This could get messy as it's pretty controversial for some reason, though it shouldnt be. I'll start of by asking the following questions

• Should the Kashmiri people be allowed to choose their government - Pakistan, India or independent Kashmir?
• Were the UN resolutions passed, calling for plebiscite for the Kashmiri people, binding ones?
• Do the priniciples of the instrument of partition still hold valid till now?
• Was India right to incorporate Kashmir into its constitution?
• What is your solution to the Kashmiri dispute?

Yep, I'd go along with that. Hold a plebiscite as stipulated in the initial agreement under partition of the subcontinent states, withdraw, both Pakistani and Indian soldiers out of Kashmir, replace them with UN peacekeepers, and hold a free and fair plebiscite. Count up the votes, and let the Kashmiris decide. Actually, it's not my own idea, but has been proposed by the Pakistani president, but it's not acceptable to the Indians, who would in all likeliness lose IOK, and if independency was an option, POK would be lost and a Kashmir country formed. Kashmiri independency is acceptable to the Pakistanis.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-22d-04.asp - http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-22d-04.asp  

Pakistan wants plebiscite in Kashmir and that will make Kashmir a part of Pakistan. 

Though if the plebiscite were to include independency, the Kashmiris would go for this I think (even if the original proposed plebiscite in 1947, agreed  under the terms of partition, was a choice between joining either Pakistan or India) . 

The reason the Indian goverment isn't suporting an election on the matter isn't due to the worry of the loss of IOK. It's because Kashmir is not ready for these elections. With terrorist attacks happening so often it wouldn't be a fair election.

Wait for my next post, i'm typing it up as we speak.

Maybe because of the religious situation the entire region should be given over to Chinese administration. 50 years of Chinese rule, it would be prosperous and religion free.

You can't bake an omellete without cracking a few fundementalists heads.

It would also mean India and Pakistan would no longer have to compare the size of thir manhoods over it.

Seriously though, more of Kashmir going to China over my dead body. It would only cause World War III and probably a nuclear war. So as I was saying....over my dead body.

Still typing up my longer response.....

That would solve the problem too.

I think this is just a weak excuse that isnt even the official Indian line, more like a spin off of what Israel says regarding the Palestinians. If you know the official UN resolution saga it clearly states that both Indian and Pakistani troops would have to clear out of Kashmir, and the region to be administered by UN soldiers whilst the plebiscite is carried out. The target of the rebels are the Indian troops, if you remove them from Kashmir and let the UN take over there will be no violence. However, India will need to give the offer of plebiscite in exchange for a ceasefire, and then the violence will cease - it needs to make moves. Also

• Kashmir already holds elections (not free and fair ones).
• India has incorporated Kashmir into its union without the approval of the people of Kashmir. How can you expect attacks on Indian soldiers to stop when India is not willing to accept plebiscite in Kashmir? As far as it is concerned the matter is over and Kashmir is a part of India. Is this democracy?

It's not a religious situation. They're just locals fighting for their land. Not all are Muslim even.

Hindu militants in J&K increasing

Mukhtar Ahmad in Srinagar | August 26, 2005 15:19 IST
Last Updated: August 26, 2005 15:50 IST

When Manoj Kumar Manhas, a local Hindu militant surrendered himself before the security forces on November 9, 2004, an alert was sounded indicating that more local Hindu youth could have joined the ranks of the separatist militants in the Jammu region of the state.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/26hindu.htm - http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/26hindu.htm  

I wasn't expecting this topic to come up. I would have started it some time back, but i didn't feel we had enough members on the forum from the subcontinant to make it an interesting discusion.

History of Kasmir
To save time, and partly not to change the direction of this thread i'll post the following link for the history of Kashmir (pre-1947)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kashmir - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kashmir

Partition
In 1947 the British granted independance the the parts of the Indian subcontinant that they had occupied for the last 2 centuries, leaving Portugal as the only foreign power on the subcontinant (who left a few decades later after giving Goa back to India).

The choice was given to each of the 565 princely states on whether to join the secular state of India (which kept the name of the subcontinant), or the Islamic state of Pakistan. The areas that had a majority hindu population chose to join India, under Nehru (whom himself was Kashmiri), and those that had a muslim majority chose to join Pakistan.

Kashmir -1947
One of the two remaining states which had not chosen was Kashmir (the other being Hyderabad). This state had a majority muslim population however had a hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. In the same year it joined the union of India.  From this point on i'll have to split this up into two views, the pakistani view and the indian view.

As seen by India:
In 1947 Hari Singh had not yet decided whether to join India or Pakistan however it was rumoured that he would join India. This caused pakistani tribals to start invading the state, which in turn casued an agreement between the prime minister of Kashmir(an elected official), Sheikh Abdullah; Maharaja Hari Singh and Lord Mountbatten (the governer-general to the subcontinant) to agree to asscension into the union of India. A document was signed by Mountbatten and Hari Singh in return for military aid against the invading tribesmen. Though it was Pakistani tribesmen who were invading (and the non-existance of a Kashmiri army) there was no proof of the involvement of the Pakistani goverment meaning it would be illegal for India to intervene without Kashmir becoming part of it. Kashmir became part of India allowing Indian troops to move in, which in turn led the entry of Pakistani troops to enter the war. There is also a claim from India that some of the original invaders were part of the Pakistani army.

As seen by Pakistan:
In 1947 it was rumoured that Hari Singh would make Kashmir join India, leading to rebellions in the kindom, as the majority would want to join Pakistan as there was a majority muslim population. As the maharaja was loosing control over his kingdom he made Kashmir join India. On top of this, Indian troops had arrived in Kashmir before he had signed the document proving ascension (as claimed by Pakistan). Pakistan also claims that Hari Singh was pressured into the desicion and was not out of free will. This led to a declaration of war on India.

Indo-Pak War I - 1947-1948
The war is written about in detail here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947

note that the article is biased, as almost all sources are India, but it gives you a rough idea about the war.

It ended with roughly 2/5 of Kashmir becoming part of Pakistan and the remaining 3/5 as part of India.

Sino-Indian War - 1962
The chinese maintained the upperhand throughout the war and won a large chunk of kashmir, which is now known as Aksai Chin.

Indo-Pak War II -1965
summarised in this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1965 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1965

Creation of Bangladesh - 1971
Bangladesh is formed after the 3rd Indo Pak War and the Pakistani "civil war" despite assistance from USA (ie moving the USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal).

1971-1999
It was in this time that terrorism in the state began.

Indian claim:
India claims that these acts of terrorism (which has a death toll of 70000?) were backed by the Pakistani army. In this time there is a mass migration of hindus and kashmiris whom support India out of the region for fear of their lives. The terrorists are mainly foreign.

Pakistan claims:
Pakistan Claims that these are acts of Kashmiri freedom fighters whom do not want to be part of India. Pakistan claimed hat it only gave moral and diplomatic support.

My view on the terrorism:
These are NOT the actions of freedom fighters. The death toll which is in the ten's of thousands has included muslims, hindus, men, women children and animals. They are not focussed on a group, but exist merely to cause chaos, the definition of terrorism. Too many innocent people have died.

Indo-Pak War IV - Kargil 1999
 
The previous year both countries became nuclear powers. This led to economic sanctions placed on both countries. During the winter Indian troops cannot stay near the tops of mountains so therefore move downhill. The months following the war led a military coup in Pakistan making General Pervez Musharaf the leader of Pakistan.

Indian view:
Pakistani troops crossed the LOC (line of control) and blocked a road connecting Srinagar and Leh (proven due to documents left behind by pakistani soldiers). This led retaliation by the Indian army which won the war.

Pakistani view:
No Pakistani troops crossed the LOC. It was kashmiri freedom fighters who blocked off the highway.

Post Kargil
Musharaf took control of pakistan. India's growth started accelerating with the high levels of patriotism following the war. On September 11th 2001 two planes fly into the twin towers in New York causing almost a world wide denouncement of terrorism. Pakistan and India almost went to war once more but the situation was diffused and since then relations have been on the up.

India and Pakistan played a cricket series to mark the new goals at peace (which india won) and the next series is about to start. Hopefully all wars between the two countries are now settled on the cricket pitch.

A picture taken from wikipedia showing the current LOC 

but it isnt just indian troops that are being attacked. Innocent civilians are dying as well as Indian troops.

I would be for the creation of the country of Kashmir. The only problem is it isnt viable for the people of Kashmir. It's landlocked and has very little resources. It's only major sources of income would be agriculture and tourism. At the moment Jammu and Kashmir has the highest expenditure from the central goverment. Take that away and what do they have?

And if Kashmiri's would want to join Pakistan why havn't they done so already? The majority of the population is in IOK, with a very small minority destroying any peace they had.

India is a democracy, so surely if the majority of Kashmiri's want to be Pakistani they would have created a regional government that would have been pushing for it. It hasn't happened, because contrary to your belief, joining Pakistan isnt an option for them.

As I said above, you try creating elections when you have bombs exploding. The terrorists are not interested in a political solution in the situation. They would have formed a party if that was the case and pushed for their independance. Instead they're killing their nieghbours causing chaos.

Also what do you mean by "india has incoparated Kashmir into its union without consulting kashmiris"?

When the descision was made to join India the Prime Minister (an elected official by Kashmiris) was present while Hari Singh and Lord Mountbatten were signing Kashmir over to India. If anything it is Pakistan and China that has taken Kashmir "without asking Kashmiris".

I'm in London and typing that article above has kept me up till about 2am. I'll carry on this topic in the morning, please feel free to reply, i don't think i've had such an interesting discusion on this forum.

it would solve all of humanities problems, we'd all be dead.

The bit in italics isn't true exactly. The leaders of each princely state chose whether they wanted to join India or Pakistan. Three states initially had problems, Kashmir, Hyderabad and Jugandah. Kashmir was (and is) a Muslim majority state but was ruled by a Hindu ruler in 1947 as part of its colonial legacy, Hyderabad was a Hindu majority state ruled by a Muslim ruler at the time of partition, as was Jugandah. In fact the Hindu ruler of Kashmir wanted to go independent, so wanted more time and tried to sign a standstill agreement with Pakistan and India, but Hyderabad and Jugandah (now part of India), actually were given to Pakistan by their rulers. India then armed local resistance groups in Hyderabad and Jugandah to gain control of these regions, which after a year or two they did. but both Hyderabad and Jugandah were legally Pakistani states according to partition, though I think everyone would agree, due to their Hindu majority that they should have been acceded to India. The same situation I would say applies to Kashmir, due to its Muslim majority population, it should have been (perhaps still should be) handed over to Pakistan, but, certainly India does have no right to it.

A minor point - Kashmiris did not choose to join India, neither did the Hindu ruler choose to join India, he (Hari Singh) just accepted Indian troops into the region to fight the Pathan tribesmen, expel them and then to hold the plebiscite - It actually wasnt his to give under the instrument of partition as Kashmir was one of those strange sites that needed to be solved by plebiscite. 

That's part of the story, but it isnt quite accurate.  

Hari Singh, and Mountbatten agreed to the accession of Kashmir to India on the grounds that it was temporary and that the Kashmiris would have the chance to vote who they wanted to join once the Pathan tribesmen had withdrawn (which they did do, when they were replaced by Pakistani troops that can be withdrawn the moment India accepts the UN resolutions). Here are the letters between Hari Singh and Mountbatten.

My dear Lord Mountbatten,

I have to inform Your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request the immediate assistance of your Government. As Your Excellency is aware,the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not acceded to either the Dominion of India or Pakistan. Geographically my State is contiguous with both of them. Besides, my State has a common boundary with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and with China. In their external relations the Dominion of India and Pakistan cannot ignore this fact. I wanted to take time to decide to which Dominion I should accede or whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and of my State to stand independent, of course with friendly and cordial relations with both. I accordingly approached the Dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into standstill agreement with my State. The Pakistan Government accepted this arrangement. The Dominion of India desired further discussion with representatives of my Government. I could not arrange this in view of the developments indicated below. ln fact the Pakistan Goernment under the standstill agreement is operating the post and telegraph system inside the State. Though we have got a standstill agreement with the Pakistan Government, the Govemment permitted a steady and increasing strangulation of supplies like food, salt and petrol to my State.

Afridis, soldiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes with modern weapons have been allowed to infiltrate into the State, at first in the Poonch area, then from Sialkot and finally in a mass in the area adjoining-Hazara district on the Ramkote side. The result has been that the limited number of troops at the disposal of the State had to be dispersed and thus had to face the enemy at several points simultaneously, so that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life and property and the looting of the Mahura power house, which supplies electric current to the whole of Srinagar and which has been burnt. The number of women who have been kidnapped and raped makes my heart bleed. The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer capital of my government, as a first step to overrunning the whole State. The mass infiltration of tribesman drawn from distant areas of the North-West Frontier Province, coming regularly in motortrucks, using the Manwehra-Mazaffarabad road and fully armed with up-to-date weapons, cannot possibly be done without the knowledge of the Provincial Govemment of the North-West Frontier Province and the Government of Pakistan. Inspite of repeated appeals made by my Government no attempt has been made to check these raiders or to stop them from coming into my State. In fact, both radio and the Press of Pakistan have reported these occurences. The Pakistan radio even put out the story that a provisional government has been set up in Kashmir. The people of my State, both Muslims and non-Muslims, generally have taken no part at all.

With the conditbns obtaining at present in my State and the great emergency of the situation as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Dominion of India. I have accordingly decided to do so, and I attach the instrument of accession for acceptance by your Government. The other alternative is to leave my state and people to free booters. On this basis no civilised government can exist or be maintained.

This alternative I will never allow to happen so long as I am the ruler of the State and I have life to defend my country. I may also inform your Excellency's Government that it is my intention at once to set up an interim government and to ask Sheikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities in this emergency with my Prime Minister.

If my State is to be saved, immediate assistance must be available at Srinagar. Mr. V.P. Menon is fully aware of the gravity of the situation and will explain it to you, if further explanation is needed.

In haste and with kindest regards,

Yours sincerely,

Hari Singh
October 26, 1947


Response from Lord Mountbatten
My dear Maharaja Sahib,

Your Highness' letter dated 26 October 1947 has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. In consistence with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government's wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.

Meanwhile, in response to Your Highness' appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir, to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property, and honour of your people. My Government and I note with satisfaction that Your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.

Mountbatten of Burma
October 27, 1947

http://www.kashmir.com/modules.php?name=Ne...e=article&sid=5 - http://www.kashmir.com/modules.php?...e=article&sid=5

The accession to India in 1947 was only temporary, but some years ago now, India had added Kashmir into its constitution on a permanent basis. Why incorporate into the constitution if you're then going to hold plebscite later?

Once the Indian troops have gone, there wont be any attacks. Tell me, why would the Kashmiri resistance want to kill their own people?

The expenditure of the Indian government on Kashmir is because it is fighting the resistance groups. 

Kashmiris are not illiterate, stupid people. Once formed they will eventually set up schools and other institutions, and be able to train in jobs other than agriculture or as tourist guides (IT, services, industry etc).

Kashmiris have not had the chance to join Pakistan. They need the option to vote, and that can only come through a plebiscite, which India has consistently blocked ever since Nehru died, who as you pointed out was a Kashmiri.

It's also very unlikely that a minority of people are doing the fighting. The only way for guerilla groups to survive is with the support of the people in which they operate.

They have created a regional government in Pakistani Kashmir. It has it's own flag.

Pakistani Kashmir flag (Azad Kashmir)

Compare this with the flag of Indian occupied Kashmir.

Indian Kashmir flag (Indian flag)

The point is that Kashmiris want freedom from both India and Pakistan, though given the choice of the two in a plebiscite, most would side with Pakistan (ignoring manufactured polls at gunpoint).

There are no bombs exploding on the Pakistani side. They're only on the Indian one, so if you remove the troops, there wont be a target. Then put in UN troops, and carry out a plebiscite. This was the initial proposition, and still remains the best and fairest.

In 1956, India incorporated Kashmir into its constitution. This was and is article 1. This should not have been done until plebiscite had been held and Kashmiris had voted to join with India.

Though there was a temporary article 370, another article, Article 249 was introduced into the Indian constitution in 1965 that removed any autonomy the Kashmiris had by removing the Prime Minister and President of Kashmir and replacing them with the Chief Governor and Governor of Kashmir. Also this Article made Kashmir just the same as any other Indian state and removed any autonomy granted to it by Article 370. 

I think even you must agree that is not the actions of someone willing to negotiate.

Nehru was a good man. I honestly believe if he survived Kashmiris would have had plebiscite. It was after his death that Kashmir was incorporated as just another state in the Indian union.

Pakistan is willing to concede Kashmir to the outcome of the plebiscite. This is on record.

I dont know about Ladakh, but the Chinese part of Kashmir that was handed over in 1963 is only a temporary measure - there were reasons for this.

Kashmir is indeed interesting. I find most Pakistani history interesting, especially as almost everyone I meet has no knowledge of it.

I will write about the rest a little later, just wanted to reply to this part though.

Here is a list of some of the expenditure from the central goverment:  (unincluding military aid)

To those that do not no, a "crore" is 10,000,000 of the currency.

And yes, i no Kashmiri's are not illeterate. They have the lowest percentage of people in poverty in south asia. There already are schools in Kashmir. The list of jobs you gave above would not be enough to create an economy. As i said, i will post alot more later, this is all i had time for at the moment

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 - 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:

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

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

Sorry, forgot about the last one, i was just trying to set the scene in that post, lets not discuss the other two and stick on kashmir, they are a topic in themselves.

You go on about muslim pakistan hindu india. India is a secular state which has a majority hindu population. Indians are and can be Jews, Hindus, muslims (2nd largest population of muslims in the world, zoarastrians, jains, sikhs christians etc.

if tribals did not try to invade, then kashmir wouldn't have had to be acceded to india and it would have remained independent, or perhaps a plebiscite could have been held then. The differences between then and now are:
1) alot of people have either died or moved away. Alot of the original hindu population was being forced out by fear for their lives, they should be included in a plebiscite, but they've been forced to move away by militant action.
2) It would have been alot easier to hold a plebiscite before, now we have three countries in the area (china). There is no chance ever that China will give away aksai chin without a military conflict, there's no point even going down that road, so if a certain population of Kashmiri's can't vote, why hold a plebiscite?

either way, if there is a plebiscite Kashmiri's would vote for independance, even if it is economic suicide. Don't get me wrong, I am all for a free and independant Kashmir, but it would be impossible to implement without a number of things happening including declaring war on China.

So that is the proof you are showing me, Hari Singh was Hindu so he would acceed to India? He had never once stated that he would want to join India before the pathan incident and as he never spoke of it it is therefore classified as a RUMOUR which is what i wrote in the originally post.

Is it external if India is bang in between both countries and the majority of refugees come into our country? If you are going to relate Kashmir to Bangladesh then i might as well say that we spend more on Kashmir for Kashmiris (refer to the table i posted before) as a percentage of GDP and of the population than West Pakistan did for East Pakistan:

Also, on the topic of Banladesh you accuse us of acting undemocratic then how can you explain what happened to the Awami League party? They'd secured a majority of East Pakistan's seats, which would give them a majority in the Pakistani Parliament, but premiership was refused to the leader of the Awami Party, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The rest is history. Jammu and Kashmir has been given autonomy, the only thing witheld from them so far is a plebiscite, which is more than East Pakistan was given in 1970.

oh yeh, realised i might have not been clear before, I have been to Jammu.

and yet....the bombs went of in populated streets. I have no further comment on this matter as attacks would not decrease if the military left, it would turn back to attacks on political buildings etc.

A few years before Nehru died a large chunk of Kashmir was lost to the Chinese. That has made it almost impossible, not Nehru's death alone.

please please post sources, i want to see these 

So what you are saying is that IF a plebiscite is held, and Kashmiri's vote to join India (not saying it would happen, lets imagine it does) both Pakistan and China would hand over all of their lands in Kashmir peacefully, without the need for war?

Lets get this part straight. You claim the Chinese will ever give back the parts you sold? It will never happen, if Pakistan was really trying to act as a liberator it would not have given away part of Kashmir to a foreign power. I mean come on! look at China's track record (thinks about Tibet)

btw, absolutly loving the cricket match, wish i had tickets

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 - 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 - 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 - 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  

You picked a very bad time for me to start this topic as my current commitments elsewhere are more important, i'll try to write in the morning.

But until then, could you post 5 things you do like about India? so far all i've heard from you on this forum is a constant India vs. Pakistan. Maybe if you realise that we're not all the devils we're portrayed as we might be able to meet some middle ground.

I mean, even I understand the negative parts of my country (eg I dont agree with you 100% on what you wrote about Hyderabad, but we are partially at fault atleast in that), but we're not that bad, as i wrote in the Kargil topic, we're practically the same as the people who live in your neighbourhood, we just pay taxes to someone else.

Just an idea....it might help us shift through the indian or pakistani biased views scattered on the net. Seriously, it's hard to find one article which isn't leaning towards one side

Just wait and watch, this match is drawn if the Indian batsmen can make it to 500 runs. What i do want is a world record out of this match (most runs scored collectivly by two teams in one 5 day test match)

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.

You dont seem to know much about Kashmir, so let me explain this. I will try and make it as simple to understand as possible. Kashmir has two halves to it (keeping it simple), one half is called Azad Kashmir (Pakistani Kashmir), the other half is called Indian Kashmir. Indian Kashmir has been incorporated into the Indian Union as just another state. As such, the people of Kashmir are ruled by a central Delhi based government, that does not represent the electoral will of the Kashmiri people (it represents the electoral will of the Indian people as a whole, but since Kashmir is such a small country it has no political power). Pakistani Kashmir has its own president that has been elected by a legislative assembly in Kashmir, by the Kashmiri people. This allows the people of Pakistani Kashmir the power the choose the government that will provide them with the best policies for them and only them. The people on Indian occupied Kashmir have no such luxury - they can only elect a governor who has to ask his masters in Delhi before changing a policy, something that will only be allowed so long as it does helps the Indian people as a whole or the Delhi government . I hope you can follow this. I'll now post a list of the legislature of Azad Kashmir for proof of what I have just said.

http://www.ajk.gov.pk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2618&Itemid=142 - http://www.ajk.gov.pk/site/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=2618&Itemid=142  

There is no president of Indian Kashmir. The Indian Kashmiri people do not have a voice in the Indian parliament because they form a very small minority of the Indian population. So who has the better democracy in Kashmir, the Azad Kashmiris, or the Indian Kashmiris?

(PS Your analysis of Pakistan is also wrong. Pakistan will be going back to full democracy, and Pakistan already is a democracy for freedom of press and the legislature.)

Whilst I do agree with you (the longer Mush remains in power the better), when he does go there's the risk of someone worse coming to power. But if Mush stayed for many more years it would be a good situation. You are also correct in your analysis of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, both were corrupt and civilian democracies have had a negative impact on Pakistan so far in its history. In part, because Pakistan is a lower GDP country than India, corruption has more of an impact on Pakistan advancement than India, whose politicians are at least if not more corrupt than any of Bhutto's or Sharif's cabinet. Pakistan cannot afford to squander billions like India does.

.

That would be fine too. But India needs to agree to de-militarize the area. Pakistan will do this. It was all agreed upon in the UN by Pakistan in the fifties, but India did not agree when it was allowed to keep three times as many troops in Kashmir!!

Also, Assam is a state in the NorthEast of India, near Bangladesh. Azad Kashmir (free Kashmir) is the Pakistani half of Kashmir, which already is an autonomous region. By autonomous, Azad Kashmir, has its own president, who does not take orders from the president of Pakistan. The Azad Kashmiri president is the highest  legislative authority in Azad Kashmir. The governor of Indian occupied Kashmir (Indian half of Kashmir) is the highest legislative authority there), and he can only do things with the approval of the president of India who is Delhi based. To summarize, there is more democracy and more autonomy in the Pakistani half of Kashmir then the Indian half of Kashmir, despite Pakistan not being a total democracy right now.

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

If I remember correctly Pakistan gifted a portion of the so-called Azad Kashmir to big-brother China.What are your views on that land TeldeIndus.

So I guess the Pakistani model of a Partial democracy ruled by a  General is much better than plain run of the mill democracy.

Explained before. The gift you refer to was a small piece of Kashmir that was given on condition that when the dispute is sorted out, the legitimate Kashmiri government will decide what happens to it. It is irrelevant though. Aksai Chin was "gifted" to China when India lost it in the Sino-Indian war in 1962, Ladakh is also occupied by China. These are not populated regions, they just contain strategically important areas for China. The populated regions are Indian occupied Kashmir and Azad Kashmir. I dont care if the Chinese keep what they have of Kashmir - The Kashmiri people have the right to decide who governs them though on the territory that they live on.

You're misunderstanding, the Pakistan side of Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, has more democracy than the Indian side. It's simple math

Population of India - 1.2 billion

Population of Indian occupied Kashmir - 3 million.

The Kashmiri voice in Indian occupied Kashmir is drowned out by the 1.2 billion other Indian people. Anything that gets done in Indian occupied Kashmir will be done in the interests of the Indian people first, and then the Kashmiris second.

On the Pakistani side, you have their own democratically elected prime minister. It's not full autonomy - this cant be given until India gives their word on plebiscite, but it is their own functioning democracy and the president of Pakistani Kashmir is held accountable. He will be thrown out next election if he does not provide for the interests of the Kashmiris alone.

TeldeIndus have you seen 'Dumb and Dumber'.A real nice comedy.Do you like comedies TeldeIndus.I love them.

Population of India is around 1.0 Billion I guess.

Who are the Indian people.My states population is around 8 million.By your logic my province should join China{as it borders Tibet}.....but wait I got brains man....Chinese population is even more than that of India....so i guess we should join Nepal {since my province also borders Nepal} ...Nepalese population is many times less than that of China or India...and our voice would be heard louder and clearer in Nepal.So Nepalese here we come.

And dear Nepalese brothers and sisters we want our OWN President and Prime Minister who will only look after our interests.

and what's your right to decide what happens to the china's portion of the area based upon? morality?

there's no way that china will let go of it no matter what happens to the situation, and there's chance for you to stand up against china to gain control of the area.

and what's your right to decide what happens to the china's portion of the area based upon? morality?

there's no way that china will let go of it no matter what happens to the situation, and there's chance for you to stand up against china to gain control of the area.

That land is Indian.N I agree with you 'there's chance for us to stand up against China to gain control of the area'.

'DUMB,DUMBER and the DUMBEREST'

Coming soon to a theatre near you.

i mean there's no chance.

it was a typo.

are u a korean or a pakistani/indian?

and china cannot let go of the land for the following reasons:

1, money

2, money

3, money

if you can offer china with money, they will let u buy it back probably.

You've missed my point. There's two things your missing in fact. First of all, the Kashmiris on the Indian side did not vote to join India - it was taken by force. Second of all, the Pakistani Kashmiris have more democracy than the Indian Kashmiris, since they have their own president.

It's another topic. Feel free to begin one. But here's your answers.

1) Nope. Balochistan had its referendum in 1946 and voted for the Muslim League.

2) A referendum was offered to East Pakistan in 1946. The people of East Pakistan/Bangladesh voted for the Muslim League in the 1946 elections who campaigned under an election manifesto for the creation of the state of Pakistan. If they did not want to be part of Pakistan they should not have voted for the Muslim League. Congress was their other option. Independence was not an option at the time of partition.

Your point about diversity is valid, though it doesnt make refusing the people of Kashmir their plebiscite valid. You can argue that under international law, Kashmiris have the right to plebiscite, Punjab does not - the princely states had their chance during partition to decide who they wanted to go with, including Punjab, Kashmir did not however.

Your second point is both wrong and right. Kashmir is India's ONLY Muslim majority state. You are right that Kashmir should not go to Pakistan on the basis of religion only - let the Kashmiris decide this.

Autonomy would also be good.

I think you're wrong. China's part of Kashmir is not important to China now. It did have strategic value when it obtained it. But now China can just nuke everyone or invade them if it liked. There's not much India can do about it. I dont see a problem if China keeps Ladakh anyway.

Light at the end of the tunnel perhaps. Even the ex, pro-India governor of India Kashmir says give it autonomy now from India.

Autonomy best solution to Kashmir issue: Omar javascript clippopup(1384854); - [ Tuesday, January 24, 2006 02:24:27 pmIANS ]   JAMMU: Omar Abdullah, chief of Jammu and Kashmir's opposition National Conference, has said autonomy for the region would be the best solution to the longstanding dispute over Kashmir. "It is high time to tell the world what an indigenous and best solution for Jammu and Kashmir is," Abdullah said, referring to various ideas being mooted as possible solutions to the five-decade-old dispute between India and Pakistan.     http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1384854,curpg-1.cms - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1384854, curpg-1. cms

Even PDP is saying the same (popular in the Kashmir Valley)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1606506,000900010002.htm - http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1606506,000900010002. htm  

but it wouldn't hurt for china to keep a piece of land, too.

why give it back if u can keep it...

Yes my friend I agree but the question is will you offer a refrendum to Balochistan now under the prevailing circumstances...

Shiekh Mujhbir Rahman had a support of majority of members in Pak assembly and when it seemed that he will become Paks Prime minister...Military rule was imosed....coz the punjabis/sindhis couldn't see a bengali becoming a prime minister...

also activities like imposition of Urdu on Bengali populace made them ove away from Pak mainland...

You talked about voting for ML during 1946. But that was under the effect of horrible muslim-hindu-sikh riots that ensued...

would Pak have offered a refrendum in Eask pak in 1969... I think not...

Governments will offer referendum under two scenarios:

1. When they know they will win it

2. When they know that there is no other option of winning war.

Second question regarding the muslim aspect of Pakistan. The formation of Pakistan based on religion has failed on two counts:

1. Partition left majority of muslims back in India (120 million)

2. East Pak gained independence, showwing language is more important than religion

3. And please dont talk about love for muslims/ kashmiris...

Interested people should read about atrocities on Bengali muslims of bangladesh by Pak soldiers...you will be surprised by the extent to which muslims perpetrate violence against thier own "brothers" and "sisters"

I am not saying that Kashmiris are happy at J & K and mistakes have been made by the Army which are condemnable...(I do not believe in "my nation right or wong")

But we are moving in a right direction of peace and tranquility in Kashmir by following means:

1. strengthening democracy there (no more sham elections)

2.more autonomy

3. reduction of human abuses

4. more investments/jobs for kashmiris

How much  for whole China.We are interested.

The total GNP of the planet + ownership of the United States of America.

Agreed I give you total GNP of the planet {for 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000001 second} (as you didn't specify the time period)and you get the ownership of USA after you handover China to us.

There is no legal justfication for giving them a referendum, unlike Kashmir. I wouldnt mind giving Balochistan a referendum, the uprising is very small, and the majority of Balochis arent a part of it.

No . Did you know that Pakistan had TWO East Pakistani presidents and prime ministers before 1971? One was Iskander Mirza. The other was Khawaja Nazimuddin - born in Dhaka, president of Pakistan right from 1948 - 1953! (Pakistan's beginning). (Bengali Prime ministers of Pakistan have included Bogra and some others). In fact the pair of them dominated government together in Pakistan in the late fifties. A Bengali becoming president or prime minister was not a problem as history has proved.

I think you're wrong. Bengali was made the official language of East Pakistan in 1952 along with Urdu. The date was 21st Feb, 1952, 5 years after Pakistan's formation.

You have your timeline confused. The Muslim League won the elections on around January 11th, 1946. The  Direct Action Day that were perhaps a trigger for the rioting was in August of the same year - The rioting did not occur till December, 1946 and were in fact, in no way connected with the timing of the elections.

In 1970 free and fair elections were held, which in essence was a referendum because the pro independence party Awami League was allowed to run - and won. One could draw on this for Indian occupied Kashmir - that is, let a pro independence party in Indian occupied Kashmir run, and I bet they will win the elections in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. With East Pakistan however the parrallel stops there - East Pakistan was given their "referendum" in 1946, Kashmir was not.

1 reason

Another reason, but there's more.

Partition was never meant to accomodate all the Muslims into a state of Pakistan.

This actually shows the success of two nation theory and the formation of Pakistan. WIthout the formation of Pakistan, Bangladesh would not have got its independence - language was not so important either. The Bengalis were geographically seperated by too far a distance and there was a Nationist campaign in East Pakistan at the time blaming all the woes of East Pakistan on the West, for example it was suggested by the Awami League that East Pakistan would be the richest country in the world(!), if it was not for West Pakistan taking all the money. This turned out to be very false, as history has also shown.

Dont follow you.

Typical. Whenever Kashmir comes up, Indians resort to trying to discuss Bangladesh. The stories you refer to are just propaganda, everyone who has basic literacy knows it, it doesnt really wash outside of the India. It's like that of the German soldiers eating babies during World War II. Even the Bengali ambassador admits it's all hogwash.

"During the seminar, Bangladeshi scholars acknowledged that their official figure of more than 3 million killed during and after the military action was not authentic.

They said that the original figure was close to 300,000, which was wrongly translated from Bengali into English as three million.

Shamsher M. Chowdhury, the Bangladesh ambassador in Washington who was commissioned in the Pakistan Army in 1969 but had joined his country’s war of liberation in 1971, acknowledged that Bangladesh alone cannot correct this mistake. Instead, he suggested that Pakistan and Bangladesh form a joint commission to investigate the 1971 disaster and prepare a report.

Almost all scholars agreed that the real figure was somewhere between 26,000, as reported by the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, and not three million, the official figure put forward by Bangladesh and India."

http://www.dawn.com/2005/07/07/nat3.htm - http://www.dawn.com/2005/07/07/nat3.htm  

Wrongly translated!! For a copy of Bose's report on the 1971 War.

http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2005&leaf=10&filename=9223&filetype=html - http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2005&leaf=10 &filename=9223&filetype=html  

The Bose paper was presented at the following conference in the US attended by Indians, Bengalis, Americans and others.

"Session 3:
South Asia in Crisis during the Nixon Administration

Loy Henderson Auditorium

Chair: Dr. Peter A. Kraemer, Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State

Panelists:

‘We do not see any sign or hope:’ U.S.-Bangladesh Contacts in 1971
Dr. Ali Riaz, Illinois State University

The 1971 South Asian Crisis: U.S. Policy Revisited
Dr. Imtiaz Ahmed, University of Dhaka

Anatomy of Violence: An Analysis of Acts of Terror in East Pakistan in 1971
Dr. Sarmila Bose, George Washington University

Nixon's White House and Pakistan: The Tilt that Failed
F.S. Aijazuddin, OBE

Comment: Dr. Sumit Ganguly"

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/46059.htm - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/46059.htm

Kashmir had semi autonomy before 1952 before it became incorporated as just another state in India. If anything, there's been a reduction in autonomy. Human rights abuses by Indian soldiers in Kashmir have not stopped. They are all well documented by Amnesty.

"However, the SOG continued to operate as a cohesive unit and despite disciplinary action being taken against a few of its members, there continued to be regular reports of human rights violations being committed by the SOG. In May, the NHRC asked the Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir for specific information on the systems used by the state authorities to record and investigate allegations of “disappearances” and on measures taken to prevent further “disappearances”. A substantive response to the Commission’s request remained outstanding at the end of 2003.

Civilians continued to be targeted for gross human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir and scores of allegations of human rights violations were made against the security forces, paramilitaries and “renegades” (former members of armed opposition groups working with the security forces).

http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/ind-summary-eng - http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/ind-summary-eng  

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/14283.shtml - http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/14283.shtml  

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act enables the Indian troops to get away with anything they like, and they do in Kashmir.

"The AFSPA empowers security forces to arrest and enter property without warrant and gives the security forces power to shoot to kill in circumstances where members of the security forces are not at imminent risk."

http://wearmed/ - http://weArmed Forces Special Powers Act AFSPAb.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA200252005?open&of =ENG-IND

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/document.do?id=130CC715AEA97B67802569A500714D22 - http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/document.do?id=130CC715AEA97 B67802569A500714D22  

http://www.khalistan.com/CongRecords/CR06012004_Towns_HumanRightsViolationsExposed.htm -  

and what's ur authority to hand the ownership of usa to us?

Even though the infiltration is coming in from Burma and Bangladesh, they're still Pakistan-backed   - Clarification : Training camps and infiltrators from Bangladesh and Burma - Pakistan backing suspected by India

Kashmir infiltration close to zero: Army Indo-Asian News Service Jammu, January 25, 2006

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1607916,00080001.htm#" target=_blank onclick="javascript return submitHaveUrSayForm(1) - <> var href= window.location.href; href = href.substring(7); var idx = href.indexOf("/"); var relpath = href.substring(idx); document.write("" + " "); Advertisement 0.gif" width=1> var zflag_nid="294"; var zflag_cid="1"; var zflag_sid="0"; var zflag_width="180"; var zflag_height="150"; var zflag_sz="13"; < marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 src="http://c2.zedo.com/jsc/c2/ff2.?n=294;c=1;d=13;w=180;h=1 50" Border=0 width=180 scrolling=no height=150 allowTransparency ="" src="http://c2.zedo.com/jsc/c2/ff2.js"> http://xads.zedo.com/ads2/r?n=294;c=1;x=3328;u=j;z=timestamp"> A senior Army officer said on Wednesday that infiltration levels in Jammu and Kashmir have been brought down and are close to zero, though not exactly zero. He said that the threat has now spread elsewhere as Pakistani-backed intruders are now also coming in via Bangladesh and Myanmar. Due to heightened vigil along the 742 kilometre-long Line of Control that divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan, 400 kilometre of which has been fenced, infiltration has been checked to a great extent, but it is not over, said Lt Gen Deepak Kapur, head of the Army's Northern Command responsible for guarding Kashmir. "There is a 24-hour vigil being maintained on the LoC and the international border. This has blunted the edge of the infiltration from across," Kapur maintained. At the same time, the focus has shifted to Bangladesh and Myanmar, from where infiltrators are coming in via West Bengal and the northeastern states, he added. The Centre has already voiced its concern to Dhaka over the presence of the militant training camps in Bangladesh and has asked them to be dismantled.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1607916,00080001.htm - http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1607916,00080001.htm  

Teldeindus, who on this forum has posted 3million people? i think i posted above 300,000 but i cant see 3 million anywhere.

and if we are going to start poking fun through newspapers should i post how India is apparantly supporting the boloochi militants?

It was sarcasm..

What's your authority to hand over the ownership of China to us.China isn't even a democracy.Be careful about what you say.If the commies see your comments in this thread you might be.

First of all...The Pak sources quote 3 lakh and bangladeshis 3 million. Even considering a conservative figure of 1 million shows that large scale atrocities were perpetrated.

Just like you give sources I can come out with lots of links that state 3 million but lets not post links of bangla/paki/indian sites...let us interact.

But fact is that can u deny my friend that:

1. Atrocities were commited in Bangladesh by Pak army, I was especially saddened by the horrific rapes. The difference between you and me is that I acknowledge my countries mistake regarding atrocities against Kashmiris. While you deny the existense of killings/rapes of paki army against Bangladesh citizens. This is the difference. You believe in "your country right or wrong". The least we can do for the people suffering is atleast acknowledge that they have been wronged.

Your reasoning reminds me how neo-nazis everywhere tries to say that holocaust never occured and there was no 6 million jews killed but only a couple of lakhs. This is wrong. My friend you are not responsible for what your country does. But the minute you support any sort of atrocity against humans then I believe its a crime.

2. If Bangladesh was so well intergrated into Pak how come there was a strong nationalist movement? Please dont blame India for that!!

3. Kashmir now has elections!! Why doesnt Hurriyat take part in the elections and form a goverment. I will be happy when Pakistan become democratic. We have remained a democracy all throughout and what about your country where dictators take over.

4. And I fail to understand your logic. If Bangladesh seperates how does it justify the two nation theory. You said two nation theory was not meant to accomodate muslims?? Have you heard of population transfers?? It is an idiotic notion that has given a lot of power punjabis/sindis in Pak while it left rest of Indian muslims in the lurch.

Pak is not dependable: A clear example is how it joined the american forces in dislodging the Taliban. BTW if anyone is not aware, Taliban was installed by the Pak's ISI.

My final queries:

1. Do you agree that atrocities against any community by whomsoever is despicable?

2. Arent you sometimes ashamed by the parctises of your own country???

No. No offcial Pak sources quote 3 "lakh" or whatever. The official Pak source is the Hamoudour report which quotes 26,000 - read it. It doesnt completely clear the Pak military, and it's written by a Bengali - atrocities happen in every war.

Yes, you can give sources from a couple of Western armchair enthusiasts like RJ Rummel (who uses very questionable methodologies), or from people who wanted to sell books or from Bangladeshi or Indian media - you cannot get it from Pak media and you certainly cant get an official report stating 3 "lakh"

The references I gave were official reports given at a US state dept. review of the incident - All the experts on 1971 were there, Bengali, Indian, American. Try read it - you might learn something.

Summary form

http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2005&leaf=10&filename=9223&filetype=html - http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2005&leaf=10 &filename=9223&filetype=html   http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2005&leaf=10 &filename=9223&filetype=html -

No rape of women by Pakistan army found in the specific case studies: In all of the incidents involving the Pakistan army in the case studies, the armed forces were found not to have raped women. While this cannot be extrapolated beyond the few specific incidents in this study, it is significant, as in the popular narrative the allegation of rape is often clubbed together with allegation of killing. Rape allegations were made in prior verbal discussions in some cases and in a published work on one of the incidents. However, Bengali eyewitnesses, participants and survivors of the incidents testified to the violence and killings, but also testified that no rape had taken place in these cases. While rape is known to occur in all situations of war, charges and counter-charges on rape form a particularly contentious issue in this conflict. The absence of this particular form of violence in these instances underlines the care that needs to be taken to distinguish between circumstances in which rape may have taken place from those in which it did not. "

State dept advert

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/46059.htm - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/46059.htm

If you'd like to discuss Bangladesh, do it on another thread - it doesnt excuse the atrocities committed in Kashmir.

People always suffer during any war - that cannot be denied. But systematic use of rape as torture is pretty inexcusable. Policies of shoot to kill without knowing of valid targets are pretty inexcusable.

Whether I believe in the Holocaust or not, is immaterial. Indians bring it up regularly when discussing Bangladesh for some reason - any form of holocaust or genocide in Bangladesh 1971 has been officially discredited by all parties concerned. You cannot manufacture something out of nothing. Like I said, start another thread on this, this is on Kashmir.

The Nationalist movement grew strong by speeches given by the Nationalist leader who said that East Pakistan would be the richest country in the world were it not for being a part of West Pakistan. Golden fibres would be exported out of East Pakistan, if it were not for West Pakistan. The cyclone the previous year in Bangladesh was also used to whip up the anti West Pak sentiment. There's many reasons, but that is in the past now, if you'd like to discuss it, start a new thread.

All the elections in Indian Kashmir have been frauds, rigged voting. It's documented everywhere. The last one where they coerced people into voting was counted properly at least, but when they did count it properly the pro Indian government candidate was kicked out, the lesser pro Indian candidate (but not a seccessionist) was installed. If Hurriyat compete they would win, and if Hurriyat compete they will use either more coersion or rig the vote.

Hurriyat actually stayed out of the Indian elections - they would have easily won it had they competed, but they knew the vote would be fixed if their party had won - only non seccessionist parties would be allowed to win.

It would be encouraging to think that the autumn elections will be free and fair. But the voters have grown cynical and the Hurriyat has opted to stay out of the elections, less for fear of not winning votes than for fear of being cheated. It is a fear grounded in history: many of the members of the Hurriyat contested the 1987 election which was the subject of flagrant fraud and led to the present phase of the uprising against India.

India prefers to forget this and maintain the convenient fiction that the uprising is entirely a proxy war by Pakistan. But India was locking up Kashmiri leaders from the beginning. If elected, India feared, they would argue for a different political settlement. Best then to lock them up or, failing that, to make sure the election results did not reflect the extent of their popularity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,748897,00.html - http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,748897,00.htm l  

The Hurriyat leader, Geelani actually said this today

Both leaders expressed disappointment at Musharraf’s ‘deviation’ from the traditional Pakistani stance on Kashmir. Geelani said while Pakistan had shown too much flexibility, India hadn’t budged on the issue. He said the people of Kashmir continued to sacrifice their lives to liberate their land from Indian occupation but ironically “people in Kashmir are dubbed as terrorists”. 

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C01%5C24%5Cstory_24-1-2006_pg7_7 - http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C01%5C24 %5Cstory_24-1-2006_pg7_7  

If you would like to discuss the elections of 2002, then do so on this thread, Bangladesh do so on another thread, thanks!

Two nation theory was very much meant to accomodate Muslims. I dont believe I said anything else! The justification of two nation theory for Bangladesh seperating is that without two nation theory, Bangaldesh would have been another state in India today. The accomodation of more Indian Muslims into Pakistan or even Bangladesh isnt really possible, both countries are overcrowded, especially Bangladesh.

It's been discussed elsewhere. The Taliban were not pro Russian and were a good force for stability, who were in fact supported by Western countries as well. They started getting out of control so everyone dumped them. If you would like to discuss the Taliban and Pakistan's contribution, feel free to open up another thread or go to an existing one. This thread is on Kashmir.

Most definitely. And some of the Kashmiri people have distanced themselves from some of the militant units operating in the region because of this. The trouble is Indian troops are worse.

Nope, Pakistan has a great economy now, future prospects look good. Pakistan's a small country compared to India, yet India can only just about keep its nose ahead - it says a lot about Pakistan.

PS If you'd like to discuss Bangladesh or the Taliban open another thread.

Originally posted by Anujkhamar Originally posted by TeldeIndus Originally posted by Anujkhamar and if we are going to start poking fun through newspapers should i post how India is apparantly supporting the boloochi militants?   It was sarcasm.. i know, i undersood, i meant the last part as a joke. newspapers, jeez ps, will be adding properly to the thread very soon (exams just finished!) Originally posted by Jhangora Agreed I give you total GNP of the planet {for 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000 000000000000000000000000000000001 second} (as you didn't specify the time period)and you get the ownership of USA after you handover China to us. what would the interest be on such a loan?

I'm sure the amount can be paid by the Indian Govt.Even if we have to take a loan to buy China,we would be able to pay the interest and the principal out of China's trade surplus.

'Gar Firdaus Dar Rooiye Zameen Ast,

Hameen Asto,Hameen Asto,Hameen Ast'

'If there's Paradise on Earth,It is here,it is here,it is here'.

An Iranian dude said this once regarding Kashmir.

GULMARG

SONMARG

DAL LAKE

FLOWER SELLER----DAL LAKE

CHINAR

If you like the pics lemme know, I'll post more.

Kashmir is a tragedy, I know for a fact that the people of Kashmir are very simple and kind hearted regardless of their religion.  For ages they had been living in communal harmony until political aspirations of a few gave way to rise in religious agitations. But, we can't at any cost forget about the many innocent kashmiri minorities (hindus and sikhs alike) who have been slaughtered and exiled from their homes by insurgents over the years. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/904883.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/904883.stm

http://iref.homestead.com/Kashmir90.html - http://iref.homestead.com/Kashmir90.html

This is very debatable.

The Chattisinghpora cover-up

In March 2000, around the time of US President Clinton's visit to India, unidentified gunmen gunned down 35 Sikhs at Chittisinghpora; India blamed foreign militants; Kashmiris blamed renegade militants employed by Indian security forces; A few days after the massacre, security forces killed five persons in an "encounter" at Panchalthan village and claimed they are "foreign militants" responsible for the Sikh massacre. Later, in July 2002, DNA testing of the corpses proved that the five persons killed were civilians.

http://www.indiatogether.org/peace/kashmir/articles/indhr.htm - http://www.indiatogether.org/peace/kashmir/articles/indhr.ht m  

Confessions under torture arent usually true. 

Telde, stop denying people being killed by your own hatred for the Indian army. It’s really  beginning to get sickening. I am in no way going to deny the data you just provided. However, you have in no way, shape or form given any proof as to claiming Kashmirir pandits have not been killed by militants.

Are you trying to say there’s no genocide? That people are just standing up and leaving for other Indian states for fun? They want to leave their ancestral home and move to a country that is “hiring militants to kill them”?

edit: ignore the smiley faces, they happen when you copy off of word

First and foremost it is a known fact that Kashmiri-Hindu-Pandits have been persecuted against for quite some time if not before then definitely during the times of the Mughals; their women were raped, abducted, temples were destroyed, similar to what the Sikhs endured during that time in the Punjab.

Teleinduz this website is debatable, can you cite the same 'evidence' from a more reliable source such as BBC, CNN or the likes of them? 

Pray tell why you have animosity against the Indian army?  War crimes are a part of war and are being committed by all armies; i'm certainly not in denial of the fact that acts of violence have been committed against the population of Kashmir, but is the Indian side the only culprit in this matter?  What about the Pakistan army and their situation in 'Azad Kashmir', Balochistan (Kohlu and Dera Bugt), Balawaristan (Gilgit-Baltistan) and even Punjab?  I'm sure you'll  find credible evidence regarding atrocities committed by the Pakistan army:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3915235.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3915235.stm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/21/pakist9102.htm - http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/21/pakist9102.htm

http://www.bso-na.org/ - http://www.bso-na.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4138658.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4138658.stm

I never claimed that no pandits have been killed by militants. Some have, and from what I have read, the Kashmiri Muslims have distanced themselves from these groups. The resistance in Kashmir is not homogenous. There are many different groups, some of them are renegade militants on the payroll of the Indian Army. Those groups which are involved in the unusual action of killing their own people are distanced from the Kashmiri people by staging strikes in protest of whatever has happened. Many strikes have been called in Kashmir by Kashmiri Muslims to protest certain fresh Jihadi groups that have ended up targetting Kashmiris. The main resistance group, Hizb, attacks military targets only from what I've read - They are of course sons of the soil, so they would not attack their own people. 

PS. I dont hate the Indian Army, just what certain segments are doing in Kashmir.

Do you see the pandits picking up klashnikovs and marauding around and about killing kashmiri muslims?  Do you hear of instances where the pandits have taken to arms and have started to attack muslim places of worship?

But you do hear of terrorists bombing hindu temples and shrines, you do hear of them raping, abducting and slaughtering hindu/sikh women and for that matter even some muslims who show sympathy and support for their Kashmiri  brethren. 

The Mughal Empire is gone, though I would like to see your evidence for all this (Kashmiri Pandits being specifically targetted).

Yes.

BBC reports go s far as the Pandian Commission investigation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1001479.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1001479.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/694459.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/694459.stm  

Indian papers carry the results of the Pandian Commission investigation.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=23275 - http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=23275  

"In a detailed report submitted to the government last week after seven months, http://in.rediff.com/news/2000/oct/27jk2.htm - Justice S R Pandian has found three members of the Special Operations Group of the state police and four jawans of the Central Reserve Police Force http://in.rediff.com/news/2000/oct/31jk4.htm - involved in the heavy firing on a procession at Barakpora in southern Anantnag district to demand the exhumation of bodies of five persons allegedly killed as foreign militants at Pathribal.

The police chief of Kashmir range, Dr A K Bhan had then claimed that the five persons killed at Pathribal were http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/31jk.htm - foreign militants responsible for the massacre of Sikhs at Chattisinghpora."

http://in.rediff.com/news/2000/oct/31jk2.htm - http://in.rediff.com/news/2000/oct/31jk2.htm  

Well if you think it justifies the torture, rape, and disappearances being carried out, then there's no argument. But you're holding the Indian Army to a low standard.

Very few incidents. Azad Kashmiris are happy with Pakistan's policies for now towards them.

Probably just India trying to stir something up, but it's of such low intensity that it's a joke.

All very small scale. Probably 400 deaths in the last 10 years in all, compared to 30,000 in Indian occupied Kashmir.

Yes, 4 farmers bring killed by the Pakistani paramilitary units is wrong, if proved to be true. But it doesnt compare in scale to what's happening in Indian occupied Kashmir.

The Indian Army and renegades are killing the Kashmiri Muslims. No reason for th pandits to do so.

But not by the Hizb. Some fresh Jihadi groups popping up now and then which could just as well be renegade groups on the Indian Armies payroll.

The Sikh massacre was a cover up. There's enough proof of this.

It will be very difficult to know whether the resistance groups are with the Indian Army or against them (those with are known as the renegade militant groups). However, it is known that he Indian Army has terrorized the Kashmiri people.

Pakistan tried twice and miserably failed : 

What I don't understand is why did India give the land back to the pakistanis???!!  charity maybe 

Is it by chance that these 'renegades' are all coincidentally muslim??  and is it also a coincidence that muslims are bombing religious places of worship and holy shrines in other countries as well?? (e.g. Iraq)   Is it just me or does anyone else see a pattern here ? 

Its funny how these jihadi groups also have a strong presence in Pakistan where they're allowed full fledged freedom. 

It is also a known fact that some kashmiri people, aided by outsiders have been terrorizing hindus for the last 3 centuries, you reap what you sew...tit for tat.

I doubt any hindu would want to attack his/her own temples...listen its a pathetic attempt for you to cover this up and i'll be frank with you India is at no cost pulling out of Kashmir even if Pakistan back off (which it obviously will not).

In 1675 Pandit Kirpa Ram Dutt, of Matan, approached Tegh Bahadur (Sikh Guru) for protection of Kashmiri Pandits from the harsh rule of Iftikhar Khan (Governor of Kashmir), who was forcefully converting and abducting hindu women and children.  Tegh Bahadur agreed due to which he was summoned to the court of then Mughal emperor Aurungzeb where he also professed to having preached a religion other than Islam and held a debate with theh muslim scholars of the court.  When told to convert, Tegh Bahadur refused and was beheaded in Delhi along with some of his disciples who were tortured.

Pakistan fought India twice to a standstill, the third time in the 1971 war, a truce agreement was signed, but Pakistan conceded East Pakistan. Look at the size of India, look at the size of Pakistan. India could not manage to defeat Pakistan with numerical equipment, and a vastly greater military expenditure in the first two wars - the only reason East Pakistan was conceded was because the Indians combined with the Bangladeshis. Pakistan itself, or West Pakistan was not lost, just the Eastern flank but that was to be expected. How can you expect the Pakistanis to hold onto the Eastern side seperated by thousands of miles when the only way to haul heavy equipment there is by sailing round India and Sri Lanka. If the Bangladeshis had sided with West Pak, the outcome of that war too would have been different. Everything would have been fought to a standstill again, despite India being of 6 times the size of Pakistan, and the Indian Army also being about 4 times the size. 

On another point, the truce picture is always a source of amusement.

Some pandits are fighting with the Kashmiri Muslims, some are fleeing the war.

Hindus joining ranks of militants in Kashmir

SHAIKH AZIZUR RAHMAN IN NEW DELHI

WHEN Indian soldiers gunned down 18-year-old Hindu Kuldeep Singh along with seven Muslim militants in the Kashmiri border district of Doda in 2003, he was described by the army as an unwilling conscript in the mujahedeen's battle.

Security forces in Kashmir had all along assumed the militants were fighting an Islamic struggle that could never be supported by a Hindu.

But the killing last month of another Hindu militant and the arrest of two others adds to growing evidence that some of Kashmir's minority group willingly support the jihad of the region's Islamic extremists.

Indian forces killed Uttam Singh along with three other jihadis on August 19. The night-long gun battle in which he died came during an attempt by a group of Hizbul militants to kill or abduct an Indian Muslim soldier from his house in the border region of Kashmir.

Police later discovered 23-year-old Singh, alias Saifullah, was one of two Hindu sector commanders of Kashmir's largest Hizbul rebel group, which is fighting for the inclusion of the whole of Kashmir in Pakistan.

Police said that five years ago he crossed into Pakistan, where he was trained in arms and explosives. In 2003 he returned to India and was made commander of his group in Doda, leading about 120 militants, including seven Hindus.

Just three days after his death, police announced the capture of 25-year-old Hindu Virender Singh in New Delhi.

Police said he was a Hizbul operative in charge of supplying arms and funds to his jihadi colleagues on missions around the country.

On August 24, Hindu Hizbul militant Chattar Singh was arrested in Doda while carrying a pistol and grenades.

A senior officer at the defence ministry in New Delhi revealed that in the past three years, four Hindu militants had been killed fighting alongside the Kashmiri jihadis.

However, he would not accept the notion that they might be willing combatants.

"We have information that about a dozen Hindu militants are still active in Kashmir. We believe they were all forced to join militancy at gunpoint," the officer said.

"Being Hindus, they could never subscribe to the religious or political faith of the jihadis who are fighting for Kashmir's separation from Hindu-majority India."

That is not a view shared by Suresh Yadav, an Indian Border Security Force battalion commander, who served in Kashmir for three years. He said poverty was the key factor behind young Hindus joining the militancy in Kashmir.

"Mostly because of militancy in the border region of Kashmir in the last 16 years, economic growth has been stunted," he said.

"Hindu boys from poverty-stricken families in the border districts have joined the Islamic rebel groups who offer good pay packages to them while they fight, and also to their families in case of their deaths."

Since the insurgency erupted in the region in 1989, more than 125,000 Kashmiris have migrated out of the valley.

Of that number, 75% are Hindus and Sikhs and 25% are Muslims. Hindus comprise 28% of Kashmir's 10.5 million population.

Officially, 45,000 people have died in Kashmir since 1989. However, the unofficial count is more than 80,000.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1887482005 - http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=18 87482005  

You could look at a pattern in that way. You could also look at other patterns such as the only two Hindu majority countries, India, and Nepal, are involved in either bloody civil wars (Nepal, the Maoists), or wars with their neighbours (India, Pakistan and China).

Pakistan does not control any Kashmiri fighting outfit. It has influence over some, and has banned those outfits that are foreign. The only legitimate groups are those formed from the Kashmiri people themselves.

There's disagreement with your first part. Kashmir was indeed ruled by a Hindu, Maharajah Hari Singh and his family for centuries in recent times, even though the majority of his population was Muslim. The Kashmiris were terrorized by this man who ruled them in the early 1930s when a mass uprising in Kashmir occurred against him. What did he do, he killed everyone in sight. There's terrorism for you.

I'm not covering up anything. I could well be Muslims, it could well be Hindus. Either way it in no way compares to the loss of life occurring in Kashmir or that has occurred, the majority of the responsibility has to stick with the Indian Army on this. Though I also think you're wrong on India budging on this, it'll budge as soon as the whole of Kashmir has had enough, as has been shown by all the Hindu Pandits joining the ranks of the Kashmiri resistance groups. Even though Pakistan isnt supporting them physically, unlike India's physical interference in the Pakistan civil war, the result I think will be India losing Kashmir.

I await your responses, with baited breath  

 Don't get ahead of yourself buddy we were about to send Pakistanis into oblivion, they would've been running to the mountains of the hindu kush in their salwar kameez' if we would've continued.  I got more humiliating pictures of paki 'bravado' where they left even their mothers at the site of the Indian Army.  Better luck next time!

 "Losses were relatively heavy--on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1965.htm - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_19 65.htm

Please spare me this nuisance, this is utter rubbish because I for one have been to Kashmir and have seen the people on a first hand basis, the shiites HATE Pakistanis.  This article you posted up is nothing but a secluded instance since when are hindus keepings names such as 'Kuldeep Singh' ??? That guy was most likely a sikh who had been converted.  What the muslims wanted to accomplish was to have a majority in ALL the areas of Kashmir hence they have driven out a chunk of its minority population by extremist activity.  Land and religious rivalry is hardly called supporting the Kashmiri cause. This is an isolated incidence at best, if not another scheme thought up by the kashmiri mullahs.

More than triple that was the outcome against the hindus of India by muslim warlords during a time frame of 4+ centuries, so we're still not quite there yet .   Got alot of old scores to settle you see   how is it that they so eloquently put it?...'an eye for an eye' ?... 

Hey I see a pattern, I see muslims fighting each other and people of other religions far more often than people of other societies; this is caused by factions trying to promote their unique brands of Islam, tribal wars etc.  I also see the worlds conflicts most of which involve muslims...

I see another pattern, muslim terrorists using Nepal as a base for its operations, and supporting the Maoists with arms etc. while China turns a blind eye.  What about the hijacking of a Indian Airline flight which was taken to Afghanistan from Nepal??....see a pattern now?

Atleast you're not in complete denial...and yea the day India loses Kashmir will be the day that Pakistan signs its own death wish because kashmir is part of a bigger picture which involves religion, ethnicity, culture and nationalism.

The Indian Army didnt make any significant advances into West Pakistan. This is on record in all neutral sites. Wikipedia does say that the Indian Army made a ssuccessful crossing after a failure, and then got bombed into oblivion as they advanced. The Western front was a stalemate. This is what everyone acknowledges, except you I guess. Some sources even describe the Indian actions on the Western front as timid (you can take it up with them).

"Though the Indian conduct of the land war on the western front was somewhat timid" 

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/bravo/bangladesh1971.htm - http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/bravo/bangladesh1971.htm  

Even looking at the losses on that site, India took 5 times as many losses in the war than Pakistan. Pakistan's army was only one third the size of the Indian Army and a almost a quarter of them (70000) were fighting in East Pakistan at the time. Also the East Pakistani/Bengali segment of the Pakistani Army together with all the technical personnel had deserted the army leaving perhaps 200,000 poorly equipped West Pakistani soldiers on the Western front up against nearly a million Soviet armed Indian troops. Yet no major incursions into West Pakistan were made, at least none that lasted more than a day.

The equal argument applies to the Soviet Union's supply of weapons to India during this time. Without their help (and the help of the Bangladeshis), the war would have turned out very differently for India.

....savouring all 5 minutes of the time they had left before a counter strike

I've actually lived in Kashmir for a short while.  

Whether it's secluded or not is not the point. It is happening, and the Hindu pandits are taking up arms against the Indian Army. They are even trusted to command regional resistance groups, so I doubt it's secluded incidences.

This is false. Look at the demography of Kashmir over the years. The religious groups have not changed their demographies in Kashmir as a whole. If Hindu Pandits have fled, so have Kashmiri Muslims, it's all provable.

Now there's a conspiracy theory , and there are plenty more incidents like those mentioned above being reported.

I've never heard that line of justification for killing and torturing Kashmiri civilians before!!

You are correct, the reason being oil. What is the excuse India/Nepal for being involved in war?

What do Muslims have to do with Nepal. It's a Maoist insurgency.

Yep, this one I can give you. But again, I can quote terrorism in Gujerat. The Kashmiris wash their hands of any terrorists in the only way they know how, staging strikes and protests.

I have a large kashmiri community living in my town, they r always referred to by the govt as Pakistanis, although they r kashmiris from Free-Kashmir.

I have asked many, the question of union with India or pakistan. I have only heard two different answers.

1. Union with pakistan  50%
2. Independent Kashmir  50%

However, most of the latter opt for independence because they feel frustrated with the Pakistani Govt's insincerity towards that goal.

  Nice try now read the truth....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India-Pakistan_wars - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India-Pakistan_wars

"However, based on some relevant data, it is estimated that the war casualties of the conflict in 1947-48; 1965; 1971 and 1999 (Kargil) have been 8,733 for India and 13,896 for Pakistan. [1] This does not include the losses in minor skirmishes and areas like Siachen."

The equal argument applies to the Soviet Union's supply of weapons to India during this time. Without their help (and the help of the Bangladeshis), the war would have turned out very differently for India.

There were no banglas in the 1965 war buddy the Indians would've had the mullas running helter skelter like the article said.

Originally posted by TeldeInduz]I've actually lived in Kashmir for a short while.

I figured that...sure only for a short while?  You sure do sound like the progeny of a hard liner kashmiri mullah

Whether it's secluded or not is not the point. It is happening, and the Hindu pandits are taking up arms against the Indian Army.

 

I bet all these 'pandits' are converts to Islam, gutt feeling.

I've never heard that line of justification for killing and torturing Kashmiri civilians before!!

 then again you've probably never met the likes of me, my grand father wouldnt even let a muslim touch his luggage at the train station. 

Originally posted by Teldeinduz  You are correct, the reason being oil. What is the excuse India/Nepal for being involved in war?

Not oil, the correct reason being Islam; you don't see non-muslim countries rich with oil reserves fighting wars like this do you??  There is NO oil to be fought over in Thailand, so then why do the thai muslims fight with the buddhists?  There is no oil in Nigeria so then why do christians and muslims go at it? There is no oil to be fought over in New Guinea so why do the muslims fight the animists? Good job buddy 

What do Muslims have to do with Nepal. It's a Maoist insurgency.

Maoists are present in India too...see a pattern there? Ask the countless ISI agents that've infiltraded the area and are supplying maoist rebels with arms and amunitions. 

If Kashmir erupts, it wont have anything to do with Pakistan, the people in Delhi and Islamabad know that dropping one nuke will just cause an equally devastating reponse, so that is not a situtation you need worry about.

India is very much in a position to run pakistan w/o a nuclear war.  We don't need nukes for a bunch of people running around wearing kufis and salwars riding ponies and camels  can you say GENOCIDE  

You do not seem to get the point that most Kashmiris do not want to be a part of India either.

I get your point, but I dont care much for it, you still havent gotten mine though... lemme make it a bit more simple...now the question is how many lives are they (muslims) willing to sacrifice in the process because INDIA IS NOT GOING TO GIVE IT UP WITHOUT WWIII 

-------------


“If God did not create the horse, he would not have created the Rajput.”

one question and one concern

question

R U A rajput?

If u r then there could be another reason Y ur grandfather didnt want his muslim brother to touch his luggage, it may have been because he didnt want to pass on any contagious diseases to this man.

After all rajputs fought alongside afghans against fellow hindu marathas. Ur great great grandfather could hve been one of those who did so.

concern

how do u plan to bring the rest of the world into ur war?

lol..wikipedia..

Do you not know the history of Indo-Pak? The 65 war was a stalemate. Pakistan probably had the upper hand. The East Pakistanis did fight then (East Pakistani Rifles). 

Not a Mullah and not Kashmiri either.

With names like Sandeep Singh?

Must have had something to hide..

Non Muslim countries rich with oil reserves. How many are there? Russia, but it's got atomic weapons and ICBMs so it's out of the question. Who else?, North Sea Oil, all comes under NATO. Most of the oil reserves in the world is under Muslim countries last time it was checked.

Probably something along the lines and magnitude of the Naxals in India.

They've always been going at it havent they?

Ah, animists!! Another large scale confrontation  

Same thing in Balochistan I guess, though I think the Maoists are getting their arms from India.

Arms are being smuggled into India, yet they confirmed that the arms are usually Chinese and Russian made. A rebel's statement said: "Usually we get arms through Nepal and sometimes through Tibet, but our main procurer are ULFA and LTTE. here are so many arms dealer all over the world. They are sitting in China, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and even in India. I am not in the position to say much on this subject."
The chief weapons used by the Maoists are not big machine-guns but homemade guns, pistols, land explosives, pressure-cooker bombs and other small arms.

The bulk of small arms smuggled into Nepal come from India's bordering illegal arms bazaar. Weapons like katuwa (homemade guns), bharuwa (muzzle loader), 12-bore guns, 22-bore guns, air guns, rifles and shotguns were easily brought into Nepal, mostly by criminals and sold to Maoist militants. The raw materials for socket bombs and land explosives that have seriously injured and killed many civilians were smuggled from India.

http://www.raonline.ch/pages/story/np/mao16B01T.html - http://www.raonline.ch/pages/story/np/mao16B01T.html  

No no. India cannot beat Pakistan in a conventional war either. The one on one wars in the past have proved this. What Pakistan lacks in numbers is made up for in other areas. This has been proven in the past.

Ah, Kashmiri democracy!! 

You're living in a dream world if you think India is capable of launching world war 3. It doesnt have the means or in fact the testicular forttitude to do either!! 

..might I suggest you continue watching "Tiger Gurjeet Singh" on WWF, as I think this is the closest you'll get to seeing World war 3  

Progeny of our HINDU - RAJPUT great-grandfathers :

Yes I'm a rajput not some mix breed mongrel.  The Rajputs fought against the marathas because the marathas were responsible for genocide against former, which they repeated on and off.  Times have changed and India is now more united than ever under the Hindu Faith!

Well first and foremost its not my war but yea you have China sitting pretty to the east and India just signed a Nuclear pact with the Americans, yea its gona get messy. Russia is not going to sit idle while they go at it and neither is North Korea, so its a recipe for WWIII.

I know i'm not a big fan either but you yourself were in its favor previously "This is on record in all neutral sites. Wikipedia does say that the Indian Army made a ssuccessful crossing after a failure, and then got bombed into oblivion as they advanced."

Most of the action was on the western front.

Correction:  Sandeep 'Saifullah' ....

Actually he said it to the mans face...because the guy asked 'but why? its my # to pick the next luggage' and he said 'because you're muslim'.

try Venezuela

Really?  thats why they kidnap thai girls and cut them up into pieces if they dont convert???  Is there an end to your ignorance and hypocrasy ?

Ah, animists!! Another large scale confrontation

There you go exactly my point!  what possible quarrels could the entire muslim populus possibly have with animists??? If you still don't see it then you're beyond hope.

I dare them to prove it again...

Testicular fortitude huh?  I got your fortitude right here; their fore fathers used to make muslims run back to the hills!

Nope, I'm never in favour of it, I was quoting the only site I could find that said that the Indian Army made any inroads into Pakistani territory. And surprise, surprise, it was Wiki.

Either way Bangladeshis were fighting for Pakistan (some received awards for their efforts), but more importantly for sure, millions of Bengalis were not fighting against Pakistan whilst being aligned with India, as in the '71 war.

Alright, and these ones also are closet Muslims?

Brothers-in-arms

I favour Malizai's explanation  

Muslim countries occupy 7 of the top ten slots for oil reserve quantity.

http://capitals.com/rankorder/2178rank.html - http://capitals.com/rankorder/2178rank.html  

PS Nigeria is ranked in 10th place. It's a Muslim country.

That sounds more like what they did in Gujerat to Muslims. I've not heard of people systematically cutting up people if they dont convert. If you have a link, I'd be interested to see it.

Originally posted by TeldeInduz Originally posted by Rajput Ah, animists!! Another large scale confrontation   There you go exactly my point!  what possible quarrels could the entire muslim populus possibly have with animists??? If you still don't see it then you're beyond hope.

It's not what possible quarrels, more like what quarrels. Animists are fighting Christians, Animists are fighting Muslims, Muslims are fighting Christians, Christians Muslims, that is Nigeria.

For example, in July, animists destroyed Christian homes and businesses in Nkalaha, Ebonyi State in retaliation for the nonparticipation of Christians in animist rites and traditions. Animists in Ebonyi State insisted that all individuals pay cultural respect to the traditional ruler. Many Christians refused, and in retaliation the animists flogged the Christians. The Christians later complained to the police, who then beat the animists involved in the flogging.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35376.htm - http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35376.htm  

Christians are responding on a number of fronts. Earlier this year, three pastors and twenty-one other Christians from the town of Neke in Enugu state in southeastern Nigeria attempted to expose human sacrifices and idol worship by a traditionalist religious group that has killed at least thirty-two people.

http://www.preachingtoday.com/26007 - http://www.preachingtoday.com/26007  

I can see them listening to you.

Ah, yes, your fortitude must be a mental carryover from "Tiger Gurpreet Singh's" last wrestling match, most likely watched from your armchair with all the enthusiasm of a kid riding his first bike.

Most of the Rajput kings are still all Hindu, some are Sikh and One is muslim, Ruler of Bhawalpur now in pakistan, but even they now claim arab descent.

The muslim rajputs converted to Islam mainly to keep their titles and lands under the afghans or mughals.  They are ostracized by the rest of the non-muslim rajputs since they had converted and were marrying their cousins (against hindu/sikh faiths).  Most Rajput kings were leniant when it came to religion, the sufi saint khwaja chisti even flourished his madrasa during the reign of Pithora Chauhan.  Most of the rajputs that converted to Islam are of the Sindh and Punjab regions and even though they'll tell you that they converted under sufi saints, the truth is that they converted to save their lands which is why they're not accepted as rajput anymore.  The duty of a rajput as a kshatriya is to defend ones dharma(religion) unto death.

What can I say teldeinduz, if its testicular fortitude you're looking for then trust me, my people can help your people out because I know for a fact that yours will not have the ballocks to display such bravado in war. 

"The Thermoplyae of 19th Century" - Battle of Saragarhi

21 sikh soldiers of the punjab regiment led by Ishar Singh defended a fort in the NWFP area of Pakistan against approximately 10,000 Orakzai and Afridi tribesmen.  All were awarded the Indian Order of Merit equivalent to the victoria cross.

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/indiancampaigns/samana.htm - http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/indianca mpaigns/samana.htm

Interesting. But you missed out that there were some 4 forts, and that they kept the gates locked out of fear for letting in the tribals. Fortresses are very difficult to break into without heavy weaponry,  yet thousands of reinforcements were sent, who did not stay and fight..

On the 9th Sept the sentries on the eastern outposts saw something that caused great excitement thoughout the Samana fortifications. A large body of soldiers marching towards them under a British flag, about 2000 men of the Royal Irish Regiment, 2nd and 3rd Gurkhas, and 2nd Punjab Infantry commanded by Major-General Yeatman-Biggs.

Yeatman-Biggs feared that they would cut off his route back to Hangu, and as there was insufficient water to supply his men on the Samana, he decided to return.

Then later on..heavy weapons arrive (though I dont get why Yeatman-Biggs only just received news of the fighting when he had already launched an expedition there before)

Yeatman-Biggs received news of their plight and sent the 3rd Bengal Cavalry, a squadron of the 3rd Punjab Cavalry and four guns of the 9th Field Battery RA down the Miranzai Valley to give support to Fort Gulistan.

The Pathans in NWFP didnt take too kindly to colonialism..

So..back on topic.. 

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/indiancampaigns/samana.htm -

 2 main forts and the one being discussed was a VERY small one in the middle. 

So whats your point?  The sikhs inside Saragarhi were still numbered to 21 and they fought to the last man; I'm pretty sure that the 'pathans' saw this as a humiliating battle for themselves .

The gate was forced at the same time and the 19 men fought a desperate hand-to-hand fight with their few remaining bullets and their bayonets. The sheer weight of numbers soon overwhelmed them and they were all killed.  Even the naik who had been wounded earlier shot four attackers from his sick-bed. The last man to die locked himself in the guardroom from where he managed to shoot 20 Pathans, but they set fire to the building and left him to burn to death.

 I know my share of 'pathans' they're also notorious for switching sides, not staying true to their word and fleeing the battle field.  History has proven this more than once.

PS.  The topic is your testicular fortitude remember??....lets see that you of your people. 

23 Kashmiri Hindus Gunned Down on Republic Day Eve Terrorists shot dead 23 civilians in the village of Wandhama, near the town of Ganderbal in Jammu and Kashmir. The victims, all civilians, included four children, nine women and 10 men. Wandhama, a village at the foothills of the mountains just 30 km outside Srinagar, boasted four families of Kashmiri Hindu Pandits, numbering around 24. A boy is the only survivor of the tragedy. The attackers also torched a small Hindu temple and blew up a house. According to one reporter (Mukhtar Ahmad), the survivor is 14-year old Vinod Kumar Dhar. According to his report two dozen-odd militants dropped in for tea, around 2030 hours on 25 January at the village. "When they came, they assured us they wouldn't harm the four Pandit families... one Urdu-speaking gunman asked for tea and my mother made it for all of them and served it to them herself... then time passed, and other militants began entering the other three houses of my relatives," Dhar recalls. Dhar was in the upper story of the house, fighting sleep and waiting for the "guests" to leave before retiring for the night, when the death-rattle of automatic weapons broke out. "I heard the cries of my mother and sisters, I heard the sounds of shots from the homes of my relatives as well... I hid upstairs, scared they would search the house... they didn't, but two militants set it on fire before leaving... I came down, but all I saw was bodies lying scattered everywhere... my mother, my sisters, relatives... all, dead... when I went out, I saw the other three houses burning, a temple near our home was also in flames..." Ahmad report goes on to quote a local. "These families were happy here in the village, they never migrated despite all the troubles, they always said they would be part of our community, would live and die with us," said a grief stricken Ghulam Rasool, native of Wandhama. "I had been pressing them, saying they should migrate to Jammu, they never listened, they said they loved their village and wanted to stay there. And since we never had any problems here before, I thought they were right." Twenty three funeral pyres were erected, bearing the bodies of the victims. And Dhar, lone survivor of the carnage, went tearfully from one to the other with burning brand in hand, consigning his mother, his sisters, father and relatives to the sacred flames -- which rose against the backdrop of the four torched houses where, a day earlier, four families of Kashmiri pundits had lived in peace and amity with their neighbours. "Where will I go now?" a sobbing Dhar asked as he was led away, out of range of the scorching flames. "There is no one for me, no one to look after me, no one to care for our fields, our orchard and cattle...there is no one left for me..." Kashmiri Pundits Outraged The Kashmiri pundit (Hindu) community all over the world has reacted with shock and outrage at the incident. Before the beginning of militancy in the state of Jammu & Kashmir in 1989, the Valley had over 3,00,000 pundits. Today, it is estimated that there are just a few hundred left. The pundits are the original inhabitants of the Valley. The day after the incident, agitating Kashmiri Pandits clashed with police in the Capital, New Delhi, when they broke barricades and tried to force their way to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). At least 11 Kashmiri Pandits, including ''Panun Kashmir`` convenor Dr Agnishekhar, were injured when they were hit by water cannon. Dr Agnishekhar fell unconscious and rushed to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Earlier, all the prominent Pandit organisations asked the Centre to dismiss the Farooq Abdullah government in Jammu and Kashmir and demanded a fresh look to their rehabilitation in view of the January 25/26 massacre of Pandits in Wandhama village in the chief minister`s constituency. ''We unanimously reiterate our loss of faith in the Farooq Abdullah government`s competence to control the situation in Kashmir, where the remaining Pandits are butchered by militants as the administration watches on,`` said Panun Kashmir Convenor Dr Agnishekhar. In Jammu, the winter capital of the state of Jammu & Kashmir, an agitating mob set on fire two trucks and students clashed with the police leaving four persons injured in sporadic violence as a general strike, called to protest against the killing of 23 Kashmiri Pandits, evoked a partial response in Jammu region on 27 January. In a press release, the Indo-American Kashmir Forum (IAKF) in Washington D.C. condemned the carnage and demanded military protection. "The details of the latest carnage are of unprecedented proportions. On the eve of India&;s 48th Republic day, January 25, 1998, a band of armed Islamic terrorists fighting the Jihad in Kashmir entered Wandhama village in Ganderbal district, about 20 miles north of Srinagar, the State capital. In the village, a predominantly Muslim area, the militants sought out the four Pandit (Hindu minority) families living there. Additionally, another Pandit family was visiting the village on this unfortunate day. By the time the Islamic insurgents were through, 23 Pandits lay dead from the five families that included 10 men, 9 women and 4 children. Of these, 17 were gunned down including a one year old boy who received 18 bullets. The remaining 6 victims consisting of 4 women and 2 children were burnt alive. Following the massacre, the militants torched their homes and the nearby Hindu Temple, before escaping into the vastness of night. No group has so far claimed responsibility for this crime against humanity. The Indo-American Kashmir Forum joins our apex organization in North America, the Kashmiri Overseas Association (KOA), in condemning this brutal outrage on the Pandit minority in Kashmir. The significance of this massacre, coming on the eve of a national celebration and in the constituency of Dr.Farooq Abdullah, the Chief Minister, is a further indication of the evil designs by fanatic Islamic warriors armed and supported by Pakistan. But even more importantly, it undermines any claims by the Central government in Delhi or by the State government that normalcy is returning in Kashmir. Indeed, since the return of the elected government in the state, Kashmiri Pandits have been the targets of three massacres, one in Sangrampura (March 1997), the other in Gool Gulabgarh (June 1997), and now the latest massacre in Wandhama (January 1998). Therefore, any efforts by the Abdullah government to urge Pandit refugees to return to the State without first acknowledging and mitigating their security and related concerns lends credence to the charge that the State government has utterly failed to respond to Pandit concerns, needs and demands. And the posture of the Central government in playing a role of a silent spectator in this political tussle between the Abdullah government and the Pandits is both deplorable and shocking. Kashmiri Pandits, loyal Indian citizens, feel betrayed and the latest massacre only proves what was inevitable given the attitude of the Central and State governments towards their security needs, and their political and human rights." Gujral visits Wandhama Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral on 28 January joined the mourners in Kashmir's Wandhama village. Amidst tight security, the prime minister, accompanied by Governor General K V Krishna Rao (retired), Chief Minister Dr Farooq Abdullah and Union Minister for Environment Saifuddin Soz, arrived in the afternoon after inaugurating the National Winter Games in Gulmarg. "I have come here to express my grief on behalf of the nation," he said, "The people of Punjab had unitedly defeated the nefarious designs of the enemy. The people of Kashmir will also defeat the designs.''  Gujral assured 14-year-old Vinod Kumar Dhar, the lone survivor of the massacre, that the government would bear the cost of his education and upbringing. Speaking to a group of Kashmiri Pandits who had come down from nearby villages, the premier said adequate security would be provided in all vulnerable areas. Reports from Ganderbal, meanwhile, said that many Kashmiri Pandits in the area were preparing to leave for Jammu. Foreign Mercenaries Responsible Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister, Dr Farooq Abdullah, flew to the village where the carnage took place. He said that such acts of terror were guided and masterminded by Pakistan and militant groups sponsored by ISI. "Where were those making noises about human rights violations?" Let them come and see now who is committing the human rights violations," he said.  He said that his government would take all set ups to ensure security of the minorities in the State."Kashmir Pandits were part of all of us and no one can change that fact," he added. Police squarely blamed the pro-pakistan Hizbul Mujahideen for the killings. However, the army did not disclose the identity of the group. A spokesman of the army said the group would be neutralised soon. He said: ''It is known that this group consisted of 10 to 17 foreign militants supported by some local ultra. The local militants operating with the group are known to have certain links with certain political leaders of that area and is because of these political links that they have certain amount of confidence in carrying out such acts. The wide condemnation of this cowardly act by Hurriyat Conference, Jamaat-e-Islami and other parties is a positive sign. What is needed now is that these culprits be exposed by the Hurriyat and Jamaat who have all along supported them and even fueled them." Algeria type situation Likely, warns former JKLF Leader Hashim Qureshi Chairman of Jammu & Kashmir Democratic Liberation Party express his deep sadness and anger against killing of 23 Kashmiri Pandits in Ganderbal on January the 26. Hashim Qureshi condemned and said in his press statement: " These kind of inhuman and barbaric actions are not only grass violation of human rights but also action of wild boar against humanity, it proves, that these kind of people who are killing women, men and children are enemies of the Kashmiri people and enemies of the Kashmiri struggle. Actions like, blowing up human bodies and burning down the religious worships should be called "an act of a beast against civilised people". Hashim Qureshi warns the people of Kashmir that these kind of unhuman killings are the beginning of an Algerian kind of massacres against innocent people. He said; " If we Kashmiris will not stand up against these kind of barbaric acts, it can be happen anywhere and with everyone. NHRC to probe Wandhama massacre The National Human Rights Commission on Wednesday decided to conduct an on- the-spot investigation into the Wandhama massacre. After hearing representatives of the Kashmiri people, the Commission's three- member bench, headed by Justice M N Venkatachaliah, asked its director general (investigation) to proceed to the spot immediately. The Commission also issued notices to Union Home Secretary B P Singh and the chief secretary and director general of police of Jammu and Kashmir on the safety of the minorities in the valley. The other Pandits should be given 'adequate protection'. And the state should report back what security measures it had adopted. The Commission would hear the matter again after receiving the government's action-taken report as well as the one from its own investigators. It asked the state to take special care of Vinod Kumar Dhar, the lone survivor of the incident. The boy's closest relatives should be located and he should be entrusted to their care. The expense of his upkeep should be borne by the government.

-------------


“If God did not create the horse, he would not have created the Rajput.”

Cent

They haven't been given that chance, there hasn't been a referendum. For there are only two outcomes, separation from both countries or union with Pakistan. None, benefiting India.

They are better off with separation.

Okej, thanks malizai_