Kashmir

the death toll on the pakistani side was above 4000. if its not a war then by definition it would be the most gruesome border clash in the world wouldnt it?

(adding more later)

Cant do a long post as im in school.

Perhaps its more because Pakistani's can't admit loosing another war?

As I posted above, 4000 dead is not a skirmish.

Other things that happened in 1999:

The cricket world cup

an indian airlines flight was highjacked

various people died by terrorist hands in Kashmir

 The current ruling party was re-elected (the BJP)

did I mention there was a WAR in Kashmir?

a cyclone in orrisa killed 10000 people

i can carry on.

I find your knowledge of the Kargil war insulting to the men who died in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

just to name one source, you want more please free feel to ask or just google it.

edit: the indian army found documents left behind by PAKISTANI soldiers. Yes there were Kashmiri terrorists involved but once again, im sure you could google this. here's a picture showing Pakistani weapons left behind:

Originally posted by Anujkhamar i apoligise it took so long to reply, I have my A-Level exams going on so have very little time to post large amounts Originally posted by TeldeIndus The bit in italics isn't true exactly. The leaders of each princely state chose whether they wanted to join India or Pakistan. I never tried saying they didn't

A misconception you have here. Pakistan is a secular state. The Pakistani constitution guarantees Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Christians the same rights as Muslims, and for them to be equal to a Muslim. This was what Jinnah envisaged in Pakistan's formation and that is what the constitution says. Pakistan also has sizeable ethnic populations.

You've totally ignored the conditions that were set out under the instrument of partition. Read the letter from Hari Singh to Mountbatten on page 1 of this thread. The tribals had already invaded Kashmir (in the same way Hyderabad was invaded by the Indians), and it was for this purpose the Indian Army were invited in on condition that once the tribals had gone, that a plebiscite was held. The tribals left very early on, as the Pakistani Army took over their positions and the matter went to the UN in order to set about achieving a plebiscite as agreed to under the instrument of partition. However, it was India that blocked the UN process when everything looked as though the Kashmir dispute was going to be resolved in the early 60's since it did not agree to withdrawing its troops to a low level, when Pakistan DID agree to withdrawing its troops to a low level.

There was a very good opportunity with UN resolution 98 to de-militarize the region calling for the reduction of Pakistani troop levels to 3k-6k, and Indian troop levels to 12k-18k. Pakistan agreed to this, but India insisted it needed 21k troops to maintain the security. It sounds incredibily fussy to claim a mere 3000 troops would make such a difference to the security of the region. Again the important point of the matter is that this was a trilateral agreement to demilitarize the region according to UNSC resolution 47 of 21 April 1948 calling for �the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani national not normally resident therein� and the reduction of Indian forces in the state to �minimum strength required� in order to lay the grounds for the plebiscite". 3000 troops is an exceptionally fussy margin by which to renege on an agreement.

UN resolution 98 of 23RD December 1952
Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-fire line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July 1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative's proposal of 4 September 1952

UN resolution 80, 14th March 1950
Commending the Governments of India and Pakistan for their statesman like action in reaching the agreements embodied in the United Nations Commission's resolutions of August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949 for a cease-fire, for the demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and for the determination of its final disposition in accordance with the will of the people through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite

Sir Owen Dixon, Head of the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), in his report to the Security Council on 15 September 1950. He stated that, �in the end I became convinced that India�s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any form or to provisions governing the period of plebiscite of such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled."

The way forward is another demilitarization procedure, but one that is implemented and squabbled over petty numbers. The Kashmiri people should decide their fate.

The UN resolutions on Kashmir are written here

http://www.gharib.demon.co.uk/unres/res12.htm

The demographics of Kashmir have bascially not changed since partition. There always has been a Muslim majority within the region and most of the Hindu population is concentrated in the tiny bit at the South of Kashmir called Jammu. The Muslim population has also been terrorized by the Indian troops in Kashmir and this is well documented in any account of the region by neutral human rights groups.

Here are just a very small sample of what has been reported by many neutral human rights organizations on this very subject.

Amnesty International: The forces use torture as a matter of daily routine. ...Amnesty believes that thousands of prisoners have died as a result over the past decade. Rape is frequently used. The Indian government could stop torture if it tried

Asia Watch: In efforts to crush the militant movement, Indian government forces have violated the laws of war protecting civilians, engaged in summary execution of suspected militants and reprisal killings of civilians. Some 200 extra-judicial killings by government forces since the beginning of 1990. Torture is widespread

International Federation of Human Rights Groups (France) Indian security forces operate with complete impunity. Rule of law has broken down completely. Draconian legislation only serves to encourage brutality and violence by security forces much of whose conduct is in flagrant violation of fundamental human rights and international law - and India's own constitution

What the media say:

Times 12 August 1993: "Indian torturers fail to break Kashmir's will".

Times 16 August 1994 (editorial): "Kashmir may be territory disputed by India and Pakistan - and the UN regards it as such - but its people are entitled to be consulted in the simple matter of their own future"

Observer 13 Nov 1994: "While there is no doubt the army is involved in some of the grisly extra-judicial executions, New Delhi has also created special commando units licensed to kill" Source: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/wkfm/hr_abi.htm

China has not been asked, but Aksaichin has a very low population. If China were to keep it, it would be of no consequence, though any deal on Kashmir, should involve China and Aksaichin.

It might well be economic suicide for Kashmiris to vote for independence, but that would be the democratic way, to allow them to have this choice. India has denied this them.

It's very easy to implement. China is irrelevant to a degree. Chinese administered Kashmir has very few people and isnt the main issue to most Kahsmiris (though it is their land).

Again, this was due to a Muslim majority state being ruled by a Hindu, when in all likeliness he would have voted to join with India. That is why Hyderabad was attacked by India, and is why Kashmir was invaded by the tribesmen initially. If the tribesmen had not have invaded, all of Kashmir by now would have been Indian (except the Chinese part).

You can look at it like this. If they did not invade, then when Hari Singh made his decision, all of Kashmir would have been flooded with Indian troops, and there would not be an Azad Kashmir today. Hari Singh might well have wanted to go independent, and hence the signing of the Standstill agreement (which Pakistan agreed to), but in the end he'd most likely have chosen India, OR India would have taken the state by force, as it did Hyderabad.

East Pakistan is another topic, but what you bring up is misleading and ignoring the facts. I'll mention just a few of them here. First off for spending. After partition, most of the major Muslim banks moved from India to West Pakistan, Punjab and Sindh, especially Karachi. They set up their bases there, and that is why when private investment was made into East Pakistan for example in the jute mills, the money that was obtained from export was used to pay of workers and returned to the West Pakistani families that set up the investments. A good example of this is the West Pakistani Adamjee family, who invested in the biggest jute mill in the world in East Pakistan. What would be the point of him investing in East Pakistan if all the money obtained from the exports of his mill went to East Pakistan. A lot of East Pakistani investment was private investment, because public funds were minimal. That was in part why the export dollars did not tally with the money spent on East Pakistan. These were all governmental policies implemented by the Bengali presidents of Pakistan including Iskhender Mirza. Also, when looking at the investment in East Pakistan you have to take into account that East Pakistan was 6 times smaller than West Pakistan, and a final but very important point is that the NWFP was and still is one of the most underfunded region in Pakistan, even less than East Pakistan was. The strategy adopted by West Pakistan was of a "trickle down" strategy which was a necessary approach in the wake of colonialism, somethin which even India had to do, and still does, just look at for example Orissa.

It's good you bring this up. The Awami League wanted complete autonomy from West Pakistan. There were two exceptions, the first was in defence, and the second in foreign policy. This was badly thought out on the part of the Awami League, and for their own reasons (and to be seen as being democratic perhaps), Yahya Khan, allowed the Awami League to compete. It's been mentioned time and time again, that the Awami League could have taken power, so long as they did NOT contradict the Legal Framework Order, which was the temporary constitution set out for the victor of the elections. The Awami League did contradict this, since they wanted an autonomous East Pakistan and a decentralized government that would have weakened the Federation. You can see that a state that has its own economy, cannot have the same foreign policy, since the two will eventually contradict each other. This was the reason why Yahya Khan and Bhutto visited Mujib on the eve of war, to convince him that he must not weaken the Federation by insisting on that sort of autonomy. There wasnt a problem with a Bengali leader of Pakistan at the time, since two of the previous 4 prime ministers of Pakistan were Bengalis (one was Iskender Mirza, the other one I cant remember). East Pakistan was a completely different ball game to Kashmir, which has been taken by force by India.

Your own government said it!! The Hizb, the largest militant group in Kashmir, are not foreign fighters, but Kashmiris according to the Indian government.

That's your experience then, but Kashmiris want independence, not to be with India. It's wonder why these alleged Kashmiris you meet in London have anything to fear from anyone when they dont live in Kashmir.

But, a bit of research will show you that Kashmiris are not very common in London, but are distributed in Northern areas of England.

There are no bombs exploding on the Pakistani side of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir), or the Chinese part of Kashmir. You have to also distinguish between insurgent groups. They are not a homogenous group of people. Some of them have been denounced by the Kashmiri people, but the Hizb have not. The Hizb is the largest outfit, that was legitimized even by the Indian government.

The Chinese arent so important in this, their land doesnt contain many people, most of whom are Tibetans anyway. They have agreed to give a part of the land back that they obtained in 1963, to the legitimate Kashmiri government, as they see fit.

It's basic logic. If the people do not support a rebel group it cannot survive. That is what anyone will tell you.

Originally posted by TeldeIndus They have created a regional government in Pakistani Kashmir. It has it's own flag Your point is.......? Sindh also has a flag, you want to post that? States in india tend not to have flags so theres no reason for Kashmir to be treated separatly. While we're on this topic take a look at this(the seal of Jammu and Kashmir):

By showing the Azad (free) Kashmiri flag, the purpose was to show that the Pakistani side of Kashmir has its own government with even more autonomy than Indian occupied Kashmir. Pakistani Kashmir has its own president, Major General (retd) Sardar Khan. Indian occupied Kashmir does not have a president, since it is just another state of India. The autonomy of Pakistan Kashmir is by obvious logic much greater than that of Indian occupied Kashmir.

Here is the website of the President of Azad Kashmir (Pakistani Kashmir)

http://www.ajk.gov.pk/main/president/index.html 

Can you find the website of the President of Indian occupied Kashmir?

Pakistan would I believe.

First it wasnt sold. Second, it was stated clearly as a temporary measure, for reasons that were necessary at the time. The Chinese say they will give it to whatever a legitimate Kashmiri government, elected by the people, want it given to. China already had a huge chunk of Kashmir anyway (ladakh).

The destruction in Kashmir, the need for repair, the cost of running the military operation all takes money. The people all live in downtrodden conditions.

It was 673/7 declared last time I checked  

thats no logic approach. hawaii is a federal state of the US, Tibet is an autonomos part of China. USA is a free democratic country, China is an autocratic country, Tibet occupied territory udner a pro-Chiense puppet. there's no way Tibet is better of than Hawaii just because Tibet is "autonomos". same goes for India & Pakistan, Pakistan is autocratic and india is democratic.

...............