliament. It is a disputed territory and once the UNSC resolutions are implemented only then will they get representation the parliament.
In general do not trust what Aam Banda says.
UNSC resolutions stateda plebicite shall be held. India agreed. India has not held up its international and legal commitment.
Well you still haven't replied to the latest UNSC resolutions which clearly states what needs to be done on Kashmir .....
"Urges India and Pakistan to resume the dialogue between them on all outstanding issues, particularly on all matters pertaining to peace and security, in order to remove the tensions between them, and encourages them to find mutually acceptable solutions that address the root csuses of those tensions including Kashmir."
No mention of any plebicite !!!!
To that end, the UN put forward a dozen different plans regarding the demilitarization of the region. Pakistan agreed to all of them; India rejected every single one.
Well unfortunately the documents and events say a different story .....
Even though you claim Pakistan agreed to demilitarization as mentioned in the UNCIP resolutions whereby it had to vacate all its forces from occupied Kashmir ....... i dont understand why would India agree to allow Pakistan troops to stay in Kashmir !!!!!! .....
Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952
Even after it was allowed to keep some troops in Kashmir, inspite of the original resolutions, they had no plans to vacate .... hence another sppaner in the wheels. It now wanted UN trooops to be present .... here is a draft reolustion of Feb. 1957
Noting the proposal of the representative of Pakistan for the use of a temporary United Nations force in connexion with demilitarization;
This proposal was shot down by the Russians for the obvious reason ....
Then again you want the world to believe Pakistan was ready for demilitirization !!!!!!!
Kashmir has been a highly militarized region since 1947. There have been troops camped out in Badaami Bagh, right in the middle of Srinagar since Partition.
Why is that a surprise for you ? Srinagar/Kashmir is close to the Pak border, and has traditionally been a hotbed of anti-national activities. Badami Bagh Cantt is a major supply and support base for military forces in Kashmir
Show me in which UNSC resolution it says Pakistan should do so first?
Considering that Pak is supposedly more keen to see a favorable ;) solution to the Kashmir issue it would be common sense for Pak to withdraw troops first. If for nothing else, then to call India's bluff.
However, Pak's failure to do so exposes its doublespeak. It is not interested in a solution, since independence for Kashmir would also mean demands for independence in POK.
LOL… Talk about diversions! First it was the Pundits, now this.
If tommrow the entire Kashmir were demilitarized, India would agree to let the Kashmiris decide on their own.. Wat a load of garbage.
Did your brain also get sucked down th subduction fault perhaps? 
Considering that Pak is supposedly more keen to see a favorable ;) solution to the Kashmir issue it would be common sense for Pak to withdraw troops first. If for nothing else, then to call India's bluff.
However, Pak's failure to do so exposes its doublespeak. It is not interested in a solution, since independence for Kashmir would also mean demands for independence in POK.
And allow your army of rapists to walk right into Azad Kashmir? Hardly.
You Indians arent trust worthy enough.
I think seeing as how its your country accused of occupation, human rights vilations, and is known to be mlititarily aggressive, the onus is on you...
But what would you know, being the disgusting supporter of rapists that you are...
;)
I dont know what POK is... Last I checked, there is a Indian occupied Kashmir where thousands protest regularly and where there is a war for independance going on.
I doubt Azad Kashmir is an issue as is already AZAD...;)
Show me in which UNSC resolution it says India should do so first...
Show me in which UNSC resolution Kashmir is a part of India?
The UN later recognized that request was unreasonable given the circumstances. All resolutions from after 1949 call for the enforcement of the McNaughton Proposals, which include SIMULTANEOUS demilitarization on both sides of the LoC. If I'm not mistaken, India would even have been allowed to maintain more soliders in the territories it was occupying during the plebiscite.
To that end, the UN put forward a dozen different plans regarding the demilitarization of the region. Pakistan agreed to all of them; India rejected every single one.
As long as we're playing with semantics, Pakistan EXCHANGED the Shaksgam Valley for other territories along the China-Pakistan border in the process of establishing a formal border. The treaty between China & Pakistan also stipulates that, upon resolution of the Kashmir conflict, who ever controls Jammu & Kashmir would have the right to renegotiate that treaty.
In any case, none of this explains the selective amnesia Indians seem to develop regarding the 40,000 sq kms of Ladakhi land they lost to China.
Excellent post... These Indians are so ignorant of history given their reliance on nothing but Bollwood trash media:D
this is tiresome how you people keep churning decade old material.
did China gobble up territory? yes ofcourse! while India and Pakistan try to split up Kashmir, the 3rd guy laughed to the bank. Instead you are still squabbling about who lost more to China. Meanwhile Bangla Desh is gone, Balochistan and SWAT and others are going from simmer to boil, and yet yeah sure - let's argue and spend 15% mor on buying bombs from USA. Not just buy, let's compete and beg that they sell to us. You sold him more, sell me more!!!
And then this stuff about UN resolutions. Pakistanis talking about UN resolutions is like a diabetic talking about extra sweet. They love it but can't take it
I dont think it would be an issue if it werent for the fact that the Kashmiris want to keep it an issue. Its not about the Chinese, or India or Pkistan. Ultimately its about the Kashmiri people. If today the Kashmiris were happy to live with India and India recognized their rights, then your argument would be valid. But since the Indian govt does not recognize the rights of Kashmiris, we have this issue.
And as for the UN resolution, s per my knowledge, it stipulated that the Kashmiris should decide between either Pakistan or India. Complete independance was never an option as perhaps it would be today.
But if the resolutin were followed to the letter, then more then likely, the Muslim majority would choose Paksitan, so long as indepenance is not an option. And thats something Pakistan could accept:D
And allow your army of rapists to walk right into Azad Kashmir? Hardly. You Indians arent trust worthy enough.
I think seeing as how its your country accused of occupation, human rights vilations, and is known to be mlititarily aggressive, the onus is on you... But what would you know, being the disgusting supporter of rapists that you are...
In that case, you can keep celebrating when you see pictures of people celebrating in Srinagar when Pak wins a cricket match because thats the closest you will ever get to Kashmir :p
In that case, you can keep celebrating when you see pictures of people celebrating in Srinagar when Pak wins a cricket match because thats the closest you will ever get to Kashmir :p
And you can join the Indian army and watch as the Kashmiris take a dump on your flag:p
And you can join the Indian army and watch as the Kashmiris take a dump on your flag:p
Freedom fighters???????????????????????????? Lollllllllllllllllll............................................ Indian soldiers getting killed?????????????????????????????LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.
My dude,do you know the current situation in kashmir????????????????????? All ur freedom fighters' :p are reallyfree' from any work now.They are going back to Lahore and NWFP. :p
And you can join the Indian army and watch as the Kashmiris take a dump on your flag:p
Well, if you think Pakistani terrorists killing innocent Indian civilians reflects their bravery, good for you :)
I am sure when Pakistan fauj surrendered to terrorists, you thought that was bravery too ;)
Freedom fighters???????????????????????????? Lollllllllllllllllll............................................ Indian soldiers getting killed?????????????????????????????LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.
My dude,do you know the current situation in kashmir????????????????????? All ur freedom fighters' :p are reallyfree' from any work now.They are going back to Lahore and NWFP. :p
Now thats really stpid. Those fighting in NWFP, as a result of the problems in Afghansitan, arent freedom fighters by definition.
Those who fight in INDIAN occupied Kashmir, are!
These are two differnt groups.
While Pakistan is fighting terrorists, Indians are killing civilians and are fighting freedom fighters.
And dont worry, there are many more heros lke Amjad "Kaab" on the way...:p
So now he is our yaar just because he is Indian… I wonder if you met this Punjabi guy on the street and he turned out to be a complete douche bag, would you still be kissing his rear end? 
That's a lie...repeating it ad nauseam won't make it true.
Kashmir has been a highly militarized region since 1947. There have been troops camped out in Badaami Bagh, right in the middle of Srinagar since Partition. Those troops were frequently brought out of their barracks to kill civilians, especially during pro-independence protests. The violations have been going on for decades...they just became far, far more frequent in 1989, when your government decided that it would look the other way while its soliders torched entire cities, and gang raped entire villages.
The piece of Ladakh that your government lost to China is nearly 9 times bigger than what Pakistan lost.
How come you Indians never mention that?
Janab,India had to keep it's troops in Kashmir because Pak had tried to occupy whole of Kashmir in 1948 and it has illegally occupied a portion of Kashmir,whats called POK.Again Pak tried to incite violence in Kashmir and occupy it through a futile,failed operation exercise called Operation Gibralter'.Both countries again went on the verge of a war in 1984 over Siachin,and then Pak incited,abettedKargil exercise'.Tell us why should not India keep it's troops in Kashmir,when the safety of Kashmir,it's people and Kashmiriat are at stake?
As regards to your chinese aggression,we concede that it was lost but that was in a war whereas Pak had agreed to `gift' China ,a land of Kashmir.Why are you not mentioning that?
So now he is our yaar just because he is Indian... I wonder if you met this Punjabi guy on the street and he turned out to be a complete douche bag, would you still be kissing his rear end? :)
Someone give Med911 a tube of Burnol plz :)
Chill dude !!
Janab,India had to keep it's troops in Kashmir because Pak had tried to occupy whole of Kashmir in 1948 and it has illegally occupied a portion of Kashmir,whats called POK.Again Pak tried to incite violence in Kashmir and occupy it through a futile,failed operation exercise called Operation Gibralter'.Both countries again went on the verge of a war in 1984 over Siachin,and then Pak incited,abettedKargil exercise'.Tell us why should not India keep it's troops in Kashmir,when the safety of Kashmir,it's people and Kashmiriat are at stake?
Because India has a history of occupyning the territory of others by force. Hyderabad etc.
So Pakistan couldnt allow you Bhindians to do the same in Kashmir. Its common sense.