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.
Dude, the rest of us did not have any options in 1947. My forefathers did not get to choose if we should be part of India or have a separate country for Hindu Punjabees. Heck, we did not even get to decide if India should be a Hindu country. All of us just had to go along with what our leaders decided.
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.
What about a fourth option : being the a state of US ....... you will have half the population of India and pakistan linning up to join the "struggle" .... :biggthumb
punjabi, kashmir is our problem too, and you dont need to worry about our 'other' problems. worry about your own separatist movements that you just mentioned.
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?
These movements are dormant because they have limited support or they were crushed and people dont see there being any chance of such movements being successful. However, if we set a precedent with Kashmir it will embolden all others who want "autonomy", and give new life to them.
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?
Define limited autonomy. Any option which is within the Constitution of India is acceptable. What is not acceptable is separation of Kashmir from India.
punjabi, kashmir is our problem too, and you dont need to worry about our 'other' problems. worry about your own separatist movements that you just mentioned.
I am not "worried" about your problems. And we can handle out separatist movements quite well. I just want you to mind your own business and stay out of India's internal matters (including Kashmir).
What about a fourth option : being the a state of US ....... you will have half the population of India and pakistan linning up to join the "struggle" .... :biggthumb
The para in blue states that the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw troops. And it did. Read any of the transcripts of the UNSC meetings.
Paragraph in red - UNMOGIP is in Pakistan. In Islamabad.
.
Well these supposed trancripts of Pakistani troop wirhdrawl must be on the net ... so would you please enlighten the forum and maybe also the security council .... as they were not informed of the withdrawl of troops.
Pakistan was never ready for full withdrawl .... they tried ... with their western allies first to get a UN force to replace them ... that got vetoed by Soviets .... then they tried to hold some troops back ... India was ready for that also (even though Pakistan was to vacate COMPLETELY) however the could not settle on the exact number of troops .....
UNMOGIP in Islamabad ... what relevenace does it have ... it is a cease fire monitoring group .... which India does not recognise but it allows access to them ....
Well these supposed trancripts of Pakistani troop wirhdrawl must be on the net ... so would you please enlighten the forum and maybe also the security council .... as they were not informed of the withdrawl of troops.
Pakistan was never ready for full withdrawl .... they tried ... with their western allies first to get a UN force to replace them ... that got vetoed by Soviets .... then they tried to hold some troops back ... India was ready for that also (even though Pakistan was to vacate COMPLETELY) however the could not settle on the exact number of troops .....
UNMOGIP in Islamabad ... what relevenace does it have ... it is a cease fire monitoring group .... which India does not recognise but it allows access to them ....
AB.
Yara. Must we the Indians and the Pakistanis get into something that we know was a well-planned set of actions and fraud to begin with?
Do you even know why Nehru approached UN on Kashmir?
To answer your ealier question .... India was to be informed by the commision and then they were to remove their troops .... when did the commision inform India that these conditions have been met .... again a link will be appreciated
When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission
So was this condition ever met for India to withdraw its toops !!!!!!
European Parliament resolution of 24 May 2007 on Kashmir: present situation and future prospects
Regrets, however, that Pakistan has consistently failed to fulfil its obligations to introduce meaningful and representative democratic structures in AJK; notes in particular the continuing absence of Kashmiri representation in the Pakistan National Assembly, the fact that AJK is governed through the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in Islamabad, that Pakistan officials dominate the Kashmir Council and that the Chief Secretary, the Inspector-General of Police, the Accountant-General and the Finance Secretary are all from Pakistan; disapproves of the provision in the 1974 Interim Constitution which forbids any political activity that is not in accordance with the doctrine of Jammu and Kashmir as part of Pakistan and obliges any candidate for a parliamentary seat in AJK to sign a declaration of loyalty to that effect; is concerned that the Gilgit-Baltistan region enjoys no form of democratic representation whatsoever; furthermore, draws attention to the fact that the Government of Pakistan's 1961 Jammu and Kashmir (Administration of Property) Ordinance transferred the land controlled by Pakistan and which belonged to the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 15 August 1947 to the Federal Government;
Very much regrets the continuing ambivalence of the current Government of Pakistan with regard to the ethnic identity of Gilgit and Baltistan, whereby statements made by the President are contradicted by official government communications; strongly recommends that the Government of Pakistan endorse and implement the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan of 28 May 1999 which validates the Kashmiri heritage of the people of Gilgit and Baltistan and states that the Government should implement their fundamental human rights, democratic freedoms and access to justice;
Expresses concern regarding the lack of freedom of expression in AJK and reports of torture and mistreatment, of discrimination against refugees from Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir and of corruption amongst government officials, and calls on the Pakistani Government to ensure that the people of AJK can exercise their fundamental civil and political rights in an environment free from coercion and fear;
Further calls on Pakistan to ensure free and fair elections in AJK, considering that the general elections of 11 July 2006 were characterised by fraud and vote rigging on a massive scale, and that any candidate who refused to uphold the position of the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan was barred from running; also calls on Pakistan to hold elections for the first time in Gilgit and Baltistan;
Deplores documented human rights violations by Pakistan including in Gilgit and Baltistan, where allegedly violent riots took place in 2004, and the all too frequent incidents of terror and violence perpetrated by armed militant groups; urges Pakistan to revisit its concepts of the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of religious practice in AJK and Gilgit and Baltistan, and notes with concern allegations by human rights associations such as Amnesty International of torture and detention without due process; strongly urges all parties involved to do all they can to address these violations; welcomes Pakistan's public commitments to curb infiltration across the LoC by militants operating out of territory under its control, but believes it must take much stronger and more effective measures; urges a continuing and determined commitment by President Musharraf to fighting terrorism, which, it is widely recognised, presents enormous challenges; approves and supports multilateral and bilateral EU Member State aid to assist Pakistan in fighting terrorism and in making determined efforts to improve the lives of the people of AJK and Gilgit and Baltistan; furthermore, calls on the Government of Pakistan and EU Member States to intensify their efforts to identify and apprehend potential terrorist recruits coming to Pakistan from EU Member States; welcomes the recent establishment by the two governments of a joint panel, the India-Pakistan Joint Mechanism on Terrorism, to combat terrorism and share intelligence, and notes that the first meeting of the panel took place in Islamabad on 6 March 2007;
Who likes nehru anywhere in the whole world except the chinese...he was not a leader ...
Sleeping while your enemies crawled right under your nose is no sign of a leader...
ironic that he said...AAram haram hai...
....pls enlighten us [as to what was the weakest link in the logistical chain for Indian army trying to hold on Sri nagar]??
Simple!
Road that goes through Punch sector. This vital link could be cut off by Pakistan or winter weather. The same logistical situation stopped Indian army to go beyond LOC in 1948.
Nehru was desperate to buy time, so that Indian army could build an all weather Banihal tunnel.
Without this tunnel, Pakistan could have choked off the major route for Indian supply lines.
The tunnel got completed in 1952 and the UNO resolutions were thrown out the door by the same Nehru who initiated them.
Road that goes through Punch sector. This vital link could be cut off by Pakistan or winter weather. The same logistical situation stopped Indian army to go beyond LOC in 1948.
Nehru was desperate to buy time, so that Indian army could build an all weather Banihal tunnel.
Without this tunnel, Pakistan could have choked off the major route for Indian supply lines.
The tunnel got completed in 1952 and the UNO resolutions were thrown out the door by the same Nehru who initiated them.
The UN resolutions were thrown out first by Pak not withdrawing from POK and thus not fulfilling a key condition, and later by India & Pak signing the Shimla agreement which mandated that all disputes were to be settled bilaterally. The Shimla agreement left virtually no scope for UN or other third party mediation.
Without this tunnel, Pakistan could have choked off the major route for Indian supply lines.
The tunnel got completed in 1952 and the UNO resolutions were thrown out the door by the same Nehru who initiated them.
1) The road going through Poonch does not touch Banihal (it called the mughal road) and this road was not used in 1947.
2) The road on which banihal tunnel is located ... does not "touch" the LOC and was used in 1947 ... through the Banihal Pass.
3) If Pakistan army has to cut off J&K ... they can do so at the point called the "chicken neck" ... it is near Sambha .... the ONLY road that goes to J&K is just 12 kms from international border. But then that is a different story
