Kashmir election: A step towards the political change

Is it right time to give the command of Kashmir valley to Safforn Party?

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .
Arvindc said:
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.
Click to expand...

What you are saying make sense however just in theory. First of all every nation think about their won interest first. Sometime you have to make harsh decision which may look unfair however if you understand the reasoning behind it, it may make sense.

The so called champions of democracy and human freedoms Greeks, Britains captured territories ( and are still holding) against people’s will. America’s drone attacks, attack on middle east and Afghanistan they all are unfair, undemocratic against people’s will. However they were strategic decisions.

If India leave Kashmir, do you think it will be good for them? No, Pak will capture it or share it with China. No one will leave those big water resources uncontrolled. Plus it is also a strategic location which provide access to Arabian sea (through Pak) and middle Asia.

We all share the pain of people in Kashmir however such decisions just cannot be based on emotions. In perfect world everyone has right to govern their own territory but alas it doesn’t happen. If Eagle won’t eat the rat, cat will.
 
swaich said:
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.
Click to expand...

To remove your misconception you must read & understand United Nations Security Council Resolution 47.

1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:

(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and
Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes
of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of
material aid to those fighting in the State;

2. The Government of India should:

(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the
Council's Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for
the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the
Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing
them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the
maintenance of law and order;

Here is the link to full text. Read it first completely. You will understand that Plebiscite must happen under Indian flag with help of Indian government & forces without any interference of Pakistan.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kashun47.htm
 
swaich said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its not Hyderabad, an issue between AP & Telangana.
 
VirJ said:
What you are saying make sense however just in theory. First of all every nation think about their won interest first. Sometime you have to make harsh decision which may look unfair however if you understand the reasoning behind it, it may make sense.

The so called champions of democracy and human freedoms Greeks, Britains captured territories ( and are still holding) against people’s will. America’s drone attacks, attack on middle east and Afghanistan they all are unfair, undemocratic against people’s will. However they were strategic decisions.

If India leave Kashmir, do you think it will be good for them? No, Pak will capture it or share it with China. No one will leave those big water resources uncontrolled. Plus it is also a strategic location which provide access to Arabian sea (through Pak) and middle Asia.

We all share the pain of people in Kashmir however such decisions just cannot be based on emotions. In perfect world everyone has right to govern their own territory but alas it doesn’t happen. If Eagle won’t eat the rat, cat will.
Click to expand...
Wasn't a slave free world just a theory sometime back?

If you look at the history, the governance style has evolved improved for the betterment of humanity. And, the future lies in the self governance. Maybe, some day, things get virtualised and the boundaries of governments and citizens are less dependent of the physical territorial boundary.

It's agreed that today the world is more or less guided by the (strategic) interests of capitalists, however, facts remain facts and what's right remains right. One's strategic interests shouldn't be allowed to be weighted over the oppression of other.

If Kashmir is of strategic importance to India (read rest of mainland people) than, the Kashmiries should be taken into confidence and a mutual beneficial solution sought out through dialog, instead off an easier, oppressive solution that's being currently adopted. The decision should be theirs.
 
Arvindc said:
Wasn't a slave free world just a theory sometime back?

If you look at the history, the governance style has evolved improved for the betterment of humanity. And, the future lies in the self governance. Maybe, some day, things get virtualised and the boundaries of governments and citizens are less dependent of the physical territorial boundary.

It's agreed that today the world is more or less guided by the (strategic) interests of capitalists, however, facts remain facts and what's right remains right. One's strategic interests shouldn't be allowed to be weighted over the oppression of other.

If Kashmir is of strategic importance to India (read rest of mainland people) than, the Kashmiries should be taken into confidence and a mutual beneficial solution sought out through dialog, instead off an easier, oppressive solution that's being currently adopted. The decision should be theirs.
Click to expand...

Wish world was an ideal place to live. .... I blame God squarely for not creating an ideal man... We are what God the great created us... imperfect human beings. Even all his messengers could not purify us...

RK^2
 
singhvp said:
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.
Click to expand...

And how did the said security situation came about? Are we burying our heads in the sand and saying our own governments had nothing do with the alienation and subversion of democracy that led to the rise of militancy?

We can talk about agreements and acts all our lives, but we can't wish away the fact that Kashmiris do not want to stay with India. Lets recognize this first and then think of a solution, instead of hiding behind the veneers of nationalism and pointing fingers at Islamic radicalization.
 
swaich said:
.................We can talk about agreements and acts all our lives, but we can't wish away the fact that Kashmiris do not want to stay with India. ...
Click to expand...

If so, why can't they pass a resolution along these lines in J&K assembly? Why should we believe so called self appointed liberals ? Any authentic survey which substantiates your claim?

RK^2
 
rkumar said:
If so, why can't they pass a resolution along these lines in J&K assembly? Why should we believe so called self appointed liberals ? Any authentic survey which substantiates your claim?

RK^2
Click to expand...
Ok, what about a referendum in Kashmir? Why is that not happening? Would the government appointed elders please through some light?
 
swaich said:
And how did the said security situation came about? Are we burying our heads in the sand and saying our own governments had nothing do with the alienation and subversion of democracy that led to the rise of militancy?

We can talk about agreements and acts all our lives, but we can't wish away the fact that Kashmiris do not want to stay with India. Lets recognize this first and then think of a solution, instead of hiding behind the veneers of nationalism and pointing fingers at Islamic radicalization.
Click to expand...

Subversion of democracy becomes necessary during wartime. Kashmir has always been a flashpoint and the situation has been warlike. Alienation is the byproduct of compulsory subversion and not intentional. Kashsmir is highly strategic part of India having a difficult border with a hostile neighbour. India can not afford to part with it at any cost. It would be suicidal to give space to the populist sentiments which have roots in secessionist agenda spearheaded by our neighbour by proxy from day one after partition.
 
Last edited:
I think main focus for the central leadership should be on gaining a ground in Kashmir followed by revoking 370, and try to get back the areas occupied by Kashmir and China.
 
singhvp said:
Subversion of democracy becomes necessary during wartime. Kashmir has always been a flashpoint and the situation has been warlike. Alienation is the byproduct of compulsory subversion and not intentional. Kashsmir is highly strategic part of India having a difficult border with a hostile neighbour. India can not afford to part with it at any cost. It would be suicidal to give space to the populist sentiments which have roots in secessionist agenda spearheaded by our neighbour by proxy from day one after partition.
Click to expand...
If this cost that India is ready to spend (as per you) could be spend well in development rather than oppression, the Kashmiries might want to be proud of being an Indian.

However, if this peaceful solution is adopted, who would buy the 2nd generation weapons from the west? How would the western nations keep the developing nations poor and out of competition. How would the black money grow if there huge kickbacks (all behind a dark screen in the name of security) in arms purchases stops? And lastly, why would the politicians loose the opportunities of selling patriotism and doing politics on the lives of our brothers?
 
Arvindc said:
Ok, what about a referendum in Kashmir? Why is that not happening? Would the government appointed elders please through some light?
Click to expand...

Referendum cannot happen alone in Kashmir. They have to include Jammu, Laddak and part of Pak occupie areas.

Countries in South Asia and some other colonies are not natural country. Their boundries were carved by a white based on rivers and mountains. It is not just a fraction of people in Kashmir, people in Balochistan, FATA also want seperate country. However no one talk about opression in these areas.
 
Prikshit said:
Have they achieved that with present situation?
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's difficult to achieve peace and harmony in the present situation. But then, when we are (public) not paid for doing easy things, should people feed/pay governments (i.e ministers and bureaucrats)for the same?
 
कश्मीर में मोदी का जादू- अलगाववादियों का यू टर्न, जानें पूरा मामला
जम्मू। क्या मोदी का जादू कश्मीर में चल रहा है। अभी कुछ कहना जल्दबाजी होगी, पर अलगाववादियों ने 25 नवंबर को बंद का आह्वान वापस लेकर यह सोचने को मजबूर कर दिया है कि कश्मीर की राजनीति में आखिर चल क्या रहा है।
घाटी से जुड़े सूत्रों का कहना है कि घाटी में राजनीति की हवा दो तरह से चलती है। एक तो भारत के पक्ष तो दूसरी विरोध वाली। अब जब जम्मू-कश्मीर में राजनीतिक माहौल बदला है तो चुनाव बहिष्कार या चुनाव के दिन बंद का एलान यहां विरोध की राजनीति करने वालों पर भारी पड़ता। तगड़ी सुरक्षा व्यवस्था के चलते भारत के पक्ष के मतदाता जमकर मतदान करने जाएंगे। इसका सबसे ज्यादा नुकसान उन पार्टियों को होता जिनके दम पर अलगाववादी यहां हमेशा से पनपते रहे हैं।
जानकार कहते हैं कि अगर अलगाववादी चुनाव के दिन बंद और मतदान का बहिष्कार करने के अपने निर्णय पर कायम रहते तो इसका नुकसान पीडीपी और नेशनल कांफ्रेंस को ही होता। इसी को ध्यान में रखकर अलगाववादियों ने बंद का निर्णय बदला है, ताकि बंद के समर्थक भी अब मतदान करने जाएं। बताया जा रहा है कि जम्मू-कश्मीर में जो लोग अब तक चुनाव का बहिष्कार कर रहे थे वे ही अब मतदान के लिए लोगों को प्रेरित कर रहे हैं। ताकि भाजपा को मिलने वाले वोटों को प्रभावित किया जा सके।
 
मोदी का असर कश्मीर में ही नहीं अलगाववादी खेमे में भी नजर आने लगा है। उन्होंने स्थानीय उलेमाओं से लोगों को भाजपा से दूर रहने के लिए समझाने को भी कहा है। भारतीय जनता पार्टी प्रदेश में पहली बार सभी सीटों पर चुनाव लड़ रही है। कश्मीर की 47 सीटों में से लगभग30 सीटों पर अपने प्रत्याशी उतारे हैं। घाटी में उसे अप्रयाशित समर्थन भी मिल रहा है। कश्मीर घाटी में भाजपा के प्रचार में लगे अधिकाश लोग मुस्लिम ही है। कश्मीर के उलेमाओं ने भाजपा क लिए चुनाव प्रचार करने दूसरे राज्यों से आए मौलवियों के खिलाफ प्रदर्शन किया था।
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top