The Beginning of the End of the Kashmir Problem
Dost Mittar May 13, 2003
#97 Posted by HisExcellency on May 16, 2003 3:47:30 pm
re: #90 by pmishra2
The dispute is about those ``special circumstances``.
Pakistan does not recognize the Instrument of Accession as a means of determining the will of people of Kashmir. In the case of Junagadh, India overruled the verdict of Nawab Mahabat Khan, invaded the state and held a referendum. As expected, the majority Hindu population voted for accession to India.
In Hyderabad, India overruled the verdict of Mir Usman Ali Khan and invaded the state. The state was incorporated into the Dominion of India without even a referendum on the premise that the majority population was Hindu.
In both Hyderabad and Junagadh, India applied different instruments to ascertain the people`s will but nevertheless observed the principle that the people`s will overrules that of the ruler.
How come this principle can be applied to Hyderabad and Junagadh, but not Kashmir? The obvious reason is that Junagadh and Hyderabad were predominantly Hindu states ruled by Muslim rulers. But Kashmir was a Muslim state with 75% muslims (1941 census) who were certain to accede to Pakistan. If India were to apply legal, political and moral principles consistently in all 3 princely states, there would be no dispute between Pakistan and India.
Some Indian chowkies assert that granting Kashmir the plebiscite will pave the way for other secessionist states as well. This is an exaggeration. As far as Pakistan is concerned, Kashmir is the only disputed territory. For this reason, Benazir Bhutto gave lists of all Sikh secessionists to Rajiv Gandhi in 1989 during the SAARC summit in Islamabad. In effect, Pakistan reinforced its case on Kashmir by giving up claims on any other parts of India.
We don`t demand self-determination for people in Sikkim, Nagaland, Punjab or elsewhere in India. Those movements are India`s internal problems because there is no dispute about the accession of these states to India. However, Kashmir is not India`s internal matter simply because its accession to India is itself disputed.
Unless this matter is settled, Pakistan reserves the right to highlight this issue through diplomatic, political means. However, highlighting this issue through infiltration is the wrong way. Infiltration embarrases Pakistan and lets India off the hook on human right violations. Infiltration lets India portray the noble Kashmir freedom struggle as terrorism.
The dispute is about those ``special circumstances``.
Pakistan does not recognize the Instrument of Accession as a means of determining the will of people of Kashmir. In the case of Junagadh, India overruled the verdict of Nawab Mahabat Khan, invaded the state and held a referendum. As expected, the majority Hindu population voted for accession to India.
In Hyderabad, India overruled the verdict of Mir Usman Ali Khan and invaded the state. The state was incorporated into the Dominion of India without even a referendum on the premise that the majority population was Hindu.
In both Hyderabad and Junagadh, India applied different instruments to ascertain the people`s will but nevertheless observed the principle that the people`s will overrules that of the ruler.
How come this principle can be applied to Hyderabad and Junagadh, but not Kashmir? The obvious reason is that Junagadh and Hyderabad were predominantly Hindu states ruled by Muslim rulers. But Kashmir was a Muslim state with 75% muslims (1941 census) who were certain to accede to Pakistan. If India were to apply legal, political and moral principles consistently in all 3 princely states, there would be no dispute between Pakistan and India.
Some Indian chowkies assert that granting Kashmir the plebiscite will pave the way for other secessionist states as well. This is an exaggeration. As far as Pakistan is concerned, Kashmir is the only disputed territory. For this reason, Benazir Bhutto gave lists of all Sikh secessionists to Rajiv Gandhi in 1989 during the SAARC summit in Islamabad. In effect, Pakistan reinforced its case on Kashmir by giving up claims on any other parts of India.
We don`t demand self-determination for people in Sikkim, Nagaland, Punjab or elsewhere in India. Those movements are India`s internal problems because there is no dispute about the accession of these states to India. However, Kashmir is not India`s internal matter simply because its accession to India is itself disputed.
Unless this matter is settled, Pakistan reserves the right to highlight this issue through diplomatic, political means. However, highlighting this issue through infiltration is the wrong way. Infiltration embarrases Pakistan and lets India off the hook on human right violations. Infiltration lets India portray the noble Kashmir freedom struggle as terrorism.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#98 Posted by HisExcellency on May 16, 2003 4:30:24 pm
re: #96 by friend
++
Do you think Pakistan has met that condition? And what is your stand of legality of Pakistani`s stand after this?
++
The UN Security Council Resolution 654 stipulated that Pakistani invaders will withdraw from Kashmir and Indian administration will hold a plebiscite at an appropriate time that will be mutually decided by Pakistan and India. No time frame was stipulated by the UN SC about withdrawal of Pakistani invaders.
This resolution was passed in January 1948. Next month, Nehru started pressuring Sheikh Abdullah to participate in the Constituent Assembly for framing Indian Constitution. Since Kashmir was not part of the Dominion of India yet, how could Kashmiris participate in framing the Indian constitution? Nehru got around this by offering ``Special Status`` to Sheikh Abdullah under Article 370 of the new Indian Constitution. Under this article, Kashmir would have its own President and Constitution. Sheikh Abdullah was promised power and what not.
Less than 7 weeks after promising a plebiscite in the UN, Nehru was playing Machiavellian tricks to circumvent the plebiscite.Pakistan realized that Nehru had only promised a plebiscite in the UN to gain time. Nehru had no intention of holding the plebiscite and was conspiring to get Kashmir incorporated into Indian Dominion through the back door of political wheeling and dealing.
In Nov 1948, India passed its constitution and Sheikh Abdullah became Sadr-e-Riyasat of Kashmir under Article 370. Later when Shiekh Abdullah wanted to preserve Kashmir`s special status, he was imprisoned by Nehru. Another lackey was imposed.
Since India was clearly not interested in holding a plebiscite, Pakistan could not withdraw the tribesmen without an understanding that India would honour its part of the promise in a given timeframe. We are all aware of the letter Nehru wrote to Sardar Patel and later admitted to by V.K. Krishna Menon in which Nehru expressed his fear that given a plebiscite, Kashmiris will overwhelmingly vote for Pakistan.
Pakistan was aware of Nehru`s mala fide intentions and didn`t want to unilaterally change the ground realities to its disadvantage. From the Pakistani perspective, the modalities of the UN SC 654 resolution are open for mutual discussion even today.
++
Do you think Pakistan has met that condition? And what is your stand of legality of Pakistani`s stand after this?
++
The UN Security Council Resolution 654 stipulated that Pakistani invaders will withdraw from Kashmir and Indian administration will hold a plebiscite at an appropriate time that will be mutually decided by Pakistan and India. No time frame was stipulated by the UN SC about withdrawal of Pakistani invaders.
This resolution was passed in January 1948. Next month, Nehru started pressuring Sheikh Abdullah to participate in the Constituent Assembly for framing Indian Constitution. Since Kashmir was not part of the Dominion of India yet, how could Kashmiris participate in framing the Indian constitution? Nehru got around this by offering ``Special Status`` to Sheikh Abdullah under Article 370 of the new Indian Constitution. Under this article, Kashmir would have its own President and Constitution. Sheikh Abdullah was promised power and what not.
Less than 7 weeks after promising a plebiscite in the UN, Nehru was playing Machiavellian tricks to circumvent the plebiscite.Pakistan realized that Nehru had only promised a plebiscite in the UN to gain time. Nehru had no intention of holding the plebiscite and was conspiring to get Kashmir incorporated into Indian Dominion through the back door of political wheeling and dealing.
In Nov 1948, India passed its constitution and Sheikh Abdullah became Sadr-e-Riyasat of Kashmir under Article 370. Later when Shiekh Abdullah wanted to preserve Kashmir`s special status, he was imprisoned by Nehru. Another lackey was imposed.
Since India was clearly not interested in holding a plebiscite, Pakistan could not withdraw the tribesmen without an understanding that India would honour its part of the promise in a given timeframe. We are all aware of the letter Nehru wrote to Sardar Patel and later admitted to by V.K. Krishna Menon in which Nehru expressed his fear that given a plebiscite, Kashmiris will overwhelmingly vote for Pakistan.
Pakistan was aware of Nehru`s mala fide intentions and didn`t want to unilaterally change the ground realities to its disadvantage. From the Pakistani perspective, the modalities of the UN SC 654 resolution are open for mutual discussion even today.
#99 Posted by pmishra2 on May 16, 2003 6:10:23 pm
#95 His``Excellency`` !!
[quote]
Pakistan does not recognize the Instrument of Accession as a means of determining the will of people of Kashmir
[end-quote]
Sorry, I am afraid I don`t give a rat`s ass about your opinion of internal indian arrangements. You can run around the world weeping and screaming and talking about morality all you want.
Some people in India, also believe that creation of Pakistan was a great crime. They believe it represents the worst kind of sectarian expression and that it represented a victory for ethnic cleansing and violence (almost no hindus or sikhs survive in Pakistan today). Do you want to talk to these people? Probably not. Why should you? They have their bizarre ideas but you don`t care.
That is exactly the position of most Indians regarding your beliefs about Jamme and Kashmir. The partition of British India was unfair, bloody and horrific. It is over now. If you plan to challenge it, then prepare to have the very foundations of your nation challenged.
[quote]
Pakistan does not recognize the Instrument of Accession as a means of determining the will of people of Kashmir
[end-quote]
Sorry, I am afraid I don`t give a rat`s ass about your opinion of internal indian arrangements. You can run around the world weeping and screaming and talking about morality all you want.
Some people in India, also believe that creation of Pakistan was a great crime. They believe it represents the worst kind of sectarian expression and that it represented a victory for ethnic cleansing and violence (almost no hindus or sikhs survive in Pakistan today). Do you want to talk to these people? Probably not. Why should you? They have their bizarre ideas but you don`t care.
That is exactly the position of most Indians regarding your beliefs about Jamme and Kashmir. The partition of British India was unfair, bloody and horrific. It is over now. If you plan to challenge it, then prepare to have the very foundations of your nation challenged.
#100 Posted by Paigham on May 16, 2003 10:25:22 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#101 Posted by HisExcellency on May 16, 2003 11:25:21 pm
re: #99 by pmishra2
No need to get provoked unnecessarily, dude. Stuka asked me to explain Pakistan`s legal and political case on Kashmir. I am not expressing my opinions, just the facts of Pakistan`s case.
FYI, there are 12 million minorities in Pakistan. The only genocide of minorities since 1947 took place in 1971 in East Pakistan. The Pakistan Army aided by Biharis went on rampage there, killing millions of Hindus. In fact, Hindus comprised 80% of all Bengali victims. Despite the harassment of minorities by Mullahs, there have been no genocides in West Pakistan (i.e. the areas now comprising Pakistan).
The Partition of India happened because the Muslim opinion was overwhelmingly against Gandhian secularism. That`s a bitter undeniable truth.
++
Some people in India, also believe that creation of Pakistan was a great crime. They believe it represents the worst kind of sectarian expression and that it represented a victory for ethnic cleansing and violence (almost no hindus or sikhs survive in Pakistan today). Do you want to talk to these people? Probably not. Why should you? They have their bizarre ideas but you don`t care.
++
There seems to be some confusion in your emotive argument. Pakistanis are not demanding that India should scrap secularism all over India. We are quite sure that (Gujrat notwithstanding), the majority of Indian Hindus and Muslims desire secularism.
However, Pakistani Muslims do not believe in the kind of secularism that you people believe in. Like Israeli Jews, Pakistani Muslims also want to establish a Muslim state in areas where they form the majority. Since Muslims form a majority in Kashmir, they have the inalienable right to choose the kind of political ideology that will be enshrined in their state.
It would be wrong for a minority to impose its political ideology on the majority. For example, Emperor Aurangzeb`s decision to enforce Shariah in India was ridiculous and indefensible because Hindus formed a majority of the country. But it is okay for the Saudi rulers to enforce Shariah in Saudi Arabia because his decision enjoys the confidence of the majority.
No matter how passionate you are about your political ideology, you have no right to implement it in a state where your views are in the minority. Like it or not, the people of Kashmir (and Pakistan) want an Islamic system of government.
Consider Iraq. The US wants a secular democracy just because a majority of Americans believe in secularism. But why should American political preferences be imposed upon Iraqi public?? This is a colonial mindset. Since the majority of Iraqi people want an Iranian-style theocratic democracy, any attempt by US to introduce secular democracy will be seen as ``imperialism``.
The truth is that a large number of Muslims do not believe in separation of Religion and Politics. Under Islamic system of governance, the President of State is also the Imam. The President is expected to run the affairs of State in accordance with teachings of Holy Quran and traditions of Prophet Muhammad. A panel of religious scholar may assist him in doing so. This model has been adopted in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Although I am not a particular fan of this model, it would be naive to underestimate the growing popularity of this model. Muslims in general believe that secularism deprives them of their common religious bond and creates racial/ethnic/tribal/linguistic divisions. The religious state provides the only way for them (in their opinion), to weld together a multiethnic people into one nation.
No need to get provoked unnecessarily, dude. Stuka asked me to explain Pakistan`s legal and political case on Kashmir. I am not expressing my opinions, just the facts of Pakistan`s case.
FYI, there are 12 million minorities in Pakistan. The only genocide of minorities since 1947 took place in 1971 in East Pakistan. The Pakistan Army aided by Biharis went on rampage there, killing millions of Hindus. In fact, Hindus comprised 80% of all Bengali victims. Despite the harassment of minorities by Mullahs, there have been no genocides in West Pakistan (i.e. the areas now comprising Pakistan).
The Partition of India happened because the Muslim opinion was overwhelmingly against Gandhian secularism. That`s a bitter undeniable truth.
++
Some people in India, also believe that creation of Pakistan was a great crime. They believe it represents the worst kind of sectarian expression and that it represented a victory for ethnic cleansing and violence (almost no hindus or sikhs survive in Pakistan today). Do you want to talk to these people? Probably not. Why should you? They have their bizarre ideas but you don`t care.
++
There seems to be some confusion in your emotive argument. Pakistanis are not demanding that India should scrap secularism all over India. We are quite sure that (Gujrat notwithstanding), the majority of Indian Hindus and Muslims desire secularism.
However, Pakistani Muslims do not believe in the kind of secularism that you people believe in. Like Israeli Jews, Pakistani Muslims also want to establish a Muslim state in areas where they form the majority. Since Muslims form a majority in Kashmir, they have the inalienable right to choose the kind of political ideology that will be enshrined in their state.
It would be wrong for a minority to impose its political ideology on the majority. For example, Emperor Aurangzeb`s decision to enforce Shariah in India was ridiculous and indefensible because Hindus formed a majority of the country. But it is okay for the Saudi rulers to enforce Shariah in Saudi Arabia because his decision enjoys the confidence of the majority.
No matter how passionate you are about your political ideology, you have no right to implement it in a state where your views are in the minority. Like it or not, the people of Kashmir (and Pakistan) want an Islamic system of government.
Consider Iraq. The US wants a secular democracy just because a majority of Americans believe in secularism. But why should American political preferences be imposed upon Iraqi public?? This is a colonial mindset. Since the majority of Iraqi people want an Iranian-style theocratic democracy, any attempt by US to introduce secular democracy will be seen as ``imperialism``.
The truth is that a large number of Muslims do not believe in separation of Religion and Politics. Under Islamic system of governance, the President of State is also the Imam. The President is expected to run the affairs of State in accordance with teachings of Holy Quran and traditions of Prophet Muhammad. A panel of religious scholar may assist him in doing so. This model has been adopted in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Although I am not a particular fan of this model, it would be naive to underestimate the growing popularity of this model. Muslims in general believe that secularism deprives them of their common religious bond and creates racial/ethnic/tribal/linguistic divisions. The religious state provides the only way for them (in their opinion), to weld together a multiethnic people into one nation.
#102 Posted by bbabu on May 16, 2003 11:25:22 pm
HisExcellency #97
Pakistan has no claim on Hyderabad and Junagadh on the basis of geographical continuity.
Hyderabad is completely surrounded by Indian territorry. If Pakistan could not retain Bangladesh Hyderabad would be impossible to defend.
The only completely encircled states in the world are Vactican and Swaziland. Even Junagadh would be impossible to defend. isn`t it separated by land from Pakistan ?
Partition was not strictly on basis of religion. India got Muslim majority areas of Lakshwadeep Islands, Mallapuram district in kerala and Gurdaspur district in East Punjab. Pakistan got Sylhet (50-50 neighborhood in 1947) and Chittagong Hill tracts (non-Muslim area).
It would be stupid for India to lay claim to a Hindu village in Baluchistan surrounded by hundreds of miles of Pakistani territorry.
Instrument of Accession is the legal basis for India and Pakistan incorporating 600 plus kingdoms. End of story.
``Some Indian chowkies assert that granting Kashmir the plebiscite will pave the way for other secessionist states as well. This is an exaggeration. As far as Pakistan is concerned, Kashmir is the only disputed territory. For this reason, Benazir Bhutto gave lists of all Sikh secessionists to Rajiv Gandhi in 1989 during the SAARC summit in Islamabad. In effect, Pakistan reinforced its case on Kashmir by giving up claims on any other parts of India.``
who really cares about irredentist Pakistani claims ? Indians are worried about Chinese irredentism. Pakistanis are more worried by Pusthun unification than India conquering Pakistan.
``We don`t demand self-determination for people in Sikkim, Nagaland, Punjab or elsewhere in India. Those movements are India`s internal problems because there is no dispute about the accession of these states to India.``
To be polite who are you to demand ?
There is one issue Pakistanis need to understand. The world is not going to permit two nuclear armed powers to fight over Kashmir. The status quo is fine to the international community. It is 10 times easier to pressure Pakistan than India. Figure out where we were heading. I can believe people waste time debating this issue.
#103 Posted by pmishra2 on May 17, 2003 8:23:57 am
#101 His``Excellency``
[quote]
But it is okay for the Saudi rulers to enforce Shariah in Saudi Arabia because his decision enjoys the confidence of the majority.
No matter how passionate you are about your political ideology, you have no right to implement it in a state where your views are in the minority. Like it or not, the people of Kashmir (and Pakistan) want an Islamic system of government.
[ed-quote]
Who says that the majority of Saudis want this nonsensical Shariiah stuff? Has there ever been an election? Is there any openness or discussion in the system? NO. Only a person with your crude sectarian agenda can make this sort of silly statement.
As for your belief that people in Kashmir (and even Pakistan!) want an islamic state ---- it is complete nonsense too. There is not the slightest evidence for this: opinion polls, elections, whatever....
My mother belongs to the hindu minority in J&K and I have spent months in the kashmir valley. Other than a vicious lunatic fringe that assaults unveiled women NO ONE is intererested in an ``islamic state``. Many people feel that they should have a different status from other parts of India. Many people feel that they have not gotten a full democracy. But an islamic state? Only in the delusional dreams of nutcases like Hafiz Saeed and his fellow hatemongers.
I am glad you have felt free to espouse your ``political ideas`` freely. We can observe the bankruptcy of your ideology: one that is always willing to criticize other countries for failing to meet high ideals in law, treatment of minorities, openness, fairness etc. but insists that any country with a muslim majority must ``naturally`` be a theocratic tyranny. In plain language, this is hypocrisy and intellectual two-facedness of the worst kind. And you expect to take your outputs seriously???
[quote]
But it is okay for the Saudi rulers to enforce Shariah in Saudi Arabia because his decision enjoys the confidence of the majority.
No matter how passionate you are about your political ideology, you have no right to implement it in a state where your views are in the minority. Like it or not, the people of Kashmir (and Pakistan) want an Islamic system of government.
[ed-quote]
Who says that the majority of Saudis want this nonsensical Shariiah stuff? Has there ever been an election? Is there any openness or discussion in the system? NO. Only a person with your crude sectarian agenda can make this sort of silly statement.
As for your belief that people in Kashmir (and even Pakistan!) want an islamic state ---- it is complete nonsense too. There is not the slightest evidence for this: opinion polls, elections, whatever....
My mother belongs to the hindu minority in J&K and I have spent months in the kashmir valley. Other than a vicious lunatic fringe that assaults unveiled women NO ONE is intererested in an ``islamic state``. Many people feel that they should have a different status from other parts of India. Many people feel that they have not gotten a full democracy. But an islamic state? Only in the delusional dreams of nutcases like Hafiz Saeed and his fellow hatemongers.
I am glad you have felt free to espouse your ``political ideas`` freely. We can observe the bankruptcy of your ideology: one that is always willing to criticize other countries for failing to meet high ideals in law, treatment of minorities, openness, fairness etc. but insists that any country with a muslim majority must ``naturally`` be a theocratic tyranny. In plain language, this is hypocrisy and intellectual two-facedness of the worst kind. And you expect to take your outputs seriously???
#104 Posted by dost_mittar on May 17, 2003 8:23:57 am
HisExcellency:
[In both Hyderabad and Junagadh, India applied different instruments to ascertain the people`s will but nevertheless observed the principle that the people`s will overrules that of the ruler]
You could slightly alter this statement and also say that ``in the case of Hyderabad and Junagadh, PAKISTAN applied different standards and wanted those states to accede to Pakistan because the ruler had the right to do so``
The fact, my friend, is that neither party stood on any principles. India would have had a moral case in J&K if they had accepted the Junagadh Nawab`s accession to Pakistan and Pakistan would have had a moral case in J&K if they had refused to accept the Nawab`s accession. Indeed, even in J&K, Jinnah, the ultimate constitutionalist, wanted to deal only with the Maharaja and wanted nothing to do with Sheikh Abdullah who was merely the leader of the most popular political party in the state and therefore had no constitutional locus standi as far as the right to accede to India or Pakistan was concerned. And Pakistan kept disputing the accession of Hyderabad and Junagadh right upto the sixties.
The big mistake Nehru made was to promise a plebiscite in J&K. He didn`t have to! But he wanted to gain the high moral ground in the world opinion and paid the price for it.
[In both Hyderabad and Junagadh, India applied different instruments to ascertain the people`s will but nevertheless observed the principle that the people`s will overrules that of the ruler]
You could slightly alter this statement and also say that ``in the case of Hyderabad and Junagadh, PAKISTAN applied different standards and wanted those states to accede to Pakistan because the ruler had the right to do so``
The fact, my friend, is that neither party stood on any principles. India would have had a moral case in J&K if they had accepted the Junagadh Nawab`s accession to Pakistan and Pakistan would have had a moral case in J&K if they had refused to accept the Nawab`s accession. Indeed, even in J&K, Jinnah, the ultimate constitutionalist, wanted to deal only with the Maharaja and wanted nothing to do with Sheikh Abdullah who was merely the leader of the most popular political party in the state and therefore had no constitutional locus standi as far as the right to accede to India or Pakistan was concerned. And Pakistan kept disputing the accession of Hyderabad and Junagadh right upto the sixties.
The big mistake Nehru made was to promise a plebiscite in J&K. He didn`t have to! But he wanted to gain the high moral ground in the world opinion and paid the price for it.
#105 Posted by Ahmadzai on May 17, 2003 8:23:58 am
stuka at # 63:
You wrote:
``To give you a straight forward answer, India has no reason to give up Advani because it has not even been asked. Pakistan has repeatedly been asked by India as well as Interpol. ``
My response:
The real answer is: Pakistan is reasonable. We know that under the current hostile situation and the position that he enjoys, Advani will never be handed over to Pakistan. Besides, Pakistan put the case on hold, because it is in their interest that harsh stance against India be softened in order that India comes on the negotiating table.
Since we know that our stance on Kashmir is principled (i.e. give the voice to the Kashmiris), dialogue is the best course of action. Otoh, India will always try to run away from the dialogue and negotiations, because it knows that its stance is not principled. Therefore, it will create an atmosphere that the things may never be discussed by creating non-issues to kill discussion of the issues.
Youn wrot:
``What a laugh. First you kill my wife and children. Then you complain why I don`t come and play Gulli Danda with you?``
My response:
Provide hard evidence in favor of your case: Note that:
1. Indian Kashmir is closed to international monitors so no body can judge whether ``your wife and children have been killed`` by your opponent or your `friends`.
2. Indian Kashmir is closed to international media so that no body could report that whether ``your wife and children have been killed`` by your opponent or your `friends`.
3. Not a single person who was actually involved in terrorism has been caught. All of them have been shot dead so as not to leave any trace. The best example is of Parliament attack. Your police could have injured them so as to provide a hard evidence. But it chose to shoot them so that there is no evidence.
You cannot be an accuser, prosecutor and judge at the same time. The truth is that India has the motives to commit all these crimes to paint a bad picture about Kashmiri freedom struggle. All of that can only come under discussion once the negotiations start.
You wrote:
``To give you a straight forward answer, India has no reason to give up Advani because it has not even been asked. Pakistan has repeatedly been asked by India as well as Interpol. ``
My response:
The real answer is: Pakistan is reasonable. We know that under the current hostile situation and the position that he enjoys, Advani will never be handed over to Pakistan. Besides, Pakistan put the case on hold, because it is in their interest that harsh stance against India be softened in order that India comes on the negotiating table.
Since we know that our stance on Kashmir is principled (i.e. give the voice to the Kashmiris), dialogue is the best course of action. Otoh, India will always try to run away from the dialogue and negotiations, because it knows that its stance is not principled. Therefore, it will create an atmosphere that the things may never be discussed by creating non-issues to kill discussion of the issues.
Youn wrot:
``What a laugh. First you kill my wife and children. Then you complain why I don`t come and play Gulli Danda with you?``
My response:
Provide hard evidence in favor of your case: Note that:
1. Indian Kashmir is closed to international monitors so no body can judge whether ``your wife and children have been killed`` by your opponent or your `friends`.
2. Indian Kashmir is closed to international media so that no body could report that whether ``your wife and children have been killed`` by your opponent or your `friends`.
3. Not a single person who was actually involved in terrorism has been caught. All of them have been shot dead so as not to leave any trace. The best example is of Parliament attack. Your police could have injured them so as to provide a hard evidence. But it chose to shoot them so that there is no evidence.
You cannot be an accuser, prosecutor and judge at the same time. The truth is that India has the motives to commit all these crimes to paint a bad picture about Kashmiri freedom struggle. All of that can only come under discussion once the negotiations start.
#106 Posted by m_souza on May 17, 2003 8:23:58 am
#88 by Paigham on May 16, 2003 8:54am PT
``whole 140 millions ofIndian MUslims , have proven ability ,desire & intent of living as Minority .Why can`t Hindu live as MINORITY for once ? ``
Heyhey..hangon.....kyun kyun...why do hindus have to live as minority in India..the birth place of its relgion..and the religion has been around there for the last 5000 years ..? Hindus are a monirity in many other countries..no problem..
Are muslims a minority in Arabic lands ... Islam`s birthplace??
We were 100% in India for a long long time..now we are 85% or so..enough...won`t go down any further.
In Pakistan... muslims are 100%(99 at least)..anyone who wants to be a majority..can try going there.
Otherwise please be happy in India..we don`t have a problem with secularism
``whole 140 millions ofIndian MUslims , have proven ability ,desire & intent of living as Minority .Why can`t Hindu live as MINORITY for once ? ``
Heyhey..hangon.....kyun kyun...why do hindus have to live as minority in India..the birth place of its relgion..and the religion has been around there for the last 5000 years ..? Hindus are a monirity in many other countries..no problem..
Are muslims a minority in Arabic lands ... Islam`s birthplace??
We were 100% in India for a long long time..now we are 85% or so..enough...won`t go down any further.
In Pakistan... muslims are 100%(99 at least)..anyone who wants to be a majority..can try going there.
Otherwise please be happy in India..we don`t have a problem with secularism
#107 Posted by m_souza on May 17, 2003 8:23:58 am
#88 by Paigham on May 16, 2003 8:54am PT
``whole 140 millions ofIndian MUslims , have proven ability ,desire & intent of living as Minority .Why can`t Hindu live as MINORITY for once ? ``
Heyhey..hangon.....kyun kyun...why do hindus have to live as minority in India..the birth place of its relgion..and the religion has been around there for the last 5000 years ..? Hindus are a monirityin many other countries..no problem..
Are muslims a minority in Arabic lands ... Islam`s birthplace??
We were 100% in India for a long long time..now we are 85% or so..enough...won`t go down any furhter.
In Pakistan... muslims are 100%(99 at least)..anyone who wants to be a majority..can try going there.
Otherwise please be happy in India..we don`t have a problem with secularism
``whole 140 millions ofIndian MUslims , have proven ability ,desire & intent of living as Minority .Why can`t Hindu live as MINORITY for once ? ``
Heyhey..hangon.....kyun kyun...why do hindus have to live as minority in India..the birth place of its relgion..and the religion has been around there for the last 5000 years ..? Hindus are a monirityin many other countries..no problem..
Are muslims a minority in Arabic lands ... Islam`s birthplace??
We were 100% in India for a long long time..now we are 85% or so..enough...won`t go down any furhter.
In Pakistan... muslims are 100%(99 at least)..anyone who wants to be a majority..can try going there.
Otherwise please be happy in India..we don`t have a problem with secularism
#108 Posted by HisExcellency on May 17, 2003 1:11:04 pm
re: #103 by dost-mittar
You have raised interesting points. In every political and legal case, there are two parties to the dispute. Pakistan`s case may be stronger (in my opinion) but it is not foolproof. There were several inconsistencies in Pakistan`s case as well. The acceptance of Nawab`s accession and failure to withdraw tribesmen from J&K after standstill agreement are surely weaknesses in the Pakistani case. Nevertheless, I believe the strengths in Pakistan`s case could overcome the weaknesses if both parties were to take this matter to a third-party. But then again, that`s my opinion.
You have raised interesting points. In every political and legal case, there are two parties to the dispute. Pakistan`s case may be stronger (in my opinion) but it is not foolproof. There were several inconsistencies in Pakistan`s case as well. The acceptance of Nawab`s accession and failure to withdraw tribesmen from J&K after standstill agreement are surely weaknesses in the Pakistani case. Nevertheless, I believe the strengths in Pakistan`s case could overcome the weaknesses if both parties were to take this matter to a third-party. But then again, that`s my opinion.
#109 Posted by HisExcellency on May 17, 2003 1:11:04 pm
#102 bbabu
++
Pakistan has no claim on Hyderabad and Junagadh on the basis of geographical continuity.
++
You are interpreting the Indian Independence Act of 1947, instead of quoting it. The partition act does not contain any geographical contiguity restrictions. Any princely state situated in any part of British India had the option of acceding to Dominion of Pakistan or India or stay indepedent, regardless of geographical continuity. (BTW, Pakistan was demanding Junagadh and Hyderabad only to highlight India`s inconsistency in the 3 states. This was never a serious claim and didn`t become a national foreign policy objective like Kashmir)
If geographical contiguity overrules popular will, why did India conduct a referendum in Junagadh? Why didn`t it just invade it like Hyderabad??
Even if we accept the ``geographical contiguity`` principle for the sake of common sense, it still presents us with India`s legal, moral and political inconsistency in Kashmir because Kashmir is geographically contiguous with Pakistan and has a Muslim majority.
It is precisely because of such inconsistencies that Pakistan insists that all disputes be referred to third-parties. Consistency and transparency in bilateral relations does not seem to be Indian priorities when dealing with Pakistan. No nation can be accuser, judge, jury, witness and executioner in its own cause.
++
Partition was not strictly on basis of religion
++
No sir, you are mistaken. Religion WAS the raison d`etre, the primary cause of partition. You are more confused about history than I thought.
++
India got Muslim majority areas of Lakshwadeep Islands, Mallapuram district in kerala and Gurdaspur district in East Punjab
++
FYI, the people of Gurdaspur were deeply opposed to their inclusion in India. India didn`t just ``get`` Gurdaspur. Mountbatten ``ensured`` that Cyril Radcliffe awarded this district to India. Jinnah protested against this award in August 1947 when he declared Radcliffe Award to be ``perverse and capricious``.
++
Pakistanis are more worried by Pusthun unification than India conquering Pakistan.
++
You must be kidding me! Pakistanis are neither worried about Indian conquest nor about Pashtun unification. Pakistan`s impregnable military capability guarantees the former. Entrenched Pashtun interests in Pakistan`s power structure ensure the latter. FYI, Pashtun nationalism has been dead for over 23 years since the exit of Zahir Shah. Since then Pashtuns have become key players in Pakistan`s military, bureaucratic and economic landscape. Moreover, 14 of the 18 major Pashtun tribes are based in Pakistan. Therefore, unification would only result in tge merger of Jalalabad, Kandahar, Paktia and Patkia districts with Pakistan... not vice versa.
++
To be polite who are you to demand ?
++
To be polite, Pakistan`s right to demand [Kashmir] have already been acknowledged under India Independence Act 1947, UN Security Council resolution 654, Tashkent Agreement, Simla Accord and Lahore Declarations.
Ciao
++
Pakistan has no claim on Hyderabad and Junagadh on the basis of geographical continuity.
++
You are interpreting the Indian Independence Act of 1947, instead of quoting it. The partition act does not contain any geographical contiguity restrictions. Any princely state situated in any part of British India had the option of acceding to Dominion of Pakistan or India or stay indepedent, regardless of geographical continuity. (BTW, Pakistan was demanding Junagadh and Hyderabad only to highlight India`s inconsistency in the 3 states. This was never a serious claim and didn`t become a national foreign policy objective like Kashmir)
If geographical contiguity overrules popular will, why did India conduct a referendum in Junagadh? Why didn`t it just invade it like Hyderabad??
Even if we accept the ``geographical contiguity`` principle for the sake of common sense, it still presents us with India`s legal, moral and political inconsistency in Kashmir because Kashmir is geographically contiguous with Pakistan and has a Muslim majority.
It is precisely because of such inconsistencies that Pakistan insists that all disputes be referred to third-parties. Consistency and transparency in bilateral relations does not seem to be Indian priorities when dealing with Pakistan. No nation can be accuser, judge, jury, witness and executioner in its own cause.
++
Partition was not strictly on basis of religion
++
No sir, you are mistaken. Religion WAS the raison d`etre, the primary cause of partition. You are more confused about history than I thought.
++
India got Muslim majority areas of Lakshwadeep Islands, Mallapuram district in kerala and Gurdaspur district in East Punjab
++
FYI, the people of Gurdaspur were deeply opposed to their inclusion in India. India didn`t just ``get`` Gurdaspur. Mountbatten ``ensured`` that Cyril Radcliffe awarded this district to India. Jinnah protested against this award in August 1947 when he declared Radcliffe Award to be ``perverse and capricious``.
++
Pakistanis are more worried by Pusthun unification than India conquering Pakistan.
++
You must be kidding me! Pakistanis are neither worried about Indian conquest nor about Pashtun unification. Pakistan`s impregnable military capability guarantees the former. Entrenched Pashtun interests in Pakistan`s power structure ensure the latter. FYI, Pashtun nationalism has been dead for over 23 years since the exit of Zahir Shah. Since then Pashtuns have become key players in Pakistan`s military, bureaucratic and economic landscape. Moreover, 14 of the 18 major Pashtun tribes are based in Pakistan. Therefore, unification would only result in tge merger of Jalalabad, Kandahar, Paktia and Patkia districts with Pakistan... not vice versa.
++
To be polite who are you to demand ?
++
To be polite, Pakistan`s right to demand [Kashmir] have already been acknowledged under India Independence Act 1947, UN Security Council resolution 654, Tashkent Agreement, Simla Accord and Lahore Declarations.
Ciao
#110 Posted by arjun_m on May 17, 2003 1:11:04 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#111 Posted by arjun_m on May 17, 2003 1:11:04 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#112 Posted by bbabu on May 17, 2003 1:11:04 pm
ahmadzai #107
I keep hearing about this FIR nonsense. Could you please tell us what Advani crimes exactly are. Since ithe crime happened 50 years ago are the witnesses alive ? If I am charged with a crime I presume Pakistani courts give me the right to cross examine my witnesses. If the witnesses are dead you might as well toss the case in the garbage bin. Of course such details might not matter in the Pakistani court system.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- harish_hyd: #59 by bulleya baluchistan cannot... The Correct Turn
- hamidm2: Re: # 106 cheema sahib, ...... The Correct Turn
- akcheema: is 'do-sa' a plural... The Correct Turn
- akcheema: Re: # 105; hamidm... The Correct Turn
- shoaib_daniyal: Methinks, you might be... The Indian Obama!
- hamidm2: Re: # 103 tahmed, ... where... The Correct Turn
- akcheema: Re: # 103; tahmed... The Correct Turn
- tahmed32: Goldfinger: while agreed with... Politics of PPP and
