The present frameworks -geographic or political, haven't solved the issue. It has dragged on and on. Billions are facing the repercussions of the problems faced by millions. So maybe its time to cut loose.
Kashmir election: A step towards the political change
- Thread starter ayushkadyan
- Start date
The present frameworks -geographic or political, haven't solved the issue. It has dragged on and on. Billions are facing the repercussions of the problems faced by millions. So maybe its time to cut loose.
Both sides have to give in. Pakistan's official stand is self-determination for Kashmiris and thats what this model will allow. Their ulterior motive maybe to usurp it, but with UN watch they be wary of trying anything stupid. After 11 years of opening borders, if the Kashmiris still wish to join Pakistan, it will be their wish. Who can stop them if they wish to condemn themselves to another lifetime of misery.
Anyways, all these are theories but I see it as the only practical way provided all parties act sensibly.
Totally misguided here that Pakistan official stand is self determination. If that is the case why they first attached it. Why they changed the name of Gilgit–Baltistan. Why they gave some areas to communist China against people will? Why so called 'Ajad Kahsmir' is not Ajad.
India wanted self determination as per UN however Pakistan didnt meet the basic condition for Plebiscite.
Lets not get fooled by propagandas and biased news.
Pakistan's official stand is also that they never involved in any terroism, infiltration , training camps or proxy wars.
Their official stand is fighting against menace of terrorism. LOLZ
If UN watch is so strict. Then they should compel Pakistan to withdraw its army & terrorists from POK & G-B to hold the plebiscite under Indian flag as it is mandated.
Trust me we billions do not have any problem in India holding Kashmir with force, resource or whatever. Aur wiase bhi hum to Jat hai thodi bahut jameen ke chakkar me hathiyar chala de yo to poora state hai desh ki shaan hai.
just saying Plebiscite was not supposed to be under Indian watch. That is the misconception many of us have. Both the countries were asked to withdraw to pre-1948 boundaries under the UN resolution adopted in 1949. Of course neither did.
I am talking about an approach which is diametrically different from what has been practiced uptill now. Lets move the focus from the 'land' to the 'people'. Otherwise it wont be solved ever.
Lets remember even if a plebiscite is done today, to be fair it must address the following:
1. It must be done across J&K n both sides of the border, not just on the Indian side.
2. Plebiscite is useful only if it is truly REPRESENTATIVE, but the demographics have changed e.g. Pakistan on its side has actively pursued the policy of resettling Punjabi's in occupied Kashmir who are not the native Kashmiri but now deemed Kashmiri and they will vote for Pakistan. Conversely, India has article 370 which means no outsiders in Kashmir and Hindus were run off, which means less pro-India and more anti-India. That is a double whammy against India.
3. Plebiscite must cover kashmiri areas only, e.g. Leh and Laddakh have been historically Tibbatan Biddhist areas. Jammu is more similar to Himachali Hindu culture than Islamist culture. Should those non-kashmiri areas be excluded from any CONTENTION and be deemed Indian without even plebiscite.
4. Even in muslim majority Kashmir of J&K, bakkarwals in the border areas are pro-India SHIAs, but most of the anti-India noise is raised by the urban SUNNIs of Srinagar. A minority of Sunni jehadist hardliners, act as custodians of all Muslims & whole JK in the guise of "democracy and right to self-determination", which certainly isn't a reflection of reality and not a true representation of the masses.
India would be crazy to accept plebiscite under such conditions. Solution from Indian perspective is we must abolish 370, bring back all Pundits, actively resettle mainland Indians (e.g. retired army soldiers and their families) to change the demographics to pro-India, this will solve many problem, including preempting any demands of plebiscite. We will not be doing anything wrong, it is mere replication of what Pakistan already did.
1. It must be done across J&K n both sides of the border, not just on the Indian side.
2. Plebiscite is useful only if it is truly REPRESENTATIVE, but the demographics have changed e.g. Pakistan on its side has actively pursued the policy of resettling Punjabi's in occupied Kashmir who are not the native Kashmiri but now deemed Kashmiri and they will vote for Pakistan. Conversely, India has article 370 which means no outsiders in Kashmir and Hindus were run off, which means less pro-India and more anti-India. That is a double whammy against India.
3. Plebiscite must cover kashmiri areas only, e.g. Leh and Laddakh have been historically Tibbatan Biddhist areas. Jammu is more similar to Himachali Hindu culture than Islamist culture. Should those non-kashmiri areas be excluded from any CONTENTION and be deemed Indian without even plebiscite.
4. Even in muslim majority Kashmir of J&K, bakkarwals in the border areas are pro-India SHIAs, but most of the anti-India noise is raised by the urban SUNNIs of Srinagar. A minority of Sunni jehadist hardliners, act as custodians of all Muslims & whole JK in the guise of "democracy and right to self-determination", which certainly isn't a reflection of reality and not a true representation of the masses.
India would be crazy to accept plebiscite under such conditions. Solution from Indian perspective is we must abolish 370, bring back all Pundits, actively resettle mainland Indians (e.g. retired army soldiers and their families) to change the demographics to pro-India, this will solve many problem, including preempting any demands of plebiscite. We will not be doing anything wrong, it is mere replication of what Pakistan already did.
Last edited:
Agreed. Demographics have changed considerably. Hence a few posts back I mentioned imposing a self rule under UN watch of 10 years of the combined valley. Though another issue in that will be that the UN is no longer as relevant as it could be and may sway to whoever weilds more influence.
Not sure what is the purpose of quoting my post here. I said Pak didnt meet the first condition of plebiscite. That is not myth.
Wish things were as simple as this. We all know how so called freedom movements can be created by external forces and how leaderships can be imposed by external support. Everyone shows how Robin Raphel played dirty and almost created Huriyat leadership in Kashmir. Pakistan has been landing support to terrorists in Kashmir. No nation will allow a part of it to break away this way. Its just not the self rule by one part, but the nationhood for rest of the country.
RK^2
The longevity of military presence in any State should be determined by the security situation there. The prevailing situation in J & K necessitates continuation of military deployment. As for the right of determination, Kashmiri people are free to elect their government through ballot every four/five years just like other Indian provinces. Why should they be allowed to secede from the mainland simply because of one statement made wrongly in the UN 65 years back. That statement was nothing more than a faux pas which has already lost its sanctity due to drastic and sustained demographic changes in both parts of Kashmir. Democratic values can be (and should be) sacrificed mercilessly if the religious bigotry and fundamentalism start taking precedence over the very idea of nationalism. Why the fact is being ignored that the ruler of Kashmir Hari Singh who was the sovereign ruler of the State of J & K pre-independence signed the Instrument of Accession on his own volition (26 October, 1947). The issue of plebiscite,much acclaimed by the secessionists, was conditional and linked to the condition of withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the occupied territory (POK) which never happened. Also, the matter of plebiscite was superseded by the Shimla Agreement in July, 1972 between Indira Gandhi and Bhutto which provides for bilateral resolution of the Kashmir issue without interference from third party.
You see ... its all about reducing demographic of Hindus/pro-India. India can do the reverse (abolish 370, and resettle pro-India people to change the demographics, the noise will be lost once significant majority is achieved), shatte shatyam shamcharet, yen ken prakaren... Foreign relations and international disputes are fought on national-self-interests and sold to the world packaged as pious higher values of humanitarianism and democracy in a statesmanship like manner, all that can be done once the hard work of changing the demographics to suit us is done.
A possible call by separatists to boycott the state elections this month-end may add to the winter chill in Jammu and Kashmir but the political heat has begun to rise in Srinagar.
With less than ten days to go for the first phase of polling on November 25, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has accused the BJP of trying to manipulate the system by registering migrants as new voters — even those who left Kashmir after 1990, when the separatist movement was at its peak, and who have resettled elsewhere.
His main worry, it appears, is that these migrant votes may prove crucial, especially in areas where the general turnout would be less — as it had happened in some areas during the Lok Sabha polls — due to a boycott call.
“We want all genuine Kashmiri Pandits who are resettled outside the state to vote but what we do not want is that the BJP manipulates the system to suit their advantage and give them electoral gains,” Abdullah told The Indian Express.
“We have no problem with the right to vote of those migrants who left the valley before 1990. But even those who left the valley after 1990, and have resettled in other parts of the country and may even be registered as voters there, are being brought into the electoral rolls for the Assembly polls.”
The Chief Minister said that he had received complaints in this regard from leaders of his party in areas such as Habba Kadal, Amira Kadal and Sopore.
“The nature of the problem is serious since even those who left the valley prior to 1990 are now being registered as migrant voters. This makes a difference in pockets or constituencies which are Muslim-dominated and where a poll boycott is expected to be effective — even a block of 2,000-3,000 migrant votes may end up swinging the result.”
As an example, Abdullah pointed to Sopore, which has around 8,000 migrant voters and where the boycott call given by the separatists is being taken seriously. “In pockets in the valley where the voter turnout was high like in Ganderbal, this does not matter. But in constituencies where the turnout will be low this time around too, every migrant vote will count.”
Abdullah also referred to a scheme for “transitory” migrants, which allows them to vote in the elections at special booths in Jammu, Udhampur and Delhi, that was announced recently by the Chief Electoral Officer of J&K.
According to the norms governing the scheme, the heads of families eligible to vote need to indicate their preferred polling station by filling a non-statutory ‘M’ form.
The Chief Minister said he had heard that the mandatory process of scrutinising this form was also being done away with, even for the registration of migrants who had left
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/in...oogle_editors_picks=true#sthash.iT59ElXD.dpuf
A possible call by separatists to boycott the state elections this month-end may add to the winter chill in Jammu and Kashmir but the political heat has begun to rise in Srinagar.
With less than ten days to go for the first phase of polling on November 25, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has accused the BJP of trying to manipulate the system by registering migrants as new voters — even those who left Kashmir after 1990, when the separatist movement was at its peak, and who have resettled elsewhere.
His main worry, it appears, is that these migrant votes may prove crucial, especially in areas where the general turnout would be less — as it had happened in some areas during the Lok Sabha polls — due to a boycott call.
“We want all genuine Kashmiri Pandits who are resettled outside the state to vote but what we do not want is that the BJP manipulates the system to suit their advantage and give them electoral gains,” Abdullah told The Indian Express.
“We have no problem with the right to vote of those migrants who left the valley before 1990. But even those who left the valley after 1990, and have resettled in other parts of the country and may even be registered as voters there, are being brought into the electoral rolls for the Assembly polls.”
The Chief Minister said that he had received complaints in this regard from leaders of his party in areas such as Habba Kadal, Amira Kadal and Sopore.
“The nature of the problem is serious since even those who left the valley prior to 1990 are now being registered as migrant voters. This makes a difference in pockets or constituencies which are Muslim-dominated and where a poll boycott is expected to be effective — even a block of 2,000-3,000 migrant votes may end up swinging the result.”
As an example, Abdullah pointed to Sopore, which has around 8,000 migrant voters and where the boycott call given by the separatists is being taken seriously. “In pockets in the valley where the voter turnout was high like in Ganderbal, this does not matter. But in constituencies where the turnout will be low this time around too, every migrant vote will count.”
Abdullah also referred to a scheme for “transitory” migrants, which allows them to vote in the elections at special booths in Jammu, Udhampur and Delhi, that was announced recently by the Chief Electoral Officer of J&K.
According to the norms governing the scheme, the heads of families eligible to vote need to indicate their preferred polling station by filling a non-statutory ‘M’ form.
The Chief Minister said he had heard that the mandatory process of scrutinising this form was also being done away with, even for the registration of migrants who had left
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/in...oogle_editors_picks=true#sthash.iT59ElXD.dpuf
One of the potential scenarios that may play out:
Pakistan will disintegrate sooner or later under the weight of its internal strife. Azad Sindhu Desh, Azad Balochistan, United Pakhtonwa or independent FATA/NWFP, etc and so on.
And, BJP gets sufficient majority in Rajya and Lok Sabha to abolish 370, and gets its govt in J&K to pass laws that allow changing of demographics to pro-India through resettlement, winning hearts through development, and so on. Even if this second part does not happen, as long as Pakistan disintegrates, India just needs to hang in there with patience for a long haul, in the patient war of attrition against internally imploding Pakistan vs emergent Shining India.
Pakistan will disintegrate sooner or later under the weight of its internal strife. Azad Sindhu Desh, Azad Balochistan, United Pakhtonwa or independent FATA/NWFP, etc and so on.
And, BJP gets sufficient majority in Rajya and Lok Sabha to abolish 370, and gets its govt in J&K to pass laws that allow changing of demographics to pro-India through resettlement, winning hearts through development, and so on. Even if this second part does not happen, as long as Pakistan disintegrates, India just needs to hang in there with patience for a long haul, in the patient war of attrition against internally imploding Pakistan vs emergent Shining India.
Why should anyone not be allowed to secede? What right do these people (who decide who is to be allowed and who shouldn't) have ? From where did these people got this right of deciding of behalf of the population?
The presence of military for such a long time itself is indicative of suppression by the nation. Facts are facts, irrespective of whether they are in our interest or not. No one would like a continued presence of paramilitary/police force in your the area they are staying. Just as police is the official state gunda's of the state bureaucracy/politicians, the military is gunda's of national bureaucracy/politicians. These gunda's are still used, as in colonial era, to tame the population to the tune that suits their interests (money, power).
Last edited:
Dear Members
In a Nation, National and Foreign Policies of a State are important issues governing its administrative actions; further, every citizen has to honour the constitution of the nation. Writing post on sensitive matters is not a child’s play. everyone should show great sense of responsibility on such matters. One should be aware of words he uses are in national interest.
Thanks
In a Nation, National and Foreign Policies of a State are important issues governing its administrative actions; further, every citizen has to honour the constitution of the nation. Writing post on sensitive matters is not a child’s play. everyone should show great sense of responsibility on such matters. One should be aware of words he uses are in national interest.
Thanks
Mr Arvind;
Will you be kind enough to clarify that you are aware of the sense of language used by you for Indian Police and Military Forces. Kindly elaborate your personal contribution to the Nation to use such words for these forces and National interests
Khatkar Ji, I am well aware of what I have written.
Let's leave this thread to it's topic.
You have raised many points.
1. There is nothing like "right" on an absolute scale. Rights given to citizens are not rights but privileges. State can take them anytime if conditions so prevail. If 10 million people want to succeed and 1110 million are dead against, who will prevail? Both sides think that they are right.
2. Army has to stay somewhere in the country. What is wrong if it stays in part A or part B of the country?
3. Calling army and police "gundas" sounds quite liberal and elevating. For a moment let us assume that we have got rid of all these "gundas" . What will the nation do if attacked by the LeT, ISIS or Chinese red army "gundas". Can your type of liberals assure the nations that we won't be attacked by outsider "gundas" ?
RK^2
In the current circumstances, the division of mass-governance (a state) is based on territorial boundaries. So if these 10 million and 1110 million have different discrete territorial area, they have the right for their own governance on their own territory and not over the others. If these are spread out (distributed), then the way out is through negotiation and not oppression by an armed force.
The army's role is at the territorial boundary, and that's also their place of action. If armed forces are in continued action for a long period, then that place becomes a territorial boundary.
If armed force fights with an armed opponent, then they are honored as fighters, however, if they fight with unarmed public, (e.g. like in India and Israel) then they act "gundas", enforced by few people in power.
Sir, Please let them express their views regardless of how different/extreme they are from your. A member himself/herself is responcible for their view. They get judged based on what they say not moderators. Moderator's job is to facilitate discussion not enforce views.
Kindly let the expressions flow freely. Diverse opinions may help you think differently and provide different view point from wider angles.
But, yes abuse and personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated.
Thanks