230 replies to this topic

[Ugly Jinn]

Regarding the atrocities specifically in Kashmir, if you compare Pakistan and India, both have bloody hands, but India has done more wrong.

The statistics clearly prove that.

Mutah_King, on 11 April 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Pakistan is an illegitimate state apparently... but I get the feeling that by this definition, almost every single state in the world is.  I say dismantle them all, I would love to live in such a world.

It's not illegitimate, it was illogical, unjustified, and unnecessary.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 11 April 2012 - 07:02 PM.

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

Some striking images, all from Indian occupied Kashmir:


















(PWNED)








(Shakeel Bhat, became something of an internet meme)

[Marbles]

Ugly Jinn, on 11 April 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

It's not illegitimate, it was illogical, unjustified, and unnecessary.

Just like almost every other state in the Arab world including Afghanistan and in the Balkans. That's how it is. Some strong historical forces compelled those states into existence either due to in-fighting or imperial intervention or, as usually the case, with the mix of both. Furthermore, hardly any set of modern international borders are completely justified in this part of the world.

One can have an historical opinion whether or not a particular state, Pakistan in this case, should have existed in the first place. But one cannot make that opinion a launching pad for calling the dismantling or destruction of that state, and excluding it from the generally accepted international norms that govern relationship between the states, and denying it it's fair share just because in their opinion it is "unnecessary" and "illogical".

Edited by Marbles, 12 April 2012 - 01:08 AM.

[Marbles]

Ugly Jinn, on 11 April 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

Regarding the atrocities specifically in Kashmir, if you compare Pakistan and India, both have bloody hands, but India has done more wrong.

The statistics clearly prove that.

You definitely meant Pakistan.

I don't understand why you need to bring up Bangladesh war every time Indian atrocities in Kashmir are mentioned. Does the fact that Pakistani army committed atrocities in Bangladesh excuses Indian crimes in Kashmir? By what logic?

Your reasoning also implies that since Pakistan is guilty of atrocities itself, the people of Pakistan should not talk about Indian atrocities. Again, by what logic?

The obvious difference between Pakistanis and Indians/others in this thread is that no Pakistani is defending it's military's role in Bangladesh and elsewhere inside the country. The Indians, on the other hand, despite being pushed to condemn the slaughters and rapes of their Muslims brothers and sisters, would not say a word against the occupying and oppressing forces. They only produce a whimper when push comes to the shove. In fact, their defenders in here didn't even know the extent of oppression by the Indian state in Kashmir and elsewhere in India until someone mentioned it. Why? They don't hear it on media.

So because India has killed less, numerically, India is concluded to be the "world's largest democracy" and Pakistan a potential "terrorist state". No mate, we are not having a comparison match. Human lives are not mere statistics. What is more important is the frequency and the continuation with which oppression takes place. The Bangladesh War is over and done with. Pakistan can no longer oppress them. Kashmir war has been going on for 65 year and people are being oppressed there as we speak. It is of current and immediate importance.

[Ugly Jinn]

Marbles, on 12 April 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

You definitely meant Pakistan.

Nope.

Quote

I don't understand why you need to bring up Bangladesh war every time Indian atrocities in Kashmir are mentioned. Does the fact that Pakistani army committed atrocities in Bangladesh excuses Indian crimes in Kashmir? By what logic?

Just the same way I don't understand how 'rape' became the topic of this thread. And since rape accusations flew from Kashmir to Assam, it's only fair to show the big picture.

Quote

Your reasoning also implies that since Pakistan is guilty of atrocities itself, the people of Pakistan should not talk about Indian atrocities. Again, by what logic?

When random irrelevant remarks of hate are made (whether about India or Pakistan) . You'll see me do the same if an Indian does it.

Quote

The obvious difference between Pakistanis and Indians/others in this thread is that no Pakistani is defending it's military's role in Bangladesh and elsewhere inside the country. The Indians, on the other hand, despite being pushed to condemn the slaughters and rapes of their Muslims brothers and sisters, would not say a word against the occupying and oppressing forces. They only produce a whimper when push comes to the shove. In fact, their defenders in here didn't even know the extent of oppression by the Indian state in Kashmir and elsewhere in India until someone mentioned it. Why? They don't hear it on media.

Certain Pakistanis don't defend, but they just use the tactic of ambushing with random irrelevant hateful remarks. Their intention is not to have a intellectual discussion, but to push their hateful agenda, which is to spam the thread with irrelevant remarks to make India/Pakistan look bad.

Quote

So because India has killed less, numerically, India is concluded to be the "world's largest democracy" and Pakistan a potential "terrorist state". No mate, we are not having a comparison match. Human lives are not mere statistics. What is more important is the frequency and the continuation with which oppression takes place. The Bangladesh War is over and done with. Pakistan can no longer oppress them. Kashmir war has been going on for 65 year and people are being oppressed there as we speak. It is of current and immediate importance.

Past has an impact on the present and future. I personally don't believe Pakistan has any credibility to demand anything regarding Kashmir after the mass murder/rape of their own Muslim brethren few decades ago. The fact that even Muslims didn't want to be part of Pakistan is evidence enough, hence Bangladesh was created.

The irony is that Pakistan would not even exist if it wasn't for the overwhelming population of India which consisted of Hindus who fought the British off.

I'm using historical facts to make my argument, no opinions.

Does that absolve India from any atrocities it commits in Kashmir? No.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 12 April 2012 - 03:07 AM.

[Marbles]

Ugly Jinn, on 12 April 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

Nope.

I see. You meant that in reference to Kashmir only.

Quote

The irony is that Pakistan would not even exist if it wasn't for the overwhelming population of India which consisted of Hindus who fought the British off.

This statement is weird with a lot of assumptions running through it.

To start with, the irony you are alluding to does not exist. The statement above alone, I'm sorry to say, serves to show your lack of understanding of the Indian context.

Independence in 1947 was a result of the collective effort since 1857, more particularly after the creation of Indian National Congress in 1880s. No one community can be credited with having won Independence from Britain Raj. There were collaborators and anglophiles in both camps; freedom fighters and nationalists were equitably distributed. It is a misrepresentation of history to say that Muslims got Pakistan because the overwhelming majority of India's Hindu population "fought Britain off".

In fact, unlike Algerians who literally fought off the French to gain independence, Indians under the British Raj negotiated it with the British Imperial government by employing their own tools: Freedom and democracy, right to self-rule, right to self-determination. There was no war, a total lack of violence, in 1947, between the colonized and the colonizer.

Ironically, in the words of Indian ex-finance minister, Jaswant Singh, the most important nationalist Congress leader in the 1910s and 20s, who achieved landmark success in negotiating freedom from the British Raj was no other than the much reviled M. A. Jinnah. And more interestingly, the pioneers of the Indian national cause against British imperial rule were Zoroastrian Indians, men like Dadabhai Naoraoji.

It is good to talk about facts and opinions based on those facts, but many people eager to comment do not have all facts, or enough facts, to enable them to make a credible opinion. Facts also go hand in hand with the proper understanding of the context and historical period under discussion. Without it, the opinion one makes based on whatever is available by way of facts will be faulty, just like the one which credits overwhelming Hindus of India for Subcontinent's independence struggle.

Quote

Past has an impact on the present and future. I personally don't believe Pakistan has any credibility to demand anything regarding Kashmir after the mass murder/rape of their own Muslim brethren few decades ago. The fact that even Muslims didn't want to be part of Pakistan is evidence enough, hence Bangladesh was created.

I agree with this though. I also don't believe that the state of Pakistan has moral ground to claim the Kashmiri territory as legitimately belonging to Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan's claim over Kashmir is as much credible as India's claim, which is another way of saying that it is Kashmiris themselves who have the only credible claim to what they want with their Kashmir.

That does not amount to saying that ordinary Pakistani citizens, like myself, should stop speaking out against continuing atrocities committed by India in Kashmir and Assam. If I don't stop condemning my own Pakistani state for its crimes, I shan't stop condemning the beloved of the Western media and their governments, the "world's largest democracy".

Edited by Marbles, 12 April 2012 - 04:37 AM.

[AliAbbas]

salam

2 questions..

Who wants another wahabi entity for the talebanis .. another pre-2002 afghanistan?

Why does not pakistan declare their 'Azad Kashmir' really azad? Declare it as another country if you guys feel so strongly for a state for kashmiris.

Marbles, on 12 April 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Ironically, in the words of Indian ex-finance minister, Jaswant Singh, the most important nationalist Congress leader in the 1910s and 20s, who achieved landmark success in negotiating freedom from the British Raj was no other than the much reviled M. A. Jinnah.

MA Jinnah did indeed fought against the britishers .. refer his biography by sarojini naidu (INC leader during freedom struggle)..

but afterwards , he went on to demand a country on the basis of religion.

Even today none of the educated pakistanis who support Kashmir say that it should be on the basis of religion. So just because he was right during the start of his career and is appreciated by many Indians for this,does not validate his thinking/actions afterwards.

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

AliAbbas, on 12 April 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

Who wants another wahabi entity for the talebanis .. another pre-2002 afghanistan?

Maybe the "talebanis" themselves?

AliAbbas, on 12 April 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

Why does not pakistan declare their 'Azad Kashmir' really azad? Declare it as another country if you guys feel so strongly for a state for kashmiris.

Because obviously it would severely weaken Pakistan's own position on that strategic area - both India and Pakistan really just care about Kashmir because of the important resource of water from the Himalayas, which will increasingly be set to be a point of conflict in the future between many states around the world.

Also that doesn't exactly solve the issue of oppressed Muslims in Indian occupied Kashmir does it? The Muslims of Azad Kashmir aren't exactly being systematically oppressed because they are of a different faith from the ruling establishment.

Lastly, a newly independent Kashmiri state on the Pakistani side, would be under threat from the highly militarized Indian side, and will therefore be more vulernable without the Pakistani military presence. Just because Pakistan is in possession of a nuclear deterrence, doesn't neccessarily mean it will deter an Indian invasion of an independent Kashmiri state either - Argentina invaded the Falkland's despite the UK's nuclear armaments. Moreover such a deterrence means little when India also has nukes.

So yeah, not happening.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed, 12 April 2012 - 07:15 AM.

[Marbles]

AliAbbas, on 12 April 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

MA Jinnah did indeed fought against the britishers .. refer his biography by sarojini naidu (INC leader during freedom struggle)..

but afterwards , he went on to demand a country on the basis of religion.

Even today none of the educated pakistanis who support Kashmir say that it should be on the basis of religion. So just because he was right during the start of his career and is appreciated by many Indians for this,does not validate his thinking/actions afterwards.

In fact I agree that Jinnah's earlier Congress career and his struggles for Indian independence do not validate his later views. That was primarily said in response to the preposterous assertion that it were the Hindus, solely or in the main, who "fought off" the British, implying that it enabled Muslims of India to get a separate country, further implying that Muslims were sitting around waiting for Britain to go and were not involved in the freedom movement. Whereas in fact, Muslims and Hindus, along with Zoroastrians and Sikhs, were at the forefront of Independence struggle.

Now going back to the first line, it would be interesting, would it not, to chart the process which made a liberal democrat, a staunch secularist, and a nationalist leader of the calibre of Jinnah to metamorphose into an apparently communal leader, constantly invoking religion and thus sowing the seed of difference between the Muslims and the Hindus.

It would be of interest to the genuine seekers to find out that Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, the Cambridge graduate living in England, when he called for an independent and sovereign state for Indian Muslims in a meeting with Jinnah in 1933, the same Jinnah called it "chimerical and impracticable" and an "impossible dream", hostilely rejecting the "mad idea" of Rehmat Ali. What went wrong in the intervening years?

Edited by Marbles, 12 April 2012 - 01:41 PM.

[AliAbbas]

Propaganda_of_the_Deed, on 12 April 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

Maybe the "talebanis" themselves?



Because obviously it would severely weaken Pakistan's own position on that strategic area - both India and Pakistan really just care about Kashmir because of the important resource of water from the Himalayas, which will increasingly be set to be a point of conflict in the future between many states around the world.

Also that doesn't exactly solve the issue of oppressed Muslims in Indian occupied Kashmir does it? The Muslims of Azad Kashmir aren't exactly being systematically oppressed because they are of a different faith from the ruling establishment.

Lastly, a newly independent Kashmiri state on the Pakistani side, would be under threat from the highly militarized Indian side, and will therefore be more vulernable without the Pakistani military presence. Just because Pakistan is in possession of a nuclear deterrence, doesn't neccessarily mean it will deter an Indian invasion of an independent Kashmiri state either - Argentina invaded the Falkland's despite the UK's nuclear armaments. Moreover such a deterrence means little when India also has nukes.

So yeah, not happening.

Since pakistan itself can't have another entity carved out for kashmiris for strategic or whatever reasons, its foolish of the kind hearted pakistanis who have 'heartfelt' feelings for the kashmiris to expect India to allow a creation of another afghanistan/pakistan kind of state in the north. Nobody would want another 'headache' popper.


And for people who think India is against Muslims when they crush Kashmiri insurgency,should check out that the same state also crushes Christian rebels in the north east or Hindu/Maoist rebels in the heartland or the now faded Sikh rebels who were vying for Khalistan.
Point is when statecraft matters,the religion of the enemy within does not.

[AliAbbas]

Marbles, on 12 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

In fact I agree that Jinnah's earlier Congress career and his struggles for Indian independence do not validate his later views. That was primarily said in response to the preposterous assertion that it were the Hindus, solely or in the main, who "fought off" the British, implying that it enabled Muslims of India to get a separate country, further implying that Muslims were sitting around waiting for Britain to go and were not involved in the freedom movement. Whereas in fact, Muslims and Hindus, along with Zoroastrians and Sikhs, were at the forefront of Independence struggle.

Of course 'Muslim' freedom fighters like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Mohammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali , Ashfaqullah and others are honoured.Even Jinnahs earlier struggle against the britishers is recognised. The INA army of Bose had many Muslim soldiers, . For the matter Bahadur Shah Zafar is also honoured for leading the 1857 rebellion in which many muslims died.

But the fact of the matter is when it was apparent that britishers wont remain for long,many of the Muslim leaders (none of the above)were bothered about demanding a nation based on their religion.

Marbles, on 12 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Now going back to the first line, it would be interesting, would it not, to chart the process which made a liberal democrat, a staunch secularist, and a nationalist leader of the calibre of Jinnah to metamorphose into an apparently communal leader, constantly invoking religion and thus sowing the seed of difference between the Muslims and the Hindus.

It would be of interest to the genuine seekers to find out that Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, the Cambridge graduate living in England, when he called for an independent and sovereign state for Indian Muslims in a meeting with Jinnah in 1933, the same Jinnah called it "chimerical and impracticable" and an "impossible dream", hostilely rejecting the "mad idea" of Rehmat Ali. What went wrong in the intervening years?

If someone can foresee himself getting into a position of 'changing' the dynamics of the nation,the situation can be a big motivator. Muslims leaders then were in a position of influencing how the things turn out and they did.

I dont consider Jinnah to have become a rabid communal person. He may have the good intentions for his community. Perhaps he didnt realise that his actions would not only influence the current generation,but also the future ones.
Any nation carved in the name of religion would leave a distaste for other communities. Israel being another example.

Edited by AliAbbas, 12 April 2012 - 11:20 PM.

[Ugly Jinn]

Marbles, on 12 April 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

I see. You meant that in reference to Kashmir only.

Yes.

Quote

Independence in 1947 was a result of the collective effort since 1857, more particularly after the creation of Indian National Congress in 1880s. No one community can be credited with having won Independence from Britain Raj. There were collaborators and anglophiles in both camps; freedom fighters and nationalists were equitably distributed. It is a misrepresentation of history to say that Muslims got Pakistan because the overwhelming majority of India's Hindu population "fought Britain off".

The phrase 'collective effort' sounds like such a nice phrase doesn't it? What happened to the unity after British left? Obviously the Hindus got stabbed in the back, and still are bleeding because of it.

The overwhelming majority fighting the British were Hindus (75%+), without the majority Hindus fighting there would be no Pakistan, there would be no victory over the British empire. There would be no Kashmir that Pakistan is fighting over. It is not only fair to say this but these are facts (not opinions) backed by statistics; population and deaths. You can cherry pick fighters/leaders from the minority of Muslims that fought, which doesn't change the fact that the Muslims were dependent on the Hindu masses to gain independence.

Quote

I agree with this though. I also don't believe that the state of Pakistan has moral ground to claim the Kashmiri territory as legitimately belonging to Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan's claim over Kashmir is as much credible as India's claim, which is another way of saying that it is Kashmiris themselves who have the only credible claim to what they want with their Kashmir.

That does not amount to saying that ordinary Pakistani citizens, like myself, should stop speaking out against continuing atrocities committed by India in Kashmir and Assam. If I don't stop condemning my own Pakistani state for its crimes, I shan't stop condemning the beloved of the Western media and their governments, the "world's largest democracy".

Agreed with above accept the Indians do not want their original land to be partitioned anymore, that is their valid claim, and always has been.

AliAbbas, on 12 April 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

Any nation carved in the name of religion would leave a distaste for other communities. Israel being another example.

There are alot of similarities between the creation of Israel and Pakistan. The irony is that those who support Pakistan's existence have to support Israel's existence, the fundamental justification (religion) are identical.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 13 April 2012 - 12:25 AM.

[AliAbbas]

Ugly Jinn, on 13 April 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

...Hindus got stabbed in the back, and still are bleeding because of it...

everyone suffered and is suffering. the indian muslims were the worst hit.
they get castigated till date for not going to pakistan.

[Ugly Jinn]

AliAbbas, on 13 April 2012 - 12:55 AM, said:

everyone suffered and is suffering. the indian muslims were the worst hit.
they get castigated till date for not going to pakistan.

By whom exactly?

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 13 April 2012 - 01:47 AM.

[AliAbbas]

Ugly Jinn, on 13 April 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

By whom exactly?

whom do you think would castigate muslims in india for not going to pakistan?







This is how you turn adverse situation into oppurtunities :-)

http://timesofindia....ow/12648527.cms


SRINAGAR: Tired of being found naked in his sleep every time soldiers searched his house during operations at the peak of militancy, Gulam Mohammad Mir, a farmer with no formal education, struck an idea to escape his tribulations.
Mir, habitual to sleeping without clothes, developed a 'singing lantern', powered by a dry battery, fitted with a remote sensor that will alert him to human movement near his house in Sagaam village in Kokernag area of Anantnag district and give him enough time to dress up.
The 48-year-old farmer, who recently participated at the innovators' meet at University of Kashmir, claims that the " singing lantern" has saved his life many times.
Over the last 20 years, many Kashmiri men have been killed during nights when they ventured out of their homes without lanterns and walked into army ambushes. Many were beaten, simply, for not carrying the lantern.
Mir knew the new ground rules well and was still beaten many times when the lantern's oil would not last the journey or when the winds would blow out the lantern's flame.
It was when the idea stuck him of having a battery-powered lantern and after several visits to the market for raw material, he began assembling his battery-fitted lantern ready.
Mir could have used a torch instead. "Torches were banned, soldiers could have mistaken a person with a torch as a militant. Traditional lantern would mean you are a civilian," he said.
While spending his nights out in the field, irrigating them and guarding them, Mir felt that boredom needs to be done with. Soon he included the option of having a radio in the lantern and he would spend nights listening to Bollywood songs.
"The basic and only reason that I innovated this lantern is the fighting that was going around. Militancy was widespread and there was huge pressure from Army," he said.
One night, Mir was sleeping inside his house when soldiers barged in. Mir was found by soldiers without clothes and beaten again, he said.
This led to another modification in the lantern - he included a motion sensor with a range of 15 feet, enough time to alert him.
"When the soldiers came next time, I was alerted by an alarm and I already had my clothes on when they came," he said.
Has his lantern saved him from beatings? "Yes," he said.
"When soldiers would stop me, they would be surprised by seeing a different lantern, and then I would show them the radio in it. They would enjoy a song and let me go," Mir said.
Today, Mir, with his humble farming background, is a proud owner of a lantern and a workshop at his home where he manufactures them for others.
"I have so far sold 20 such lanterns. The one with full range of features costs Rs 2,800 rupees and another with lesser features costs Rs 1,600," he said.
How could Mir with no technical knowledge of electronics fix circuits and come up with such a complex design. "I do not know, it became my passion and it simply worked out," he said.
Shabir Ahmad, the technical officer at Grassroots innovation and Augmentation Network (GIAN) cell JK -- which provided "incubation" and research help to Mir in the later stage, said this lantern will help the traditional lantern to live on, "though in a different format".
"Even today nearly, 80 per cent of Kashmir's population lives in villages, so this lantern has a wide market," Ahmad said.
Mir now dreams of having his own manufacturing unit, where his life-saver lantern -- which went through a decade of modifications -- would be mass produced and sold to become a part of the household in rural Kashmir.

Edited by AliAbbas, 13 April 2012 - 02:33 AM.

[Marbles]

Ugly Jinn, on 13 April 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

The phrase 'collective effort' sounds like such a nice phrase doesn't it? What happened to the unity after British left? Obviously the Hindus got stabbed in the back, and still are bleeding because of it.

The overwhelming majority fighting the British were Hindus (75%+), without the majority Hindus fighting there would be no Pakistan, there would be no victory over the British empire. There would be no Kashmir that Pakistan is fighting over. It is not only fair to say this but these are facts (not opinions) backed by statistics; population and deaths. You can cherry pick fighters/leaders from the minority of Muslims that fought, which doesn't change the fact that the Muslims were dependent on the Hindu masses to gain independence.

You are stating the most obvious in a most illogical manner. Yes, Hindus were the majority and naturally their numbers were most numerous when it came to street agitation and protests etc. By that they were not doing a service to the Muslims of India. Muslims, whether it's leadership, intelligentsia or the laypeople, were involved in the process in no less a measure. That's what collective effort means, even if it was in later years aimed at getting a separate country.

Perhaps you should take a step back and ponder over the circumstances from 1935 onwards which led Muslims in overwhelming numbers to mistrust their Hindu compatriots and fear their hegemonic rule once the British departed. The demand for Pakistan, illogical and impracticable it might be, hadn't come out of nowhere.

If Hindu leadership hadn't pushed Muslims back, or at least that's how it was perceived by Muslims, things might have turned out differently.

Quote

Agreed with above accept the Indians do not want their original land to be partitioned anymore, that is their valid claim, and always has been.

It matters little what the Indians or the state of India wants. What matters is what indigenous Kashmiris want. A state has no irrevocable claim over any territory if that claim goes against the wishes of the people of that land. Further to that, Kashmir was an independent princely state and so, according to Independence Plan, it had to legally join the dominion of India or Pakistan according to the wishes of the people, as stipulated in the Act of Ascension. It didn't. The current borders were created by force. Hence the Indian claim on Kashmir has no substance and is as valid as Pakistan's or China's claim over it.

Plain history and international law.

Quote

There are alot of similarities between the creation of Israel and Pakistan. The irony is that those who support Pakistan's existence have to support Israel's existence, the fundamental justification (religion) are identical.

It would have been identical if the state of Pakistan was created to populate it's territory with Muslims (say of Nizari Ismaili sect) of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Yemen, Switzerland.

Even though the fundamental justification is the same (religion), the fundamental difference is that Pakistan was not created for the outsiders but for the indigenous people of the land.

Ugly Jinn, on 13 April 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

By whom exactly?

By Baghdadi Jews methinks.

Edited by Marbles, 13 April 2012 - 02:43 AM.

[md. ammar ali]

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

^ That would leave India without its main military hardware supplier.

[md. ammar ali]

^ pakistan's best friend's - best friend would be gone

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

India ready to talk on Kashmir

NEW DELHI, April 12 (SANA): India is willing to talk about the disputed territory of Kashmir with Pakistan as part of an effort to advance peace talks, said Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai, in an interview with a US newspaper “The Wall Street Journal” on Thursday.

India’s top diplomat also demanded serious action against militants by Pakistan that use its soil to attack India.

He said it was deeply troubling to India that Hafiz Saeed was able to address public gatherings and appear on television.

The U.S. and India allege Hafiz Saeed helped plan the 2008 attacks on Mumbai, which killed more than 160 people.

Last week, Washington offered a $10 million reward for information leading to his arrest and conviction.

At the same time, Mathai said New Delhi views recent moves by Pakistan, including an agreement in February to open its markets to Indian goods, as a signal Islamabad is serious about an improvement in ties.

“I wouldn’t have been as optimistic six months ago,” Mathai said about prospects for the latest round of peace talks, which began in earnest a year ago. “The fact the government is able to move on the trade track shows there’s a greater willingness to take things forward by all the players.”

As the talks develop, India would consider reopening a serious discussion on Kashmir, Mathai said. New Delhi, he added, “would be happy” to start talks toward a deal to keep Kashmir’s borders as they are but allow greater trade and movement of people across the Line of Control, the de facto frontier that divides the territory.

Abdul Basit, Spokesman for Pakistan’s Foreign ministry, said that while there had been progress in the “tone and tenor” of the discussions, Pakistan believed that “unless the Jammu and Kashmir issue is resolved we cannot expect lasting peace in South Asia, adding he had no knowledge of the 2007 talks.

India and Pakistan were close to such an agreement in 2007. But the then-secret negotiations foundered as Pakistan s president at the time, Pervez Musharraf, became entangled in political troubles at home that led to his resignation the following year.

“It was a very useful channel of discussions,” Mr. Mathai said. “They made progress.”

New Delhi believes it is now “up to the Pakistanis to decide how to proceed” on peace talks, Mr. Mathai said.

India, he added, is looking for “something solid” to announce before Prime Minister Singh visits Pakistan.

One potential area of progress, Indian and Pakistan officials say, is a deal over Sir Creek, an area of marsh land bordering the Pakistan province of Sindh and Indian state of Gujarat and claimed by both countries. Other areas of discussion are likely to prove more contentious. Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari visited India on Sunday and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh accepted his invitation to make a first official trip to Pakistan, although he did not commit to a time frame. The U.S. views better relations as essential to political stability in the region, including Afghanistan.

A deal over the Himalayan territory of Kashmir, split between India and Pakistan in 1948 and claimed in its entirety by both, is vital to a long-term peace deal between the two nations, which have fought three wars since independence from Britain in 1947.

Pakistani officials have long demanded India start discussions on Kashmir, while India wants Pakistan to crack down on militants. Choreographing progress on these demands will likely be important for further progress in the detente.

[Ugly Jinn]

AliAbbas, on 13 April 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

whom do you think would castigate muslims in india for not going to pakistan?

In India? Hindus?

Quote

It matters little what the Indians or the state of India wants. What matters is what indigenous Kashmiris want. A state has no irrevocable claim over any territory if that claim goes against the wishes of the people of that land. Further to that, Kashmir was an independent princely state and so, according to Independence Plan, it had to legally join the dominion of India or Pakistan according to the wishes of the people, as stipulated in the Act of Ascension. It didn't. The current borders were created by force. Hence the Indian claim on Kashmir has no substance and is as valid as Pakistan's or China's claim over it.

This what I find comical, Kashmir did decide for a brief moment to join neither, but Pakistan did not honor it (what else is new), and I'll break it down chronologically with reference:

1.
The Maharaja who ruled the State had signed agreements with both Pakistan and India to remain neutral and not be part of either country.
http://www.scribd.co...raja-Hari-Singh

Hari Singh chose to remain neutral.
http://www.telegraph...r-conflict.html


2.
But his hopes of remaining independent were dashed in October 1947, as Pakistan sent in Muslim tribesmen who were knocking at the gates of the capital Srinagar.
http://www.telegraph...r-conflict.html

"Frustrated by Hari Singh’s indecision, Islamabad sent "Pakistani troops disguised as tribesmen [to join] local Pathan tribesmen and [attack] some of the western border areas of Kashmir" in October 1947."
http://www.stanford....pur-narang.html

"In October 1947, Pashtun tribesmen from Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province invaded Kashmir."
http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/1762146.stm

Why did the Pakistani's attack?

3.
And Pakistan still claims Kashmir is theirs'.

Kashmir was for a moment and could've been independent, but like always Pakistan screwed it up by attacking. Whenever I hear any claims from Pakistan regarding Kashmir I chuckle. Pakistan has zero credibility nor rights to anything related to Kashmir anymore, they only cared about real estate not people.

Quote

Plain history and international law.

Ditto.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 14 April 2012 - 12:46 AM.

[Marbles]

Ugly Jinn, on 14 April 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

Kashmir was for a moment and could've been independent, but like always Pakistan screwed it up by attacking. Whenever I hear any claims from Pakistan regarding Kashmir I chuckle. Pakistan has zero credibility nor rights to anything related to Kashmir anymore, they only cared about real estate not people.

You will only have a cursory understanding of the conflict of Kashmir if you only stick to news reports and article-length "short histories" fetched off the web. The reason I say that is following:

Princely states in the Subcontinent could not remain "neutral" or independent according to the final draft of the Independence Plan. (The provision for their independence stipulated in the previous draft of the Independence Plan was removed on the objections of Indian National Congress thereby effectively removing any chance of any princely state to retain their independent status.) They were required to join either India or Pakistan. Half a dozen or so princely states tried to delay their ascension beyond the Independence Day (midnight 14/15 August 1947) in a vain hope that it might somehow keep them independent of both India and Pakistan. Kashmir's Hari Singh was one of them. Plain logic, geography and demographics dictated that it would join Pakistan because it was contiguous to Pakistan and it had 85%-90% Muslim population.

The other ruler to delay the ascension was the Muslim Nizam (ruler) of the state of Hyderabad Deccan. It was a large and extremely wealthy state with overwhelmingly Hindu population. Its geography dictated that it would join India. But the Nizam never signed the Act of Ascension which would have legally ceded his state to India. Indians tolerated the Nizam for 6 or so months before ordering their troops inside the territory of Hyderabad and taking over the state by force.

The Nizam wanted to remain "neutral" aka Independent. India invaded it and struck the merger by force. The other case is the small state of Junagadh in Gujarat. The ruler wanted to remain Independent and for some time wanted to join Pakistan. But since Junagadh didn't have borders with Pakistan and was a Hindu majority state, it was illogical for the Maharaja to want to join Pakistan. End result? India invaded it like it invaded Hyderabad and took over it by force.

So by your standards, if Pakistan lost its claim over Kashmir because it invaded it and tried to effect merger by force, India also lost its claim over independent states of Hyderabad and Junagadh because of the same reason? Yes or No?

Agreed that Pakistanis, at the time of Independence, messed it up in Kashmir. Their policy turned out to be a consummate failure. But it doesn't on the other hand give legitimacy to Indian claim over Kashmir. Besides, no one is defending Pakistan's claim over Kashmir so please don't bring it up again.

Quote

Ditto.

Sir, get off google and read history.

Ugly Jinn, on 14 April 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

In India? Hindus?

Wow. The fact you are unaware of the fact that loyalty of the Muslims of India to their country is constantly questioned and they are chastised for not migrating to the country their coreligionists have founded is a tell tale sign of your 'expertise' on Subcontinent's history and its contemporary affairs.

In India, Muslims have to behave and act more Catholic than the Pope to prove their loyalty to the country.

Edited by Marbles, 14 April 2012 - 05:32 AM.

[Marbles]

Ugly Jinn, on 14 April 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

The Maharaja who ruled the State had signed agreements with both Pakistan and India to remain neutral and not be part of either country.
http://www.scribd.co...raja-Hari-Singh

To add to my previous post, the Maharaja of Kashmir signed absolutely NO agreements whatsoever with either India or Pakistan to "remain neutral" as claimed by your dubious e-source. I don't know who this man is and what's his agenda for writing a "tribute" to the "great Maharajah", but it is on you to show us what those supposed agreements were, what they entailed and when and where they are signed and entered into force.

On the contrary Hari Singh vacillated indecisively between India and Pakistan with the sole aim of maintaining his Independence. The Last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, had made it clear to Hari Singh on his last meeting in Srinagar that it was not a choice to remain independent. He must either join India or Pakistan. He did neither till Pakistani irregulars invaded his state from Muzaffarabad which caused him to run over to India and claim protection because he feared for his life.

[Ugly Jinn]

@Marbles

You are so inconsistent I don't know where to start.


1.
You keep emphasizing on law/agreements, yet the first one to break an agreement/law was Pakistan. Yet you skip the fundamental issue and speak about demographics/population, don't conveniently fast forward to issues that support your case.

The ruler signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan which clearly states current status quo remains unchanged until new agreements are made. Provisions were made and agreement is valid under the Independence law. Pakistan broke that agreement and attacked Kashmir.

Let me repeat:
Pakistan was the first to break and agreement with Kashmir.
Pakistan was the first to attack Kashmir.


2.
You need to understand the fundamentals of the Independence law. The ruler of the princely state should take in consideration of the population, this is in the practical sense. But in theory, that is the responsibility of the ruler, the final decision is by the ruler, hence a princely state.

Whether you feel the ruler took consideration of the people or not is irrelevant because the final decision according to the Independence Law is the ruler of the Princely State. Again, let me repeat, the final decision under the Independence law is the ruler, only the ruler has that authority.

And to be honest, Pakistan screwed themselves up by attacking Kashmir, if they didn't attack, maybe history would've turned out differently.


3.
To summarize, the Kashmiris did decide for the most part, they were independent for 73 days before Pakistan attacked and screwed it up. So if you care so much about Kashmiris and want their independence, then all you have to do is go to the root of the problem and see who screwed it up to disallow it.

Like I said, Pakistan has no business in Kashmir. The issue is between India and Kashmir.

Marbles, on 14 April 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

In India, Muslims have to behave and act more Catholic than the Pope to prove their loyalty to the country.

Total BS with all due respect. There is so much I can say here but don't want to stray from the topic at hand.

Unlike those Muslims migrating to Pakistan who are considered 2nd class citizens and are called Muhajirs.

And because of that this still happens (last week):
http://tribune.com.p...arate-province/

Pakistan's horrid hateful history is so bad that I don't know why you are surprised many dislike it.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 14 April 2012 - 02:08 PM.

[Marbles]

Ugly Jinn, on 14 April 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

@Marbles

You are so inconsistent I don't know where to start.


1.
You keep emphasizing on law/agreements, yet the first one to break an agreement/law was Pakistan. Yet you skip the fundamental issue and speak about demographics/population, don't conveniently fast forward to issues that support your case.

The ruler signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan which clearly states current status quo remains unchanged until new agreements are made. Provisions were made and agreement is valid under the Independence law. Pakistan broke that agreement and attacked Kashmir.

Let me repeat, Pakistan was the first to break and agreement with Kashmir.


2.
You need to understand the fundamentals of the Independence law. The ruler of the princely state should take in consideration of the population, this is in the practical sense. But in theory, that is the responsibility of the ruler, the final decision is by the ruler, hence a princely state.

Whether you feel the ruler took consideration of the people or not is irrelevant because the final decision according to the Independence Law is the ruler of the Princely State. Again, let me repeat, the final decision under the Independence law is the ruler.

And to be honest, Pakistan themselves up by attacking Kashmir, if they didn't attack, maybe history would've turned out differently.


3.
To summarize, the Kashmiris did decide for the most part, they were independent for 73 days before Pakistan attacked and screwed it up. So if you care so much about Kashmiris and want their independence, then all you have to do is go to the root of the problem and see who screwed it up to disallow it.

Like I said, Pakistan has no business in Kashmir. The issue is between India and Kashmir.

Please do point out my "inconsistencies". Don't just say it. show it.

Ah "Standstill Agreement"? Sounds great doesn't it? But do you actually know what it entailed? The Maharajah didn't sign this agreement to remain "neutral" or independent as you claimed. According to this agreement, which the Maharajah offered both to India and Pakistan but which only Pakistan accepted and signed, the state would enjoy internal autonomy just as it enjoyed under British except that foreign affairs and defence would be shifted to the signatory country until the formal Act of Accession could be decided upon, signed and formally entered into force. In other words the Maharajah, by signing this agreement, provisionally accepted the paramountcy of Pakistan.

Pakistani government recklessly invaded Kashmir on hearing the rumours that the Maharajah was signing the Act of Accession to India despite it's provisional agreements with Pakistan. Yes, in practice, the invasion of Kashmir amounted to breaking the agreement on Pakistani part.

Again, I am not defending Pakistani claim over Kashmir and I asked you not to bring it up again. It is about Indian claim on Kashmir which you seem to eager to defend. I am countering your assertion that Kashmir legitimately belongs to India. It doesn't. Let me tell you about another agreement which was not honoured and which you are sure to be unaware of.

The Act of Accession signed by the desperate Maharajah in the wake of Pakistani invasion thereby joining India was provisional and it was required to be ratified by a plebiscite or a referendum on a later date after the ceasefire. That was not just a verbal promise but part of the Act of Accession under Indian Subcontinent's Constitutional Law. It was later backed by the UN when Nehru approached it with its request for a ceasefire. Neither a revision of the accession took place nor a referendum was held. India broke the agreement and occupied the part of Kashmir on its side of the ceasefire line and this situation continues to this day. India did not honour the agreement and the Kashmiris know it. That's why there's a nearly million strong army to keep them in tow.

So your defense of the Indian claim on Kashmir falls on its head. I don't support either country's claim over Kashmir because they broke their agreements. But you are so eager to defend India's claim. Let's leave it to the readers to decide who is inconsistent

Quote

Total BS with all due respect. There is so much I can say here but don't want to stray from the topic at hand.

Unlike those Muslims migrating to Pakistan who are considered 2nd class citizens and are called Muhajirs.

And because of that this still happens (last week):
http://tribune.com.p...arate-province/

LOL

First, why would you bring the social status of Indian migrants to Pakistan in response to my point about how Indian Muslims are viewed by their Hindu countrymen? Ask about A and get an answer about B. Good logic.

Second, I never said all is heaven-like with migrants and their families in Pakistan. But you think all is hunky dory for Muslims in India, as is clear from your dismissal of my plain statement as "BS", and that with due respect lol

Third, ask Indian Muslims if they are castigated by the Hindu majority. Don't take my word. How about that for a modest proposal?

Quote

Pakistan's horrid hateful history is so bad that I don't know why you are surprised many dislike it.

The same reasons, in various forms and degrees, which make Pakistan a horrid hateful country exist in Indian society as I have elaborated on numerous occasions. So when are you turning your guns against India?

Edited by Marbles, 14 April 2012 - 05:41 PM.