^ You are making a very weak point. Baluchistan belongs to Pakistan and acceded to it. A few sardars might not be happy. Kashmir on the other hand is not happy with India, nor does it belong to India.
As for Azad Kashmir being less azaad than Indian occupied Kashmir, this isnt the jokes forum buddy nor is this baharat-rakshak.
Get your history right ! Kashmir (all of it) acceded to India. Some people (who wanted to join Pak) may not have been happy with it but the rest were. And those who wanted to join Pak could have crossed the border even then. The demographics or Kashmir have been significantly altered since then through infiltration from Pak & ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus.
I think the biggest joke is how you control "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir" from Islamabad and then call it "Azad" Kashmir.
Yes there are many Pakistanis who want to move on and accept the LOC.
The reason is obvious. Simmering disputes hurt both countries and their development / prosperity.
Few things (there could be more) hinder the application of "live and let live" approach.
A just solution that is acceptable to Kashmiris (and not just Indians and Pakistanis) on both sides of LOC.
India should stop messing up with the river heads located in the Jammu Kashmir.
I hope you and other Indian-Punjabees have some love left for Muslim Kashmiris and Muslim Punjabees. Even though they are different people, but centuries of interaction between Punjab and Kashmir has linked them much more strongly compared to other "state-to-state" bonds in the Indian subcontinent.
That means Indian Punjabees must treat Kashmir issue as a "human" issue and not just "property" issue.
With the right sense of Kashmiris' vision, one can perhaps solve this problem. And we all hope that day comes sooner than 2069.
Exactly my point. National pride aside, I don't really care who controls Kashmir. I care more about the rest of India whose development is being dragged down by the ramnifications of Kashmir.
However, I also know that if India accedes Kashmir today someone else will want independence tomorrow and this will never stop. So we cannot let Kashmir go.
The only option is to maintain status quo, and move on from here. That will work in both countries' interest.
Kashmir did not accede to India. Kashmir was a muslim majority state that should have gone to Pakistan. Obviously through some unfortunate circumstances Hindustan managed to gain control of it. Now you have a HUGE rebellion in the part that YOU illegally occupied, and you are shouting words at us! You are too much man!
Name one Azad Kashmiri who has a problem with Pakistan. **Good luck finding one, perhaps you can put some baaliwood style makeup on that Kasab Singh dude and pretend hes from Azad Kashmir too! **
Stop living in your dreamworld. Kashmir was a Muslim majority state, which had been ruled by Hindu kings for generations. And the Hindu king signed the accesssion document. If you google for it, I am sure you will find a copy of that document.
Undivided India was a Hindu majority country. By your ridiculous logic, we should have sent all the Muslims to Saudi Arabia (or some other Muslim country) and kept India for ourselves.
“Azad” Kashmiris do not have a problem with Pakistan because they not “Azad”, they are Pakistanis.
Exactly my point. National pride aside, I don't really care who controls Kashmir. I care more about the rest of India whose development is being dragged down by the ramnifications of Kashmir.
...
That's truly heartfelt sentiments. Thank you.
........
However, I also know that if India accedes Kashmir today someone else will want independence tomorrow and this will never stop. So we cannot let Kashmir go.
That's true. If you let one area go, someone else may follow the lead. However we have to be realistic and extrapolate this a bit. So what other areas in India are likely to ask for separation and what chances do they have in actually achieving their goals.
This is just an effort to somehow "control" the study and consider all possible outcomes.
.........
The only option is to maintain status quo, ..
Yes. Status quo is always comfortable zone (at least for many). Status quo means you know where you are. You don't have to worry too much. You don't have to think out of the box. etc., etc.,
The problem is that status quo won't work. As long as there is a swamp, there will be bugs ready to spread the disease. And unfortunately two large powers Pakistan and India have let this swamp alive for 60 years.
Time to resolve this and move on. In fact if we could wrap up the Kashmir issue, there are fantastic opportunities for both countries to capitalize on the fruits of peace. Many of us dream to ride the "peace train" from Kolkata to Peshawar with no passports and no visas. May be that day is not too distant in future.
That's true. If you let one area go, someone else may follow the lead. However we have to be realistic and extrapolate this a bit. So what other areas in India are likely to ask for separation and what chances do they have in actually achieving their goals.
This is just an effort to somehow "control" the study and consider all possible outcomes.
India is not a homogenous society. All four corners of the country have different cultures. We have thrived on Unity in Diversity. However, if you set a precedent for separatism there will be a lot of groups who would raise their voices and say that they are different from the rest of the country and want their own nation.
Yes. Status quo is always comfortable zone (at least for many). Status quo means you know where you are. You don't have to worry too much. You don't have to think out of the box. etc., etc.,
The problem is that status quo won't work. As long as there is a swamp, there will be bugs ready to spread the disease. And unfortunately two large powers Pakistan and India have let this swamp alive for 60 years.
Time to resolve this and move on. In fact if we could wrap up the Kashmir issue, there are fantastic opportunities for both countries to capitalize on the fruits of peace. Many of us dream to ride the "peace train" from Kolkata to Peshawar with no passports and no visas. May be that day is not too distant in future.
So what is your proposed "out of the box" solution ? I cannot see a solution that will gain all 3 parties' acceptance. Hence, I think maintaining status quo will allow everyone to cut their losses and move on.
punjabi in india, ever wondered why no one takes you seriously here? Can you explain why Kashmiris in Indian occupied Kashmir have nothing but the absolute disgust for the Indian Govt?
sorry but as I pointed out, your baluchistan theory holds no ground. Firstly, the people of Baluchistan dont seem to agree with you, as much as you'd want. Secondly, even if they did, please do bother to check as to how many people live in that province. Lastly, I wonder who the human rights comissions is gravely accusing of massive human rights violations, the indian army in Kashmir or a bunch of Pakistani soldiers posted in quetta.
Please if you want a discussion from me, atleast try to be sensible.
So just because Baluchistan is sparsely populated, what its population feels is of no consequence to you. Instead you are more interested in what the population in the Indian state of Kashmir feels.
How hypocritical !!
And since you are so interested in human righst violations, here is some education for you -
India is not a homogenous society. All four corners of the country have different cultures. We have thrived on Unity in Diversity. However, if you set a precedent for separatism there will be a lot of groups who would raise their voices and say that they are different from the rest of the country and want their own nation. ...
this is a legitimate fear/concern of Indians. That's why we must explore this to the fullest to see if this fear is valid or not. Knowing the history and geography of modern day India, which "groups" or states or provinces do you think will run free if one day Kashmiris get what they want?
^ This is a hypothetical scenario, but separatist/anti govt groups already exist in North East. South India has also shown an anti-Hindi stance in the past. The Khalistan movement might also get a new life if we allow Kashmir to separate.
Thats the reason separation of Kashmir from the Indian state is off the table.
punjabindian, you gotta work on your google skills. Allegations of 'alleged' abuses by one group is one thing, but you do realize that the entire world realizes the gravity of the problem in Kashmir. Baluchistan belongs to Pakistan, India had no problems letting Pakistan have it, simple as that. KAshmir on the other hand didnt, and the people there seem to have a problem with living in the clutches of the Indian Govt. The people of Baluchistan have no issues when it comes to seperation so please do not misquote me again.
^ This is a hypothetical scenario, but separatist/anti govt groups already exist in North East. South India has also shown an anti-Hindi stance in the past. The Khalistan movement might also get a new life if we allow Kashmir to separate.
Thats the reason separation of Kashmir from the Indian state is off the table.
How is that our problem? I am sure you can deal with all of them. We wont have any issues with those states, all we care about is Kashmir.
South India has also shown an anti-Hindi stance in the past.
The Khalistan movement ....
It is true that North East rebels remain active. But their movement is not "state wide"
South India may have some anti-Hindi stance, but it is not related to a specific state. Which state in the south says their "ethnic" or cultural rights have been violated by the Federal government?
Khalistan movement comes closest to support your argument.
However majority of Sikhs are law abiding Indian citizens, and legal issues about Punjab's status in the Union do not exist. I don't see how Kashmir's freedom would automatically trigger the revival of Khalsa movement. Even if there is a remote chance, would you want India to live in constant tension with the next door neighbor out of fear of tiny minority of pro-Khalsa Punjabi Sikhs?
.....
...separation of Kashmir from the Indian state is off the table.
Are you sure this is not the base of your argument, and other things are just thrown around to muddy the water? In other words a limited autonomy for Kashmiris could have been a middle ground. But the use of the word "separation" makes it impossible to even talk about Kashmir?
Indian Kashmir is more "Azad" than so called "Azad" Kashmir, and thats why there is freedom for a separatist movement.
You sure have twisted logic. Kashmiris are fighting b/c they have too much freedom, unlike in AJK where freedom is limited. Thats pure BS!!!
BTW, India and Pakistan both are disingenuous when it comes to Kashmir. Fair solution to Kashmir issue would be let Kashmiris decide and let them pick from 3 options:
1) Becoming part of India
2) Become part of Pak
3) Become independent
Being Kashmiri myself, I'm for 3rd option. Let Kashmir become independent & decide their own future w/o the occupation from either India or Pakistan.
Kashmir did not accede to India. Kashmir was a muslim majority state that should have gone to Pakistan. Obviously through some unfortunate circumstances Hindustan managed to gain control of it. Now you have a HUGE rebellion in the part that YOU illegally occupied, and you are shouting words at us! You are too much man!
Can you explain why Kashmiris in Indian occupied Kashmir have nothing but the absolute disgust for the Indian Govt?