India-Occupied Kashmir Uprising; Azad Kashmir Polls; RNC Convention; Qandeel Baloch

[Razia Sultana]

If you are all predicting the future, you better hope you are right. I'm of the belief that anything is possible.



You make good points, but I have several of my own.

1. You say J&K is an integral part of India, so why doesn't Indian parliament scrap Article 370?

2. As for international opinion. There was a time before 9/11 that Kashmir gained attention. I'm just saying it could happen again. Only time will tell.

3. I was not talking about terrorism and violence being committed in Kashmir by terrorists by the likes of Burhan Wani. India's actions against such people should continue, but I'm talking about the political situation.

Nothing anti-Indian in my post. I'm just looking for a solution to a long standing problem.

1. Its up to the Indian parliament. Article 370 is integral to our constitution and not something that was added later. The constitution provides for ways to amend various articles, sections and clauses. According to Kashmiris, its art. 370 that makes them an integral part of India, so why scrap it and create confusion. if some changes are needed that can always be incorporated thru constitutional amendments.
2. International opinions are build on multiple factors like your credibility, character, conscience and values etc. Earlier due to cold war between USA and Soviet Union, many opinions were politically motivated. However, the same nations are more favorable to Indian point of view now. In future, India need not fear as long as she maintains her credibility, character, conscience and values.
3. What according to you is Hizbul Mujahideen? Burhan Wani was area commander of this outfit. So why are you differentiating between a terrorist and Burhan Wani? There are many separatist leaders and their followers in J&K such as Moulvi Omar, Gilani, yasin malik etc. they are anti India but we dont call them terrorists. People taking up gun are dealt with similarly across India be it J&K, Chhattisgarh, Punjab. Assam or Manipur.

Political situation in J&K is that they have an elected government.

 

[cloud4000]

3. What according to you is Hizbul Mujahideen? Burhan Wani was area commander of this outfit. So why are you differentiating between a terrorist and Burhan Wani? There are many separatist leaders and their followers in J&K such as Moulvi Omar, Gilani, yasin malik etc. they are anti India but we dont call them terrorists. People taking up gun are dealt with similarly across India be it J&K, Chhattisgarh, Punjab. Assam or Manipur.

Where did I say Burhan Wani is not a terrorist? I said no such thing. Nor did I say anti-Indian Kashmiri leaders are terrorists. I didn't even mention them.

 

[Razia Sultana]

Where did I say Burhan Wani is not a terrorist? I said no such thing. Nor did I say anti-Indian Kashmiri leaders are terrorists. I didn't even mention them.

Well, I stand corrected. My misunderstanding.

 

[ebrahym]

International opinions are build on multiple factors like your credibility, character, conscience and values etc. Earlier due to cold war between USA and Soviet Union, many opinions were politically motivated. However, the same nations are more favorable to Indian point of view now. In future, India need not fear as long as she maintains her credibility, character, conscience and values

damn right man ......

more favorable to Indian point of view now

it has more to do with many countries financial interest ..... i mean look at Israel they are have even lower image then Pakistan but still are favoured as they are financially stronger ..... Russia has a very bad Image still many countries favour their opinion reason diplomacy

There are many separatist leaders and their followers in J&K such as Moulvi Omar, Gilani, yasin malik

Ab banda kis kis tarha samjhaye tum logon ko................
Btw i think the hurriyet is leading the peaceful movement ...........

Personally, I strongly believe India has to come to an arrangement with Pakistan on Kashmir. May be not today, but some day.

1. Both India and Pakistan believe Kashmir is disputed territory per international law. There is no avoiding this issue. Indian claims of Kashmir being an integral part of India might be valid on some level, but is it legally and politically? I don't know.
2. India is spending billions of rupees and basing hundreds of thousands of soldiers, paramilitaries, police, etc., to control a population of how many people? How long can this go on? This situation pleases both China and Pakistan as troops sent to Kashmir can't be used elsewhere.
3. Sooner or later, opinion is going to turn against India internationally. Yes, Pakistan fumbled attempts on Kashmir is partially to blame, but sooner or later it is going to get its act together and press its case.
4. Forget plebiscite and UN resolutions. This is not going to happen. The only solution is a negotiated settlement between India, Pakistan, and Kashmiri people.

These are my thoughts on the issue. Agree or disagree. I'm in my 40s, and Kashmir has been issue since the insurgency started in the late 1980

i second you that is what diplomacy is for ...... use it damn it

And then Pakistan backtracked from its promise of withdrawing its troops from the 'Pakistan occupied Kashmir'.

both were to do it ........ no one did ...... it applies to you as well

J&K is legally an integral part of India messed up politically by the politicians. The dispute is only about areas under illegal occupation of Pakistan

are you really an idiot or its just my observation

If you are 40 year old you would be aware of the situation in J&K during the 90s. Today is nothing as compared to those days. In 1984 there was anti sikh riots in north India, could that divide the sikhs from the rest of India? There is more to our nation than you can even imagine

you seems to have shared history with Saen qaim ali shah

 

[M. Sarmad]

The Simla Accord anyways overrides all previous deliberations so why bring in the point that is irrelevant. In 1972, India and Pakistan agreed to sort the issue bilaterally and without involving a third party.

Better tell that to the UN then which refuses to accept the Indian position. Almost 44 years since the signing of the Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan but the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP ..


The Simla Agreement does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:


1) Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

2) Para 1 (ii) providing for settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

3) The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

4) Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

5) According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

6) Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is a clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.

 

[Razia Sultana]

damn right man ......

it has more to do with many countries financial interest ..... i mean look at Israel they are have even lower image then Pakistan but still are favoured as they are financially stronger ..... Russia has a very bad Image still many countries favour their opinion reason diplomacy


Ab banda kis kis tarha samjhaye tum logon ko................
Btw i think the hurriyet is leading the peaceful movement ...........


i second you that is what diplomacy is for ...... use it damn it


both were to do it ........ no one did ...... it applies to you as well

Man?????

Financial and national interests are important but at a time when India was considered more pro-soviet her economic interests were more dependent on the US and even today Sino - Indian trades are massive but politically there are little international compatibility these days.

Yes hurriyet is leading a peaceful movement but they avoid elections as their support base will become known to all.

 

[war&peace]

Better tell that to the UN then which refuses to accept the Indian position. Almost 44 years since the signing of the Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan but the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP ..


The Simla Agreement does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:


1) Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

2) Para 1 (ii) providing for settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

3) The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

4) Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

5) According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

6) Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is a clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.

Excellent

 

[Razia Sultana]

are you really an idiot or its just my observation

Others cant be held responsible for your lack of knowledge or understanding. It has been made amply clear and multiple times that J&K is an integral part of India, Atoot Ang and that the only dispute is about Pakistan Held Kashmir and cross border terrorism. This is official Indian position. How we deal with insurgency is our internal matter. Period.

 

[ebrahym]

pro-soviet her economic interests were more dependent on the US

as it was in American interest to keep India's non-aligned legacy ....... which was only effect for a brief period of time .......... after 1965 and 1962 wars ......

they avoid elections as their support base will become known to all.

support base ? ......... what if Indian establishment rigs them ..... as it will be in great benefit for country ........ remember 1987

Others cant be held responsible for your lack of knowledge or understanding. It has been made amply clear and multiple times that J&K is an integral part of India, Atoot Ang and that the only dispute is about Pakistan Held Kashmir and cross border terrorism. This is official Indian position. How we deal with insurgency is our internal matter. Period.

thats Indian saying and Pakistan has disapproved to continue talks on this stance clearly saying no pre-conditions in kashmir issue

This is official Indian position

this dont make it the core position of issue

 

[war&peace]

Yes hurriyet is leading a peaceful movement but they avoid elections as their support base will become known to all

That would be recognising India's illegal occupation as legal so they will never participate in an election. Kashmiris do not want to be part of India since day one. They will get freedom either through ballot or bullet and we support in both cases.

 

[Razia Sultana]

Better tell that to the UN then which refuses to accept the Indian position. Almost 44 years since the signing of the Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan but the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP ..


The Simla Agreement does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:


1) Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

2) Para 1 (ii) providing for settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

3) The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

4) Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

5) According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

6) Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is a clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.

These are your interpretations except point 1 above. The conditional plebiscite is not binding on parties nor the UN can enforce it. Also 1972 Simla Agreement is not against the spirit of the charter of UN. The UN has been rightly refraining from intervening in a bilateral matter between India and Pakistan.

That would be recognising India's illegal occupation as legal so they will never participate in an election. Kashmiris do not want to be part of India since day one. They will get freedom either through ballot or bullet and we support in both cases.

If taking part in an election tantamounts to Kashmir being part of India then please be aware that a massive majority of them takes part in elections. Your media was shocked to see the massive turn out in the last elections. Hurriyat should get a clue from the voters and be a part of the democratic process.

 

[war&peace]

If taking part in an election tantamounts to Kashmir being part of India then please be aware that a massive majority of them takes part in elections. Your media was shocked to see the massive turn out in the last elections. Hurriyat should get a clue from the voters and be a part of the democratic process.

I will need to read from a Pakistani media source about that. However the situation has changed now.
What do "jam" and "gunjaaish" mean in your signature? The rest I understood

 

[M. Sarmad]

These are your interpretations except point 1 above. The conditional plebiscite is not binding on parties nor the UN can enforce it. Also 1972 Simla Agreement is not against the spirit of the charter of UN. The UN has been rightly refraining from intervening in a bilateral matter between India and Pakistan.

Those are not my interpretations...

Anyway, Let's leave aside for the moment what Indian or Pakistani official position is and consider what some experts on International Law have to say on this matter.


The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is an international human rights non-governmental organization based in Geneva. The Commission itself is a standing group of 60 eminent jurists(including senior judges, attorneys and academics) dedicated to ensuring respect for international human rights standards through the law. Commissioners are known for their experience, knowledge and fundamental commitment to human rights.)


ICJ sent a fact finding mission to Kashmir in 1995. The final report published not only challenged the accession of Kashmir to India, it went on to say "If as the ICJ mission has concluded , the people of Kashmir have a right for self determination, it follows that their insurgency is legitimate " ... (p.84-98)



About Simla Agreement, it says:

.....The Simla Agreement is clearly binding on Pakistan and deprives the Pakistan Government of lociu dtandi to intervene in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and neither India nor Pakistan, both of which had conflicts of interest with the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir can be regarded as having authority to bind them. The members of the ICJ mission do not see, therefore, how the Simla Agreement can be regarded as having deprived the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir of any rights of self-determination to which they were entitled at the time of the Agreement... (p.92)

And

Both India and Pakistan should recognise and respond to the call for self-determination for the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir within its 1947 boundaries, inherent in the relevant United Nations resolutions. The United Nations should re-activate its role as a catalyst in this process. (p.98)



Full Report can be downloaded from their website:

http://www.icj.org/category/publications/reports/page/33/

 

[Razia Sultana]

support base ? ......... what if Indian establishment rigs them ..... as it will be in great benefit for country ........ remember 1987

Rigging elections are a passe. Advanced technology has made it impossible now plus the international observers and large number of journalist covering them.

 

[Green Arrow]

Welcome mate. See you after a long time. @Azlan Haider