Transfer of forest land in Kashmir to Hindu pilgrims

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
41

If Indians had got democratic rights as part of Britian, then definetly yes, we would have not asked for Independence. Say an indian could become a prime minister or home minister of Britian, then what was the need for independence ...... a colonial rule is where you have a master / slave relationship .... J&K has been a part of India in every sense .... we have had a kashmiri as a PM, Home minster, Foreign Minister, Army Chief ...... so where is this relationship.
On another note there are a number of Indian and Pakistani origin people in UK ... why they aren't asking for independence .... because they are part of the democratic setup in that country ......

42

Oh please. For decades the British allowed Indians to democratically elect a legislative assembly (in freer elections than have ever been held in Kashmir)...still the people wanted independence from foreign occupation. The Chinese have grated Tibet autonomy and all sorts of "democratic rights"...and yet, all but the most die hard Chinese apologists consider Chinese rule in Tibet to be nothing short of modern day imperialism. So what if India has offered Kashmir "democratic rights" on paper...it doesn't change the fact that India took over the state (and continues to rule) against the will of the majority of the population, and then proceeded to rig virtually every election held in the state from New Delhi. Not to mention the wholesale suspension of constitutional rights, and the state sponsored genocide...for all practical purposes, India has run Kashmir like a colony, and eventually will be expelled from the state like any other imperialist power.

When has a Kashmiri ever been PM of India? The Nehrus are UP-ites who left Kashmir over 300 years ago...they're as "Kashmiri" as most Indian/Pakistani Muslims are Arab or Persian.

By that very same logic, the reason why 90% of Kashmiris want India to get out of Kashmir must be because they're being denied their rightful role in the democratic setup in that country.

43

sahi bola bhai

44

Very strange ... for you Allama Iqbal is a Kashmiri ..... so what is the time limit on your loosing your ethnic identity .... some people in Pakistan consider themselves of Arabic heritage ... when did they come to Paksitan 600-700 years ago ......

As for during the British period, the elections were held for Indian union only, i repeat if an Indian could have become the prime minister of Great Britian (including India) then there was no need for independence. As in Kashmir any kashmiri can become prime minister of India or a home minister or any position of govenment. Understand the difference.

On a side note your are in Frisco .... u American or Kashmiri

45

First of all, Allama Iqbal's grandfather lived in Kashmir...his family left for Punjab just 50 years before his birth (as opposed to the Nehrus, who left in the early 1700's). In any case, he and all the other millions of Punjabi-speaking people of the "Kashmiri biradri" are considered Punjabis of Kashmiri descent, not ethnic Kashmiris. Nice try though.

Did you not read the line in my previous post where I clearly said that the Nehrus are about as "Kashmiri" as Indian/Pakistani Muslims are "Arab" or "Persian." Some branches of my family can trace their descent back to Iran...that doesn't make us Iranian.

On paper.

In real life, our state legislature and parliamentary representatives have historically been hand-picked in New Delhi, with comically rigged elections held afterwards so the government can pretend to go through the motions of "democracy." But then, who even cares about these democratic rights when the Supreme Court of India has already ruled that Indian forces can butcher any Kashmiri civilian they want without even a shred of evidence and without any fear of consequences...why even worry about elections when your right to life itself isn't guaranteed?

46

who made you the spokesperson for the recipients of the subsidy? And what's this 'we ingrates'? You are the ingrate, you don't represent any group, nobody elected you representative and I very much doubt if you are even in Kashmir.

This is a Pakistani board and obviously they like to see you make a fool of yourself beating your chest and wailing as long as you're saying nasty things about India.

Even dogs don't bite the hand that feeds them yet you do.

47

Sure, I charge $250 an hour to teach. From what I have seen of your attempts at English here, it will be a tall order to get the rudiments of grammar, structure and semantics, budget for 3 months or 2 lessons a week.

Just one condition - when I'm teaching you, no chest beating or wailing allowed

How do you store atta/rice?
48

You're the one who's babbling on endlessly about how ungrateful Kashmiri Muslims are for taking Hajj subsidies but refusing to allow their land to be sold to a non-Kashmiri Hindu organization.

Like I said, take your Hajj subsidy and your illegal occupation and leave. Considering the fact that by all indications 90% of Kashmiris want nothing to do with your government, it's fair to say we'd much rather be independent without your Hajj subsidies than languishing under Indian occupation and living off whatever crumbs New Delhi throws our way.

49

Then you better ask Gilani Sahib who "hand picked"him for 15 years to state legislature. Anyway, tell me why would the militants warn people not to vote in elections? Sounds very strange that people who are suffering under the indian army are going to vote ...... now now you will say that they are forced to vote ....hmmm then why do militants have to issue dictats that anyone voting would be shot. Wouldn't the militants know that people are being forced to vote, so why are they threatning then not to vote !!!!!!

Like the post above you
50

Well this bring me to another point .... when you say you wnat independence from India for kashmir, do you mean princely state of Jammu & Kashmir as it was before 1947 or you just mean the Kashmir valley

Also are Mirpuri, Ponchi, Baltis etc. considered Kashmiris ?????

51

I think people from the entire princely state should be allowed to choose, but my primary concern is the Kashmir Valley & the Koshur-speaking Doda district, where the vast majority of the population almost certainly wants independence.

No.

Threats or no threats, most eligible Kashmiri voters don't bother voting. With a few notable exceptions (1977, 1987), voter turnout has historically been abysmal in the Kashmir Valley, even before the rise of the militancy.

52

So what is so special about these kashmiri speaking people that they have to have independence .... what about the mirpuris or the baltis or punjabis or even sindhis ....... why should they be any different then the Kashmiris. Or are you saying you are only bothered about the kashmiri and rest everyone to themselves.

53

Did you even bother reading the post before you hit the reply button? I'll repeat myself...hopefully you'll pick up on it this time: *The entire princely state should be allowed to choose. *

As for the Punjabis and the Sindhis, unlike the subjects of J&K, they were already given an opportunity to democratically decide on their future before Partition...by the 1946 elections, the people had largely rejected regional pro-independence parties in favor of the Muslim League and Pakistan. The democratically elected legislative assembly of J&K also voted in favor of joining Pakistan back in 1947...perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess if the will of the people had actually been respected back then.

54

So you mean to say that the partition of India was not done by the british but it was decided by the punjabis and sindhis themselves. Interestingly there were close to 400 + princely states ....... so who decided for them , their legislative assemblies?

What about now ... should the Balochs be allowed to leave Pakistan, hey no one asked them also in 1947 ?

55

Re: Transfer of forest land in Kashmir to Hindu pilgrims

BTW..why is there five hundred threads floating around with the same topic ? Are MODS slacking or what?

56

I told you very simply that you are not the representative of anyone, so your use of 'we' is invalid.

In the other thread titled "independent kashmir" you have admitted that your deep rooted wish for merger of kashmir with pakistan. So your charade as speaking for Kashmiris is pretty much over.

And then you have also completely lost the script on history by refusing to learn about your own identity and the history of Kashmir.

So basically you have done an effective job establishing yourself as a scatterbrained traitor and yet you come and call me babbling.

Must be one desperate person craving attention.

57

Deny it all you want, Pakistan was created through a popular, democratic movement.

Unfortunately, no. But in all but 3 cases, the local rulers had the decency to sign over their states in accordance with the demographic realities and the will of the majority of the population. In two of the three exceptions (Hyderabad & Junagadh) India was all too happy to invade and hold a plebiscite so the will of the population could be carried out. Kashmir is pretty much the only princely state that was totally screwed over in the whole process.

Actually, in 1947, the Baloch tribes convened a grand jirga which ratified the state's accession to Pakistan.

There is no dearth of polls and surveys that show that a majority of us want independence. Get over it.

All I said was that most Kashmiris wanted to join Pakistan in the past, and that Pakistan wasted several opportunities to take over Kashmir while public sentiment was still in their favor. I know how much you & your countrymen enjoy living in denial when it comes to Kashmir and just how much the Kashmiri people hate Indian occupation, so I can see why my statement has you foaming at the mouth in rage.

Since you've very clearly demonstrated yourself to be far too ignorant to grasp the distinction between religious mythology and historical record, I'm not going to bother further belaboring the point.

Joota Nama
58

Pakistan was created through a segregated, popular, democratic movement. Put it rightly my friend. Its different. If it was popular then Pakistan would not have been created.:)

Pakistan was too happy to recognize Junagadh as part of Pakistan when the sultan acceded, so when India recognizes Kashmir it became double standards. Kashmir problem started when Pakistan lost Junagadh and determined to take Kashmir in whatever way it can.

So why are they having troubles now. Was jirgha democratically elected.

I believe Kashmiris are living in denial of a separate nation having to depend heavily on India or Pakistan. This is not going to happen sweet heart.

59

So what if there were separate electorates?

Exercise some basic common sense please. Pakistan wasn't carved out of any Hindu majority areas...every square inch of land that went into Pakistan had a clear Muslim majority to begin with, who almost unanimously supported Partition. The fact that a clear majority of the people in what is now Pakistan/Bangladesh voted to leave India makes the Pakistan movement a popular, democratic one...no matter how much you Indians whine to the contrary.

No, the double standard came into play when India invaded Junagadh, and held a plebiscite there to legitimize the Indian take-over...but then cried bloody murder when Pakistan attempted the exact same stunt in Kashmir. When the Nawab of Junagadh's instrument of accession went against the will of the 85% Hindu population of the state, India had no problem tossing it aside and taking over...but in Kashmir's case, you people still babble on endlessly about how the Maharaja had final authority, even though it clearly went against the will of most of the population. Nothing more than an Indian Hindu double standard...plain and simple.

Assam and the northeastern states all supported Congress over the British and joined India of their own free will...and yet, India had to bludgeon down various independence movements in that area for decades.

First off, don't ever call me sweetheart again.

As for the viability of an independent Kashmir, if small, landlocked countries like Nepal, Tajikistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan can survive and maintain their independence despite having powerful neighbors, so can we.

60

Because in Pakistani occupied Kashmir, the locals do not protest & do not find any problem against the state (Government of Pakistan). Answer this question: Why no protests in Pakistan occupied Kashmir when land is given to non-Kashmiri Pakistanis or Muslim religious organizations?

If non-Kashmiri Indians flooded the illegally occupied valley, there would be continuous bloodshed (no peace). The fact is the Kashmiris do not want India. This can be proven by the simple fact that every year on the Indian independence day, the whole of the illegally occupied Kashmir shuts down (no economic activity).