Indians not like to live with monkeys...want to free Kashmir along with all muslims of india....so no more partition of india after 50 or 100 year.....
KASHMIRIS share no culture, no language, no history & NO GEOGRAPHY with INDIA. KASHMIRIS are a diferent ETHNICITY to filthy INDIANS. We want our FREEDOM. KASHMIR is OCCUPIED by an OPRESSIVE INDIA.
@MrAlpha235 , But bro, The weakness in today's Hindus is that there is no unity. Go to some temple in U.K, you will find a tamilian, telugu, marati, bengali & north Indian , all praying to themselves selfishly without any communication among each other. NOW, IS THIS WHAT THE VEDAS & GREAT ANCIENT MAHARISHI'S OF INDIA HAVE TAUGHT US?
WHAT KIND OF RELIGION IS IT WHEN THERE IS NO COMMUNICATION AMONG THE DEVOTEES? TODAY WE FIND THAT THE DEVOTEES R GOING TO TEMPLE ONLY FOR FOOD & NOT 4 WORSHIP.
The shoes of SIR ABDUL AHAD JAN are more pious than dirty face of Amar Singh(Omar). It would have been great disrespect for the shoe if it had touched the dirty face of Amar singh
One of the good Indian leaders. He is certainly proud to belong to our State, but is also loyal person. Thus his love for Matarbhumi Bharat. He his a fit personality for a leader, He will surely not be liked by anti-India elements. Peaceful people of our state generally love him. A similar pure Aryan personality like the mighty warrior and intellectual Dr. Karan Singh.
@ shiv 1971;Ur arguments on document on accession n that plebiscite was not offered to kashmiri people, i have answered both arguments n sent it to ur inbox n on my wall.Check it!!!
@shiv1971 whether in fact the document of accession was signed at all, is another question raising serious doubts over itz legitimacy; atleast not untill march 1948!!!And for the sake of argument if i agree it was signed, then under document of accession(white paper 1948)Indian rights is extremely restrictive upon kashmir.Moreover peoples wish was never considered,Therefore maharja signing it is , is irrelevant ,undemcratic n illegal.As far as ur question of ratification by 75 kashmiri
@shiv 1971 lawmakers.We know bakshi Ghulam muhammad was a puppet put by indian govt. following Sheikh abdullahs arrest;Therefore ratification under him by 75 kashmiri law makers is rubbish!!!The question of ratification comes later, as the very foundation under which document of accession is signed is questionable!!
@cric45master ***We know bakshi Ghulam muhammad was a puppet put by indian govt. following Sheikh abdullahs arrest;Therefore ratification under him by 75 kashmiri law makers is rubbish***
>>
On the contrary, it was the state govt. that filed the charges against Sheikh Abdullah, not the center (despite all the rumors). Moreover, the Kashmiri lawmakers could have voted against the ratification and demanded UN intervention by a resolution, and also Sheikh Abdullah's release. Cont...
@cric45master ***We know bakshi Ghulam muhammad was a puppet put by indian govt. following Sheikh abdullahs arrest;Therefore ratification under him by 75 kashmiri law makers is rubbish***
>>
How so? The assembly could have voted against the resolution and also passed a resolution demanding Abdullah's release - thereby slapping Karan Singh on his face (who claimed Abdullah lacked majority and used that to sack Abdullah)..... You don't connect the arrest with any voting decision.
@cric45master ***The question of ratification comes later, as the very foundation under which document of accession is signed is questionable!! ***
>>
No, it is not. It was Mountbatten who gave the rulers the right to choose in verbal promises, and he made that part of the partition constitution. Ironically, Nehru wanted a referendum (plebiscite) for ALL kingdoms, but the Pakistanis sided with Mountbatten.
So the accession was legalized on the ruler's choice. Blame the Brits & Pakis here...
@Shiv1971 ok im curious, could that be because jinnah wanted hyderabad to join pakistan? because i know he offered the nizam of hyderabad to join pakistan.
@cric45master whether in fact the document of accession was signed at all, is another question raising serious doubts over itz legitimacy; atleast not untill march 1948!!!And for the sake of argument if i agree it was signed, then under document of accession(white paper 1948)Indian rights is extremely restrictive upon kashmir.Moreover peoples wish was never considered,Therefore maharja signing it is , is irrelevant ,undemcratic n illegal.As far as ur question of ratification by 75 kashmiri
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH U, we will fight for independence till death n after our death , our children will fight.Generation after generation we will fight, till we get our independence.India should give kashmiri people independence.Kaashmiris dont hate anyone.We fight for our land, Our past, our present n our future;Which is independent kashmir!!!
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH U, we will fight for independence till death n after our death , our children will fight.Generation after generation we will fight, till we get our independence.India should give kashmiri people independence.Kaashmiris dont ahte anyone.We fight for our land, Our past, our present n our future;Which is independent kashmir!!!
@ shiv 1971;I had been very lenient im my approach with u .My purpose was us to come to common terms between us n u breaking nationality borders.And solve kashmir issue for the sake of kashmiri people.But u seem too stubborn;Itz propably this attitude of indian people n indian govt.U see kashmiri people on streets;Picking stones n even guns.Because u leave no option to them .Whose might is right attitude!!! .ENOUGH IS ENOUGH U, we will fight for independence till death;After us our contd...
@cric45master ***I had been very lenient im my approach with u ....ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ***
>>
You have been pathetic. You cannot even articulate properly. You keep arguing what Nehru's speech could have meant. The fact is, semantics dictate it could mean MORE THAN ONE THING. You keep bringing UN resolutions WHEN PAKISTAN FAILED TO IMPLEMENT TWO PRECONDITIONS FOR A PLEBISCITE (as in the resolution itself). Don't blame India for that - blame Pakistan!!! That is dictated by justice and reason.
@ Shiv 1971:Kashmir is not a part of india!!!! Neither historically, legally or morally. Kashmir is kashmiris (hindu, muslim, sikh , buddhist ,christian r atheist).And only kashmiris have the right to decide their future. Itz time we as human beings should come forward breaking the shakles of nationalities n stop injustice thats happening to kashmiri people from 63 yrs .Whether u r indian r pakistani r kashmiri come forward n give kashmiris what is thiers........Independent kashmir forever!!!
@cric45master ***Kashmir is not a part of india!!!! Neither historically, legally or morally. Kashmir is kashmiris ***
>>
Sigh! We went over this over and over.....accession, ratification - and even historically it was a part of Mughal India, etc. So toss your delusions into the trash.
The accession + ratification means that "legally" J&K is a part of India. This has been studied by lawyers who are not rabid freaks like you.
U r delusional n Godwillingly ur delusions will soon b ended.Saying kashmir was part of mughal india;Is as though saying india is british or india is arab country or spain is arab r half of world is british country.Remember during the period of 15 august 1947 to 26/27 oct. 1947. kashmir was independent country legally.
So ur claim to kashmir is only Document of accession.Contd........part 1 in part 2.
“@ shiv1971:That Government of India and Pakistan should make a joint request to U.N.O. to undertake a plebiscite in Kashmir at the earliest possible date.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (In telegram No. Primin-304 dated 8 November 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH U, we will fight for independence till death n after our death , our children will fight.Generation after generation we will fight, till we get our independence.India should give kashmiri people independence now.Kaashmiris luv everyone;But it does not seem anyone cares about us.We fight for our land, Our past, our present n our future;Which is independent kashmir!!!
I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir; it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir
@shiv1971I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir; it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued(pt. nehru press statement
“I started with the presumption that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their own future. We will not compel them. In that sense, the people of Kashmir are sovereign.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Statement in Indian Parliament, 7 August 1952)
@Shiv1971 Most kashmiris dont know the facts - they hear "azaadi" and get excited .>>
iraq war are the examples to show, how much people get swayed by nationalism;Try to b a human first n u will feel kashmiri sufferings n their right to b independent.And believe me if every youth in kashmir will know the history n the the dishonesty india has shown to kashmiri people.U will not even b able to hold people by gun( nea a million army in kashmir).
oye Omar n farooq abdullah:This is for u?us ne panun maaji hoond guw?(kashmir);Chu shun kaansi hoond.Shame on u omar n farooq taht u being kashmiris cant seee the sufferings of kashmiri people n their sentiment for independence.U two r the only kashmiris who think kashmir is not viable for independence.Perhaps u r not of that calibre to have a visioned independent kashmir!!!
India has always acted like a rascal!If india is honest, then let the people b given the choice to decide itz future via referendum.And settle this issue once n for all.Indian leaders along with farooq n omar abdulah r a bunch of crooks.
@cric45master ***India has always acted like a rascal!If india is honest, then let the people b given the choice to decide itz future via referendum.***
>>
You are a rascal. Why should India do it for you? India has legal rights to J&K via the accession itself (under the British India Act of 1947).
Then it gave free + fair elections in 1952 to the Kashmiri public.
Then it gave a "free vote" to ELECTED lawmakers - all Muslim Kashmiri lawmakers (75 of them) chose to ratify the accession.
Contd... U should thank the political parties like(n.c) the puppets of india ,that u r even able to present an argument.Otherwise with More then half a million army in kashmir, where u hold people by gun, An illegitimate occupation, More then 100,000 innocent killings, 10,000 disappeareances, 40,000 widows n equall no of orphans, genocide, mass murder n extra judicial killings .U even put nazis to shame!!!!!!
@cric45master ***More then 100,000 innocent killings, 10,000 disappeareances, 40,000 widows n equall no of orphans, genocide, mass murder n extra judicial killings .U even put nazis to shame!!!!!!***
I don't have to. The burden of proof is carried by the accuser....by common law from courts, and by debate rules.
How can you make statements without FACTS and EVIDENCE? Believe all you want in propaganda disinformation, but you have zook evidence and zero credibility...
Why should I? The burden of proof is carried by the accuser by common law principle and argumentation principles. You have ZERO evidence of your claims and numbers about atrocities....mere propaganda hogwash.
U idiot, ur democracy argument is on the functioning of the govt.;While my question is with respect to the legitimacy of indian occupation in kashmir.In 60 years of occupation;Wht u have got is 2002 elections;Ha,ha.....Moreover whoever voted, they voted for development n prosperity.And moreover ,if whatever few political parties stop being party to the elections;Ur democrfacy argument will go out of the window.
@cric45master ***;Wht u have got is 2002 elections;Ha,ha.....Moreover whoever voted, they voted for development n prosperity***
>> You sound like a mental spastic. The 2002 elections were declared "free and fair" by Robert Blackwill, US ambassador to Kashmir. It was monitored by the West.
The 2008 elections had over 60% turnout - a solid citizenry supporting democracy. Discredits you right off the bat ... "undemocratic" etc.
Though one of the imp. case is quebec case(establishing C.i.L) n east timor case .In addition for a country to b bound by customary international law,It does not need to b a party to it !!!!!!!as u POINTED OUT THE QUEBEC CASE IS CANADIAN CASE(ITZ A JUST A REFERENCE ESTABLISHING IT)The principles that are part of the customary int law is Legal!! n is applicable to all the members of the U.N, irrespective of whether a particular state is party to it or recognizes it or not!
The point here is not resolutions, but whether right to self determination is legal right r not( i have already given u reference to resolutions est. via 'state practice n oponio-juris' which r binding n have become part of C.I.L .In accordance with art. 38(b) of the statute of icj), it is a part of customary int. law established by "general practice" n "Oponio-juris" in cases like india v GB, bangladesh v pakistan, pakistan v india. contd
check out the resolutions on israel-palestine(binding in nature( not implemented), no action taken(lacks implementation).The resolutions lack legal charcter.
@Shiv1971 Though u read , but not properly!!!!Well i know under chapter 7 , the u.n resolutions are binding.Whether a country is bound by a resolution r not,it is decided by lobbying n international politics .Those of the resolutions which countrys implement; they become binding,N not the other way around in practice, the retorsion/Reprisal for not implementing a resolutions ,we hardly see!!!.
@Shiv1971 Though u read , but not properly!!!!Well i know under chapter 7 , the u.n resolutions are binding.Whether a country is bound by a resolution r not,it is decided by lobbying n international politics .Those of the resolutions which countrys implement; they become binding,N not the other way around in practice, the retorsion/Reprisal for not implementing a resolutions ,we hardly see!!!.
Kashmiris want plebiscite in accordance with u.n resolution,having options as india, pakistan and independent kashmir.
>>
The UN resolution does not give a choice for "indepndence" but joining with India or Pakistan. You don't even have your facts right. It had 4 PARTS - the first required Pakistan to remove their troops and tribes. This was a "pre-condition" to the other parts.
Kashmir was part of British India as a principality. Lord Mountbatten had promised Indian kings that they would get to choose whether to join with Free India or Pakistan. That was implemented in the 1946 Simla Agreements in British India, with Pakistani leaders agreeing with the Indians. Maharaja Hari Singh chose India, and never disputed the accession till his death in 1961. There! Now post this part here.
@Shiv1971Kashmir was never a part of india.It was an united kingdom(A princely state)., Mountabatten, in his speech to Chamber Of Princes made on 25 June 1947, said: "...... The Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom - technically and legally they become independent."2ndly maharaja had the intention to remain independent, had the circumstances not arisen like that.
@Shiv1971Kashmir: Any decision made by any monarch/king(maharaja) is undemocratic.Kings come n go;But land belongs to its people.A monarch is not elected by people;Therefore his decision is undemocratic
@cric45master ********The Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown.
*************************
So why didn't you first READ THE ACT??? According to the Indian Independence Act in 1947, all Indian states were free to accede the new Dominion of India or Pakistan. This is part of the partition agreements, and also the line of communication made by Mountbatten to the rulers earlier.
@cric45master ***Kashmir was never a part of india*******
It WAS historically a part of old India for quite a while - part of the Mughal empire, etc. It was also under limited British rule despite a maharaja. And he chose India per the accession made to Mountbatten. And Kashmiri lawmakers ratified that accession AFTER being voted into power in free and fair elections in which the Kashmiri public voted. Kapeesh?
@Shiv1971 India was never a part of india.The onus is on u to prove otherwise.Ur answer says it all!!!!Ur ony answer is Acession document!!!! On analysing in accordance with(Art. 38 statute of icj)contract;Is questionable as it lacks the intention n consideration;Maharaja accession to india is undemocratic(He is a monarch; not elected!!!!!! n his clear intention to b independent had the circumstances not been like that! cancells the treaty of ascession.
@cric45master ***India was never a part of india.The onus is on u to prove otherwise.****
>> ALL your blabbering and inarticulate bull apart, you need to consider the history of Kashmir - it was part of the Mughal empire...historically Indian.
The Maharaja was given the legal right (along with HUNDREDS of other rulers) by Lord Mountbatten and partition agreements to accede to India or Pakistan.
DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Kashmiri lawmakers RATIFIED the accession via a democratic vote.
@cric45master ***This proves u r blind; u dont see beyond seeing.Kashmir was never a part of india. ***
Proves jack squat.
Kashmir was ruled by Mughal India and also by Maharaj Ranjit Singh.
The accession was legal by the terms set by the British, and accepted by the Kashmiri Maharaja.
The Kashmiri people's representatives (democratically elected in free and fair elections) ratified the accession, which is a democratic decision via people's representatives to accept India.
@Shiv1971 Kashmir was ruled by Mughal India and also by Maharaj Ranjit Singh.>>>>>>>>>Kashmir is not a part of india.Happy...(By way of ur argument then spain is arab country, india is british country,Half of the world is british n before tht india is arab country.India before partition n after partition is totally different.
.Acession was illegal.Already answered.
Kashmiris dont vote. they whoever few vote for development n prosperity. This argument is also answered.
@cric45master ***Acession was illegal.Already answered.***
As phony as anything ever. The accession was accepted by Mountbatten as legal, and ratified by a vote by Kashmiri lawmakers, chosen in free/fair elections. So it was both legal and democratic (via representative vote).
Also, I was showing that Kashmir was part of India historically, THEN it was acceded by the Maharaja to India (like the other hundreds of principalities), THEN the accession was ratified democratically by lawmakers.
@Shiv1971 So it was both legal and democratic (via representative vote).I have already answered u n i cant answer U again n again, while u can , as u propably sit idle all the time.
Kashmir was not like other principalities(Get ur facts straight)It was not like other pricipilities!!!Its status is different.Read nehrus statement in U.n.And ahh it was not a part of india(Read history one more time).Ratified by who????
@cric45master You don't even know who ratified it. A 100 percent Kashmiri Muslim body of lawmakers ratified the accession - so that is a democratic reference to the people (as they were voted by the Kashmiri public).
Nehru promised a "reference to the people" and "choice" ....not the same thing as a plebiscite. It was misconstrued as a plebiscite because of the UN resolution, but semantics dictates that a representative vote is also a democratic choice.
@Shiv1971 Maharaja Hari Singh voluntarily acceded to India;Look at the circumstances he signed the document of accession.His intention to b independent.Moreover maharja accession is illegal as maharaja is not elected.India has always decieved people of kashmir.Nehru promise to people of kashmir in U.n , Indhira-Sheikh agreement for autonomy.
U say Nehru promised a "reference to the people" and "choice" ..not the same thing as a plebiscite: The question is has that choice been given to the peple
@Shiv1971 You don't even know who ratified it. A 100 percent Kashmiri Muslim body of lawmakers ratified the accession
Name the ones who ratified it.Moreover who r they to decide kashmirs future. They r not elected!!!Therefore their decision is undemocratic.THeir being muslims or hindus does not matter!!!Nehru did not promise plebiscit>> .How sick of u to misinterpret nehrus statement . Either way itz independent kashmir, r as per u pakistan as it was muslim majority
@cric45master ***Name the ones who ratified it.Moreover who r they to decide kashmirs future. They r not elected!!!***
>>
Sigh! It's no point talking to you. Over and over I said they were elected in free and fair elections held in 1952. They were 75 Muslim Kashmiri lawmakers in Sheikh Abdullah's camp.
So - that was a reference to the people via representational vote by elected lawmakers. They were Kashmiri lawmakers ELECTED by Kashmiris in 1952. (The UN even monitored the elections).
@Shiv1971 Voting for status of kashmir n voting for state govt. is totally different.Voting is unimportant, what for people vote is important. People voting for development n peace does not mean they vote/accept india.U cannot wishaway kashmirs sentiment n right to b independent with 1952,2002 n 2008 elections.And if u talk about sheikh abdullah ratification of accession document, then u need to consider why n what for he did it.Autonomy was the compromise remember!!!
@cric45master ***How sick of u to misinterpret nehrus statement . ***
>>
No, you're the sick one. I have been totally honest. The govt. of India felt that a "reference to the people" could be interpreted in different ways, and elected lawmakers' ratification was one such way. Kapeesh?
Moreover, Nehru himself did not have authority to decide things, you need to study law. There were constitutional and other factors. BUT - he did allow a vote of ratification to sustain his posturing.
@Shiv1971 Elected ratification was one such way.Then talk abt abdullah- new delhi agreements on autonomas govt.Promise for "choice"This shows ur lack of understanding on the subject.Had the peoples wish been considered, then the situation would not b like this in kashmir.No kashmiri wants t b with india r pakistan.Every kashmiri wants independence.There would not have been movements like non-violent movements n violents ( militancy ) in the past., had the peoples wish been considered.
@cric45master ***Then talk abt abdullah- new delhi agreements on autonomas govt.Promise for "choice"This shows ur lack of understanding on the subject.***
>>
No - you are confusing "autonomy" with independence, plebiscite, etc.There is a need to give J&K more autonomy - and J&K has its own constitution as well. This is not a plebiscite, India does have some rights over J&K as well. Omar Abdullah is pushing for more autonomy, I support that as well...
@Shiv1971 No - you are confusing "autonomy" with independence,>>>>
I m not! i m saying india has been dishonest to the people of kashmir, they have not fulfilled any promise they made to the people of kashmir.An autonomas govt. , a devolved govt like ireland, scotland, wales is the solution before itz too late.That way india will keep their respect, if they have any! r luv for the people of kashmir.
@cric45master ***I m not! i m saying india has been dishonest to the people of kashmir, they have not fulfilled any promise they made to the people of kashmir.***
>>
Say what you want, there was dishonesty far more from others - Britain, Pakistan. Mr. Nehru agreed to ratification, not a plebiscite. Sure - state governments are dishonest, that is the nature of politics, but the accession to India was not dishonest. The reduction in autonomy was however not fair.
@Shiv1971 Mr. Nehru agreed to ratification, not a plebiscite.
Is this a statement of urs ,or this is ur interpretation of Mr nehrus statement.If itz an interpretation , then there r different interpretations of the same statements by nehru?And the majority interpretative view is, itz plebiscite!!!!! But if it a statement by u, then u r dishonest as well,as u interpret statements to suit ur planned biased answers.
@cric45master **Is this a statement of urs ,or this is ur interpretation of Mr nehrus statement....if it a statement by u, then u r dishonest ***
>>
Listen genius, you need to see two things:
1) The ENGLISH language used was "de-coded"...the words can be used widely. The Govt. of India did the same, and they also had discussions with Sheikh Abdullah. He wanted ratification per a 1939 rule.
2) Nehru could also not make unilateral promises, kapeesh? There are laws on how much power he had.
@Shiv1971 both ways ur statement proves india has been dishonest, bcoz using a decoded language n decieving the people of kashmir is then an international sin n their crimes consequently, because of it in kshmir.U mean he intentionally created the chaos.Then india politicians must be prosecuted for inciting hatred n therefore crimes thereof......Dont try to b a smarta******e.
@cric45master ***both ways ur statement proves india has been dishonest, bcoz using a decoded language n decieving the people of kashmir***
>>
You are the dishonest one. ANY politician worth his salt will be careful about making promises and leave options because he faces LIMITS. We cannot presume for Mr. Nehru, but the Govt. of India followed a fairly legalistic interpretation. A "choice" is not a plebiscite.
@cric45master ***U mean he intentionally created the chaos.Then india politicians must be prosecuted for inciting hatred
>>
Don't try to be a dumbass. I don't mean he intentionally tried to create chaos. He was too cultured for that. He simply made statements knowing his CHOICES were limited. He can't just offer plebiscite etc - he would need approval from the parliament. So he used the word "choice" - which could impute ratification. He did not incite hatred.
@Shiv1971Choice is no where mentioned, in part 3 of 1948 resolution" Status of j&k will b decided in accordance with the "will"of kashmiri people " is mentioned. So u now a liar as well.To interpret " what will of kashmiri people means" Itz simple;But since u will not budge, Go n read the resolution 19 ,1951 of u.n.Where it Give reference to 1948 resolution, where itz as under:--contd...
@cric45master ***Choice is no where mentioned, in part 3 of 1948 resolution" Status of j&k will b decided in accordance with the "will"of kashmiri people " is mentioned. So u now a liar as well.***
>>
Are you a mad person? I used the word "choice" with Nehru's speech. So you are the liar by falsely accusing me.....
The UN Resolution in its FIRST PART required Pakistan to remove troops/tribes. DON'T mention Part three when Part one is still to be implemented. You can't cherry pick bits....
@Shiv1971 Most kashmiris dont know the facts - they hear "azaadi" and get excited .>>The onus is on the indian people to know all sides more then the kashmiris.Their reactions n sentiments are reactions to what they have gone through over 63 years of indian brutality.Itz enough for them to hear Azaadi n get excited.The onus is on u!!! to know what makes them ought to have that sentiment.Itz this blind nationalism they makes people butchers n unjust!! wars like world war 2, nazism, contd
@cric45master ***The onus is on the indian people to know all sides more then the kashmiris.Their reactions n sentiments are reactions to what they have gone through over 63 years of indian brutality***
>>
This is total hogwash. You claimed things on behalf of the Kashmiris, but most do not in fact have full knowledge of all issues.
Also, "brutality" was caused due to militancy and lawlessness, and a number of steps were taken to quell brutality as well.
@cric45master ***The fact of the matter is his intentions changed after making promise to people of kashmir***\
>>
No - he was supposed to RATIFY the accession owing to a 1939 rule which Sheikh Abdullah insisted on. It was done with unanimous consent of Kashmiri politicians. He may or may not have had a plebiscite in mind. Moreover, assuming he did.....it may have been in context with the UN Resolution which required Pakistan to remove troops and tribes - which was NOT done.
@Shiv1971 Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47(1948) of 21 April 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948 and 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January,1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
@cric45master ***that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite***
>>
Genius - the resolutions ALL required Pakistan to vacate J&K. Which they have not. Plebiscite was only after a number of steps taken by Pakistan, then India, then both countries. Kapeesh? Don't apply cherry picked facts out here - resolutions come in whole form.
@Shiv1971 Listen u idiot;I gave u the interpretation of the part 3 of 1948 resolution"That kashmirs status will be decided in accordance with the will of its people" meant?By referring to resolution 91 1951 U.N.Where itz clearly mentioned "in accordance with will means plebiscite".Had it not been the case then a reference to plebiscite would not b given with respect to resolution 1948 in resolution 91 1951. kapeesh!And ahh no need to answer , with ur biased stupid logic n understanding.
@cric45master ***Listen u idiot;I gave u the interpretation of the part 3 of 1948 resolution***
>>
Idiotic is you - babbling away! You can give all the "interpretation" in your rambling BUT there were PRE-CONDITIONS to a plebiscite. Even the 1951 resolution had reference to past resolutions.
......Pakistan had to remove their troops and tribes FIRST. End of story. India has no obligation to hold any plebiscite without that done first. Study law before you speak...
@Shiv1971 Contd "1" the law principle is, to prove anything!U reference it with third neutral source.And that neutral source is u.n resolutions ,where i have proved it "will of people" meant "plebiscite".And in the light of purposive interpretation principle;U go to the sources to know what it meant , to figure out itz purpose.And in the light of statements by nehru in U.n n in varoius forums, the circumstances in which document of accession was signed,Kashmir history n moreover contd "1"
@cric45master ***u.n resolutions ,where i have proved it "will of people" meant "plebiscite"***
>>
You proved jack squat. The plebiscite was to be held AFTER Pakistan complied with the requirement for troop removal, and vacating its invading tribes. So you defeat yourself....the plebiscite was dependent on TWO prior steps....and Pakistan did NOT implement the first step here. Nehru would never make the resolution binding without its entirely complied with...he was trained as a lawyer, no fool.
The most feasible method of ascertaining the wishes of the people was by fair and impartial plebiscite.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Joint press communique of the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan issued in Delhi after their meeting on 20 August 1953).
@Shiv1971 “If, after a proper plebiscite, the people of Kashmir said, ‘We do not want to be with India’, we are committed to accept that. We will accept it though it might pain us. We will not send any army against them. We will accept that, however hurt we might feel about it, we will change the Constitution, if necessary.”
@Shiv 1971Contd part 1,Moreover, The 1948 resolution , mentioned "regualr forces to b removed n not all forces" ,So from that view ,india is responsible, for not implementing, Though i dont want to play blame games.Itz irrelevant who was responsible for not implementing.Propably both india n pakistan are to b blamed.But the point is time n again india has been unjust to people of kashmir.Itz time to fullfill itz promises n give independence to kashmir!!!Contd
@cric45master ***Moreover, The 1948 resolution , mentioned "regualr forces to b removed n not all forces" ,So from that view ,india is responsible,***
>>
Bull. I am QUOTING the exact text of a 1948 resolution for India (partial text):
"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.... "
ANOTHER part of the resolution, not complied with.....exact text:
"The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavors: 1. 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"
@cric45master ***But the point is time n again india has been unjust to people of kashmir.***
>>
Not with respect to the accession, no. Not with respect to the Maharaja's accession, the subsequent elections of 1952 (monitored by the UN), the unanimous ratification by 75 Muslim Kashmiri lawmakers.
Injustices came when there was militancy, and that was mostly brought in by the Pakistanis and few rebellious forces. And these injustices have or are being rectified.
@Shiv1971On the basis of chain of events that led to alleged document of accession;It is evident that document of accession was no way signed before 27 oct 1947, by recent research (N if u want a copy of the facts of research, i will provide u one).Therefore india violated kashmir soveriegnity by occupying kashmir n is an occupier. We all know the legitimacy of document of accession is questioned?duress/undue influence are such factors.And 3rdly ...
@Shiv1971 @shiv1971 whether in fact the document of accession was signed at all, is another question raising serious doubts over itz legitimacy; atleast not untill And for the sake of argument if i agree it was signed, then under document of accession(white paper 1948)Indian rights is extremely restrictive upon kashmir.Moreover peoples wish was never considered,Therefore maharja signing it is , is irrelevant ,undemcratic n illegal.As far as ur question of ratification by 75 kashmiri
@Shiv1971 Injustices came when there was militancy, and that was mostly brought in by the Pakistanis and few rebellious forces.
The biggest injustice is indian occupation of kashmir!There is no terrorism as u call it in kashmir. People who r fighting are kashmiri freedom fighters,.Though u know everyone wants to cash in,Therefore there r elements within n outside including indian intelligence who play a part in it as well.But the bottom line is kashmir is kashmiris.Itz not a part of india!!!
@cric45master ***The biggest injustice is indian occupation of kashmir!***
>>
Make up emotional hogwash.
J&K was acceded legally to India.
So no "occupation" per the partition constitution - involving agreements made by the British, Pakistani and Indian leaders.
Finally, 75 Kashmiri Muslim lawmakers ratified the accession in a legal and democratic set up. They were voted in by the free will and vote of the Kashmiri public. They voted to sustain the accession.
@cric45master ***But the bottom line is kashmir is kashmiris.Itz not a part of india!!! ***
>>
And who are you to decide that? 75 Kashmiri lawmakers VOTED for the ratification of the accession. They had the popular back of the Kashmiri public. They were voted in FREE & FAIR elections monitored by the UN in 1952. *They* said Kashmir is acceded to India by democratic powers vested in them by the Kashmiri people. So - you are "caught" again & again...
@Shiv1971 Itz time to fullfill itz promises n give independence to kashmir!!! this is sober approach.Hard approach is, kashmir was never a part of india.India has claims over kashmir only on the basis of document of accession.As i have mentioned in numerous posts itz undemocratic n is illegal.Bakshi ghulam muhammad ratification the document of accession feb 1954.He was a puppet put in place after abdullahs arrest by india.India has no claims on kashmir n for that matter anyone whatsoever on kmr.
@Shiv1971 the resolutions ALL required Pakistan to vacate J&K. Which they have not."Plebiscite" was only after a number of steps taken by Pakistan, then India, then both countries. Kapeesh?
See how u said first it was choice not plebiscite;And now u say itz is plebiscite provided conditions.On all fronts u have been a liar.And ahh my question was not as to why resolutions were not implemented.But resolution Included plebiscite.Itz leaders n people like u who disgrace india by lying repeatdly
@cric45master ***See how u said first it was choice not plebiscite;And now u say itz is plebiscite provided conditions.On all fronts u have been a liar... resolution Included plebiscite.Itz leaders n people like u who disgrace india by lying repeatdly***
>>
Listen jerk, READ a bit slowly! I used the word CHOICE for *Nehru's* claims.....
The Resolution from the UN is DIFFERENT.
Either you are a a bull crap propaganda extraordinaire OR you are mental dunce. A pity either way.
@Shiv1971 I used the word CHOICE for *Nehru's* claims.....
The Resolution from the UN is DIFFERENT. Either you are a a bull crap propaganda extraordinaire OR you are mental dunce. A pity either way.
U r the one who has acted like a jerk.Go back to the arguments we started the debate with n u will understand my pt.What i m saying is nehrus staement can b interpreted in different ways.And ur justification for ur interpretation is fine, but Contd... "1"
@cric45master ***And ur justification for ur interpretation is fine,***
>>
AHA! We see finally that this guy got it. Nehru left is ambiguous. ANY interpretation may have been used.
Most important, Nehru couldNOT make promises for a plebiscite without the parliament. So he left it open-ended is the likely guess. He was trained as a LAWYER, and knew his limits - so whatever he may have wanted, he actually worded it in a way where multiple options can be used.
@Shiv1971 Nehru couldNOT make promises for a plebiscite without the parliament.
The matter of the fact is,On december 31, 1947, Allthough Highly unconstitutional, The offer of plebiscite was made to j&k by Mr. nehru.And i cant believe how big a liar u r?U lie repeatdly.The nehrus statements are crystal clear.Here are qoutes from some of the statements made by nehru in press, in u.n n in parliament.It needs no interpretation.Part 1 contd....
@Shiv1971 How many statements u want me to pull out of the archives to show, that Mr nehru offered plebiscite to people of j& k even before the first 1948 U.N resolution was issued on kashmir issue.Such one example is his statemnt in u.n before resolution was issued!There are propably hundreds of statements were Mr. nehru confirmed plebiscite as way of ascertaining wishes of people after 1948 resolution.And his commitment to it despite 1948 resolution not implemented.Contd.....part 1
@cric45master ***How many statements u want me to pull out of the archives to show, that Mr nehru offered plebiscite to people of j& k even before the first 1948 U.N resolution was issued on kashmir issue.***
>>
Nehru wanted a referendum for ALL kingdoms - but Mountbatten had made promises to the rulers that they would choose. Jinnah sided with the British. So Nehru went along with their insistence. Kapeesh?
Now - PULL out statements of his about "plebiscite" - let's see. Cite sources.
@cric45master ***What i m saying is nehrus staement can b interpreted in different ways***
>>
I AGREE here. Any interpretation may be used. It could be a referendum (plebiscite), or it could be representational vote (ratification).
How did you have the gall to call India "dishonest" in this regard? How did you have the gall to declare the accession illegal - when the British India Independence Act of 1947 allows it? At least be FAIR in your comments much as you despise it...
@Shiv1971 People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Report to the All-India Congress Committee, 6 July 1951; The Statesman, New Delhi, 9 July 1951).
@Shiv1971 We have always right from the beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people deciding their fate by referendum or plebiscite………..”Nehru (1948 press statement)
@Shiv1971Contd. "1" factual reality.Nehrus statement must meant plebiscite!Either you are a a bull crap propaganda extraordinaire OR you are mental dunce. A pity either way>>>>> Thats certainly true for u, since u misinterpret my statements n are babbling nonsense continously showing ur frustation.
@cric45master ***factual reality.Nehrus statement must meant plebiscite!***
>>
You mean - "your reality". The FACTS of what he meant can never be known. For instance, he may have kept multiple options since he knew of a 1939 Kashmiri rule for ratification, and that's what Sheikh Abdullah impressed on him. That was also a democratic choice.
In any case, his statements PROVED NOTHING in favor of a plebiscite. His terms were ambiguous. Period.
@cric45master ***Nehrus statement must meant plebiscite!***
>>
Round and round the mulberry bush you go. I wrote AT LEAST 3 posts showing that MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS were possible since Nehru used his words cleverly (trained in law, he perhaps knew that offering a plebiscite may be untenable due to parliament laws and a ratification - demanded by Sheikh Abdullah - would perhaps be easier).
@Shiv1971 Nehru couldNOT make promises for a plebiscite without the parliament.
Kashmir should decide question of accession by plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of the United Nations.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Letter No. 368-Primin dated 21 November 1947 to Prime Minister of Pakistan).“
@cric45master ***Thats certainly true for u, since u misinterpret my statements n are babbling nonsense continously showing ur frustation. ***
>>
Ah....using my own attacks on your tedious nonsense back on me! You are so inarticulate - perhaps if you posted CLEARLY and did not straddle from resolutions to Nehru's choice of words (which openly does NOT suggest any linkage to the UN resolutions) - then maybe we wouldn't have to experience frustration with you propaganda-like prattle.
@Shiv1971 “We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 12 February 1951).
@cric45master ***And the majority interpretative view is, itz plebiscite!!!!! ***
>>
Not necessarily. Do you have a vote on it? Most people don't even know the facts - they just hear "azaadi" and get excited and don't reason all sides.
The real question is: who cares? Mr. Nehru's English was very good (he went to Harrows and Cambridge) and he left the part OPEN to interpretation. Perhaps it was deliberately, but his words DO ALLOW a ratification vote to qualify as "choice".
majority interpretative view is, itz plebiscite!!!!! ***Not necessarily. Do you have a vote on it.
@Shiv1971 Do u have vote on it to prove otherwise.U tend to read too much between the lines!!!! Mr. Nehru's English was very good (he went to Harrows and Cambridge) and he left the part OPEN to interpretation.>>>>Oh what a reasoning.Another interpretation is He was ultimately kashmiri n Internally felt kashmirs sentiments for independence.Therefore his statements again n again plebiscite for j&k
@cric45master ***An autonomas govt. , a devolved govt like ireland, scotland, wales is the solution before itz too late***
>>
More autonomy along those lines is indeed desired. The Indian govt. would also be willing to offer it, but the security environment and inefficiency have kept it from doing so. But there is seriously a need to reconsider Kashmiri autonomy within the Indian union. That would be in keeping with earlier agreements, or at least close.
@Shiv1971 R u acting on behalf of the indian govt, n saying that inefficiency n security problems r the reasons why india has not acted till now.Dear ,reasons for acting that way goes much deper.In todays world enemies r created to have wars.Propably u dot understand the economics of arms/corporate nature of it.For india, kashmir is a play field;where they play their dirty politics .And these very security problems are because of the more then half a million army presence there!
@cric45master ***I appreciate ur honesty here..... ***
>>
Look, there are real problems and there is a need for a good leader who is intelligent and understands the problems and sides with the people to solve this.
You can talk "azaadi" - guess what? It won't solve half of the problems - poverty, factions, Pakistani forces, and so on....
What is needed is (1) More autonomy close to what was originally decided in the 1940s, (b) human rights orgs in J&K active, and (c) govt. job schemes
@Shiv1971 You can talk "azaadi" - guess what? It won't solve half of the problems - poverty, factions, Pakistani forces, and so on
People do not ask for independence to solve problems.Problems arie everywhere.Itz the feeling, The air of freedom that passes through ur hair,The sunlight that kisses ur forehead, The walk of freedom.Itz abt the sacrifices u have made for it, the sufferings u have gone throough , n the future vision for ur country n ur children.No occupation n no foriegn rule.
@cric45master ***Itz the feeling, The air of freedom that passes through ur hair,The sunlight that kisses ur forehead, The walk of freedom.***
>>
Feelings change after you face the same problems over and over. Violence, terror, poverty etc will sour everything. Also, freedom can be felt if you have broad and liberal rights and good governance and economy - what any good democracy ought to give its people. So make your state government accountable to give you that if you want freedom.
@Shiv1971Also, freedom can be felt if you have broad and liberal rights and good governance and economy - . So make your state government accountable to give you that if you want freedom>>>>>>
These things take u closer to feeling free.But itz not the same!!! Oh, what an answer.Ur answer deserves a gold medal.Probably u should have asked the same from British instead of independence.Why double stndards.....Moreover u would not understand.U follow blind nationalism!!!!!!
@Shiv1971 Most kashmiris dont know the facts - they hear "azaadi" and get excited .>>
iraq war are the examples to show, how much people get swayed by nationalism;Try to b a human first n u will feel kashmiri sufferings n their right to b independent
@Shiv1971 Most kashmiris dont know the facts - they hear "azaadi" and get excited .>>
iraq war are the examples to show, how much people get swayed by nationalism;Try to b a human first n u will feel kashmiri sufferings n their right to b independent
@cric45master They r not elected!!!Therefore their decision is undemocratic.***
>>
Wrong on each count. They were ELECTED in circa 1952. The elections were with UN monitors and were free and fair. They were ELECTED by the Kashmiri public.
Their vote was a *free vote* as political representatives BACKED BY THE VOTE OF THE KASHMIRI PEOPLE. It is democratic, just like how the US Congress is democratic.
@Shiv1971Amazing How u r stuck with ur stupid cherrypicked answers.Their vote was a *free vote* as political representatives BACKED BY THE VOTE OF THE KASHMIRI PEOPLE. It is democratic, just like how the US Congress is democratic>>>>>>.Democatic india what a bull!
Crock of bull was from you! Omar Abdullah - the man in the video and scion of the famous Abdullah family - LOST in 2002, then won in 2008. Proof of democracy when you see a change of govt. Way before, there was election rigging, but not in 1952, 2002, 2008.....
And Pakistani Kashmir has none of this democratic setup as given in an EU report...
@cric45master ***Kashmir was not like other principalities(Get ur facts straight)***
>>
I got my facts right. Kashmir was different but not that different. Mountbatten had told the rulers (including the Kashmiri one) that they had to accede to India or Pakistan, and they were given the choice.
This became the basis of the partition agreements between Indian and Pakistani leaders.
Maharaja Hari Singh voluntarily acceded to India and therefore act under the rights afforded by Britain to him.
Since u brought mountbatten to discusssion;Then u should remember that mountbatten in his own words said"Accession is illegal, if the people will is not considered".
how amateur of u to bring partition theory into discussion; then as per the choice, kashmir should have been a part of pakistan.
@Shiv1971 Read the letter send by sheikh abdullah to patel;Which mentioned'Preparing the army of kashmir for security purposes, once the indian army is out of kashmir,Indian army was meant to throw out pakistani forces out of kashmir, not to occupy kashmir for ever!
@cric45master ***Read the letter send by sheikh abdullah to patel;***
>>
Sheikh Abdullah made many claims and you need to READ THEM ALL and not cherry pick whatever suits you. His own camp ratified the accession. Also, he dropped demand for a plebiscite in 1975, and in 1948 (Feb 5) he told the UN Security Council: 'Whether Kashmir has lawfully acceded to India is not the point at issue'... he knew the accession was legal, and all it needed was ratification, done some years later.
@Shiv1971 he told the UN Security Council: 'Whether Kashmir has lawfully acceded to India is not the point at issue'... he knew the accession was legal>>>>>>>>So u r assuming he knew accession was legal?Another interpretation of the same statement is that he meant past is past n what is the point whether accession is legal r not.The point is ,kashmir is sufering n itz peoples wishes needs to b considered therefore lets concentrate on present situation .
@cric45master ***So u r assuming he knew accession was legal?Another interpretation of the same statement is that he meant past is past n what is the point whether accession is legal r not.***
>>
Oh - so this very articulate man could not tell the UN Security Council that the accession was illegal? That too, just after the accession....?? Stupid. If it was illegal he would have every reason to invalidate it...
Why did the 75 Kashmiri lawmakers (all in his camp) RATIFY the accession later?
@cric45master A 100% Kashmiri body of lawmakers chosen in free/fair elections (monitored by the UN) held in 1952 RATIFIED the accession. That is a democratic reference to the people. They were lawmakers *chosen by the Kashmiri public*, and were Kashmiri Muslims themselves.
In 2002, 43% of Kashmiris voted. In 2008, 61% voted. The European Union and the US monitored the former, and the US Ambassador called it free and fair elections.
There are issues, but democracy exists in some form.
@cric45master these are just arguments for ascension to pakistan. the day pakistan takes in pakistani passport carrying citizens stuck dwelling in refugee camps in bangladesh for the last 30 years, native urdu speaking muslims btw, then come back and talk about kashmir. The fact is it is india's only muslim-majority state. if kashmir goes, they will demand to throw out all muslims to pakistan and we already know you pakis dont want us.
@xgotfiveonitx Pakistan on the face of this earth has taken the most of immigrant ...1 core ppl come to pakistan on independence ...my dad is from india ... recent example of 5 lack afghans after the war started ...
@jehanzaib001 true, but why cant they take in their own passport carrying citizens, muslim, urdu-speaking, bihari's, stuck dweling refugee camps for the last 30 years. there are plenty of videos on youtube regarding that.
Read your history book better. I am Kashmiri also. Now - the UN resolution was NON-BINDING, and had 4 parts. The first was Pakistan's part - to remove their troops and tribes. That has *not happened*.
Second, the 1946 Simla agreements gave the RULERS of kingdoms the right to choose. Maharaja Hari Singh did - and never disputed it till his death in 1961.
Final - Kashmiri lawmakers chosen in democratic elections (monitored by the UN) RATIFIED the accession by vote.
@Shiv1971 I have read the history book better then u.Well, while u read;i understand!First of all under international law;Resolutions are non binding indeed.But u should know that kashmiris fighting for independence(Their right to self determination) is part of customary international law.2ndly Any decision made by any monarch/king(maharaja) is undemocratic.Kings come n go;But land belongs to its people.A monarch is not elected by people;Therefore his decision is undemocratic.3rdly contd
@Shiv1971 Resolutions by their very legal nature are not binding.U not so Genius!!!!.Self determination is not a catch phrase,Important resolutions like GA Res 2649 (XXV),para 2; Art 1 ICCPR), Res 1514(part ist ) n cases like "quebec" case establishes it.
Customary international law;Which one????This showsu have no knowledge of international law.
@cric45master ******Resolutions by their very legal nature are not binding.******
Easy to prove you wrong! Security Council Resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII. So why babble about "self determination" (a right but not the way you imagine it) or whether resolutions are binding?
And using Quebec as an example is stupid....that was under Canadian law.
@Shiv1971 3rdly u should know that either no or Majority of the kashmiris dont take part in the elections.And among those whoever handfull, who take part in the elections do so for development n prosperity.This does not legitimize Indian govt.
And ahh please dont camouflage urself as a kashmiri.Respect n peace!
@cric45master 3rdly u should know that either no or Majority of the kashmiris dont take part in the elections...This does not legitimize Indian govt.
>>
Thank you for your legal "expertise". In fact, 43% voted in 2002 despite threats from militants (supported by Pakistan), and 61% voted in 2008.
BUT - the percentage of people voting does not define a democracy. IF the Indian govt. gave them them a CHOICE TO VOTE (or stand elections), that does make for a democracy.
@Shiv1971 IF the Indian govt. gave them them a CHOICE TO VOTE (or stand elections), that does make for a democracy.>>
Does not legitimize the establishment, Only the people's participationn acceptance of it legitimizes it. kashmiri people dont participate in elections!!!!!!! Few, who participate vote for Development n prosperity!!!!!
Voter turnout %age shown is fake.Voting is rigged
@Shiv1971 IF the Indian govt. gave them them a CHOICE TO VOTE (or stand elections), that does make for a democracy.>>
This does not legitimize the establishment,but the people's participation .And kashmiri people dont participate in elections.Few, who participate vote for Development n prosperity!!!!!
Voter turnout %age shown if fake.Voting is rigged
The UN resolution gave a choice between India and Pakistan only...no "independence" genius.
It also had 4 PARTS. The FIRST PART called for Pakistan to remove their troops and tribes. This was a "pre-condition" to the next and so on. Plebiscite was in PART 4. How do you *not* blame Pakistan? - which failed to implement the very first part... Resolutions don't happen in piecemeal, you have to take it all...
@Shiv1971 i was talking about 1948 resolution.Not so genius!!!Read the catch phrase 'future status' of Kashmir in the resolution; u will independent kashmir as an option.
@cric45master ***i was talking about 1948 resolution.****
So was I. The plebiscite was for either India or Pakistan.
*******************
Customary international law;Which one????This showsu have no knowledge of international law.
>>
Mention the law. There is nothing like "self determination" in wild context - you just cherry pick law and apply it where it does not apply. There are rights like self determination BUT they exist within limits.
i object to your list. dravidians are people who speak a dravidian language, it has nothing to do with skin coor. vajpayee, musharrif, khaleda zia, singh, khan, awish, rani, kapoor, are NOT dravidians. rani is punjabi, kapoor is an aryan pathan, and the rest in this list are north indians.
Indians not like to live with monkeys...want to free Kashmir along with all muslims of india....so no more partition of india after 50 or 100 year.....
linsit402 1 year ago
Kashmir Violence Update
From Jan. 1989 to September 30, 2010
Total Killings * 93,471
Custodial Killings 6,975
Civilians Arrested 118,424
Structures Arsoned/Destroyed 105,877
Women Widowed 22,742
Children Orphaned 107,382
Women gang-raped / Molested 9,962
KASHMIRIS share no culture, no language, no history & NO GEOGRAPHY with INDIA. KASHMIRIS are a diferent ETHNICITY to filthy INDIANS. We want our FREEDOM. KASHMIR is OCCUPIED by an OPRESSIVE INDIA.
ALANSARALHAQ 1 year ago 2
@ALANSARALHAQ apni behen ko bhej suar ke aulad..
kashmir ka naam bhi liya to teri maa behen ek kar denge.
krishna21krp1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAlpha235 , But bro, The weakness in today's Hindus is that there is no unity. Go to some temple in U.K, you will find a tamilian, telugu, marati, bengali & north Indian , all praying to themselves selfishly without any communication among each other. NOW, IS THIS WHAT THE VEDAS & GREAT ANCIENT MAHARISHI'S OF INDIA HAVE TAUGHT US?
WHAT KIND OF RELIGION IS IT WHEN THERE IS NO COMMUNICATION AMONG THE DEVOTEES? TODAY WE FIND THAT THE DEVOTEES R GOING TO TEMPLE ONLY FOR FOOD & NOT 4 WORSHIP.
prasanthdon02464 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The shoes of SIR ABDUL AHAD JAN are more pious than dirty face of Amar Singh(Omar). It would have been great disrespect for the shoe if it had touched the dirty face of Amar singh
drtahir76 1 year ago
We need to talk about the future....an amicable solution. Forget the blame game, forget the past. Lets move on. Lets give him a chance.
sonyabattla 1 year ago
One of the good Indian leaders. He is certainly proud to belong to our State, but is also loyal person. Thus his love for Matarbhumi Bharat. He his a fit personality for a leader, He will surely not be liked by anti-India elements. Peaceful people of our state generally love him. A similar pure Aryan personality like the mighty warrior and intellectual Dr. Karan Singh.
LaliSJamwal 1 year ago
@ shiv 1971;Ur arguments on document on accession n that plebiscite was not offered to kashmiri people, i have answered both arguments n sent it to ur inbox n on my wall.Check it!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shiv1971 whether in fact the document of accession was signed at all, is another question raising serious doubts over itz legitimacy; atleast not untill march 1948!!!And for the sake of argument if i agree it was signed, then under document of accession(white paper 1948)Indian rights is extremely restrictive upon kashmir.Moreover peoples wish was never considered,Therefore maharja signing it is , is irrelevant ,undemcratic n illegal.As far as ur question of ratification by 75 kashmiri
cric45master 1 year ago
@shiv 1971 lawmakers.We know bakshi Ghulam muhammad was a puppet put by indian govt. following Sheikh abdullahs arrest;Therefore ratification under him by 75 kashmiri law makers is rubbish!!!The question of ratification comes later, as the very foundation under which document of accession is signed is questionable!!
cric45master 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cric45master ***We know bakshi Ghulam muhammad was a puppet put by indian govt. following Sheikh abdullahs arrest;Therefore ratification under him by 75 kashmiri law makers is rubbish***
>>
On the contrary, it was the state govt. that filed the charges against Sheikh Abdullah, not the center (despite all the rumors). Moreover, the Kashmiri lawmakers could have voted against the ratification and demanded UN intervention by a resolution, and also Sheikh Abdullah's release. Cont...
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***We know bakshi Ghulam muhammad was a puppet put by indian govt. following Sheikh abdullahs arrest;Therefore ratification under him by 75 kashmiri law makers is rubbish***
>>
How so? The assembly could have voted against the resolution and also passed a resolution demanding Abdullah's release - thereby slapping Karan Singh on his face (who claimed Abdullah lacked majority and used that to sack Abdullah)..... You don't connect the arrest with any voting decision.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***The question of ratification comes later, as the very foundation under which document of accession is signed is questionable!! ***
>>
No, it is not. It was Mountbatten who gave the rulers the right to choose in verbal promises, and he made that part of the partition constitution. Ironically, Nehru wanted a referendum (plebiscite) for ALL kingdoms, but the Pakistanis sided with Mountbatten.
So the accession was legalized on the ruler's choice. Blame the Brits & Pakis here...
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 ok im curious, could that be because jinnah wanted hyderabad to join pakistan? because i know he offered the nizam of hyderabad to join pakistan.
xgotfiveonitx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cric45master whether in fact the document of accession was signed at all, is another question raising serious doubts over itz legitimacy; atleast not untill march 1948!!!And for the sake of argument if i agree it was signed, then under document of accession(white paper 1948)Indian rights is extremely restrictive upon kashmir.Moreover peoples wish was never considered,Therefore maharja signing it is , is irrelevant ,undemcratic n illegal.As far as ur question of ratification by 75 kashmiri
cric45master 1 year ago
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH U, we will fight for independence till death n after our death , our children will fight.Generation after generation we will fight, till we get our independence.India should give kashmiri people independence.Kaashmiris dont hate anyone.We fight for our land, Our past, our present n our future;Which is independent kashmir!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH U, we will fight for independence till death n after our death , our children will fight.Generation after generation we will fight, till we get our independence.India should give kashmiri people independence.Kaashmiris dont ahte anyone.We fight for our land, Our past, our present n our future;Which is independent kashmir!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
@ shiv 1971;I had been very lenient im my approach with u .My purpose was us to come to common terms between us n u breaking nationality borders.And solve kashmir issue for the sake of kashmiri people.But u seem too stubborn;Itz propably this attitude of indian people n indian govt.U see kashmiri people on streets;Picking stones n even guns.Because u leave no option to them .Whose might is right attitude!!! .ENOUGH IS ENOUGH U, we will fight for independence till death;After us our contd...
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***I had been very lenient im my approach with u ....ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ***
>>
You have been pathetic. You cannot even articulate properly. You keep arguing what Nehru's speech could have meant. The fact is, semantics dictate it could mean MORE THAN ONE THING. You keep bringing UN resolutions WHEN PAKISTAN FAILED TO IMPLEMENT TWO PRECONDITIONS FOR A PLEBISCITE (as in the resolution itself). Don't blame India for that - blame Pakistan!!! That is dictated by justice and reason.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@ Shiv 1971:Kashmir is not a part of india!!!! Neither historically, legally or morally. Kashmir is kashmiris (hindu, muslim, sikh , buddhist ,christian r atheist).And only kashmiris have the right to decide their future. Itz time we as human beings should come forward breaking the shakles of nationalities n stop injustice thats happening to kashmiri people from 63 yrs .Whether u r indian r pakistani r kashmiri come forward n give kashmiris what is thiers........Independent kashmir forever!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Kashmir is not a part of india!!!! Neither historically, legally or morally. Kashmir is kashmiris ***
>>
Sigh! We went over this over and over.....accession, ratification - and even historically it was a part of Mughal India, etc. So toss your delusions into the trash.
The accession + ratification means that "legally" J&K is a part of India. This has been studied by lawyers who are not rabid freaks like you.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 So toss your delusions into the trash.
U r delusional n Godwillingly ur delusions will soon b ended.Saying kashmir was part of mughal india;Is as though saying india is british or india is arab country or spain is arab r half of world is british country.Remember during the period of 15 august 1947 to 26/27 oct. 1947. kashmir was independent country legally.
So ur claim to kashmir is only Document of accession.Contd........part 1 in part 2.
cric45master 1 year ago
“@ shiv1971:That Government of India and Pakistan should make a joint request to U.N.O. to undertake a plebiscite in Kashmir at the earliest possible date.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (In telegram No. Primin-304 dated 8 November 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).
cric45master 1 year ago
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH U, we will fight for independence till death n after our death , our children will fight.Generation after generation we will fight, till we get our independence.India should give kashmiri people independence now.Kaashmiris luv everyone;But it does not seem anyone cares about us.We fight for our land, Our past, our present n our future;Which is independent kashmir!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir; it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir
cric45master 1 year ago
@shiv1971I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir; it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued(pt. nehru press statement
cric45master 1 year ago
“I started with the presumption that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their own future. We will not compel them. In that sense, the people of Kashmir are sovereign.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Statement in Indian Parliament, 7 August 1952)
cric45master 1 year ago
Comment removed
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Most kashmiris dont know the facts - they hear "azaadi" and get excited .>>
iraq war are the examples to show, how much people get swayed by nationalism;Try to b a human first n u will feel kashmiri sufferings n their right to b independent.And believe me if every youth in kashmir will know the history n the the dishonesty india has shown to kashmiri people.U will not even b able to hold people by gun( nea a million army in kashmir).
cric45master 1 year ago
oye Omar n farooq abdullah:This is for u?us ne panun maaji hoond guw?(kashmir);Chu shun kaansi hoond.Shame on u omar n farooq taht u being kashmiris cant seee the sufferings of kashmiri people n their sentiment for independence.U two r the only kashmiris who think kashmir is not viable for independence.Perhaps u r not of that calibre to have a visioned independent kashmir!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
India has always acted like a rascal!If india is honest, then let the people b given the choice to decide itz future via referendum.And settle this issue once n for all.Indian leaders along with farooq n omar abdulah r a bunch of crooks.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***India has always acted like a rascal!If india is honest, then let the people b given the choice to decide itz future via referendum.***
>>
You are a rascal. Why should India do it for you? India has legal rights to J&K via the accession itself (under the British India Act of 1947).
Then it gave free + fair elections in 1952 to the Kashmiri public.
Then it gave a "free vote" to ELECTED lawmakers - all Muslim Kashmiri lawmakers (75 of them) chose to ratify the accession.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
Contd... U should thank the political parties like(n.c) the puppets of india ,that u r even able to present an argument.Otherwise with More then half a million army in kashmir, where u hold people by gun, An illegitimate occupation, More then 100,000 innocent killings, 10,000 disappeareances, 40,000 widows n equall no of orphans, genocide, mass murder n extra judicial killings .U even put nazis to shame!!!!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***More then 100,000 innocent killings, 10,000 disappeareances, 40,000 widows n equall no of orphans, genocide, mass murder n extra judicial killings .U even put nazis to shame!!!!!!***
Prove it!
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***More then 100,000 innocent killings, 10,000 disappeareances***
PROVE IT.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Disprove it!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Disprove it!!! ***
I don't have to. The burden of proof is carried by the accuser....by common law from courts, and by debate rules.
How can you make statements without FACTS and EVIDENCE? Believe all you want in propaganda disinformation, but you have zook evidence and zero credibility...
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Disprove it!!! ***
>>
I don't have to. The burden of proof is carried by the accuser by law and by debate rules.
Means, if you make a claim, you carry the burden to substantiate it. You could, after all, be engaged in propaganda and lies.
You have ZERO evidence. Your claim is not validated, so should be treated as tripe.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Disprove it!!! ***
>>
I don't have to. The burden of proof is carried by the accuser by law and by debate rules.
Means, if you make a claim, you carry the burden to substantiate it. You could, after all, be engaged in propaganda and lies.
You have ZERO evidence. Your claim is not validated, so should be treated as tripe.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master @cric45master ***Disprove it!!! ***
>>
I don't have to. The burden of proof is carried by the accuser by law and by debate rules.
You have ZERO evidence. Your claim is not validated, so should be treated as tripe.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Disprove it!!! ***
>>
I don't have to. The burden of proof is carried by the accuser by law and by debate rules.
Means, if you make a claim, you carry the burden to substantiate it. You could, after all, be engaged in propaganda and lies.
You have ZERO evidence. Your claim is not validated, so should be treated as tripe.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master *** Disprove it!!! ***
>>
Why should I? The burden of proof is carried by the accuser by common law principle and argumentation principles. You have ZERO evidence of your claims and numbers about atrocities....mere propaganda hogwash.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
U idiot, ur democracy argument is on the functioning of the govt.;While my question is with respect to the legitimacy of indian occupation in kashmir.In 60 years of occupation;Wht u have got is 2002 elections;Ha,ha.....Moreover whoever voted, they voted for development n prosperity.And moreover ,if whatever few political parties stop being party to the elections;Ur democrfacy argument will go out of the window.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***;Wht u have got is 2002 elections;Ha,ha.....Moreover whoever voted, they voted for development n prosperity***
>> You sound like a mental spastic. The 2002 elections were declared "free and fair" by Robert Blackwill, US ambassador to Kashmir. It was monitored by the West.
The 2008 elections had over 60% turnout - a solid citizenry supporting democracy. Discredits you right off the bat ... "undemocratic" etc.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
Though one of the imp. case is quebec case(establishing C.i.L) n east timor case .In addition for a country to b bound by customary international law,It does not need to b a party to it !!!!!!!as u POINTED OUT THE QUEBEC CASE IS CANADIAN CASE(ITZ A JUST A REFERENCE ESTABLISHING IT)The principles that are part of the customary int law is Legal!! n is applicable to all the members of the U.N, irrespective of whether a particular state is party to it or recognizes it or not!
cric45master 1 year ago
The point here is not resolutions, but whether right to self determination is legal right r not( i have already given u reference to resolutions est. via 'state practice n oponio-juris' which r binding n have become part of C.I.L .In accordance with art. 38(b) of the statute of icj), it is a part of customary int. law established by "general practice" n "Oponio-juris" in cases like india v GB, bangladesh v pakistan, pakistan v india. contd
cric45master 1 year ago
check out the resolutions on israel-palestine(binding in nature( not implemented), no action taken(lacks implementation).The resolutions lack legal charcter.
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Though u read , but not properly!!!!Well i know under chapter 7 , the u.n resolutions are binding.Whether a country is bound by a resolution r not,it is decided by lobbying n international politics .Those of the resolutions which countrys implement; they become binding,N not the other way around in practice, the retorsion/Reprisal for not implementing a resolutions ,we hardly see!!!.
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Though u read , but not properly!!!!Well i know under chapter 7 , the u.n resolutions are binding.Whether a country is bound by a resolution r not,it is decided by lobbying n international politics .Those of the resolutions which countrys implement; they become binding,N not the other way around in practice, the retorsion/Reprisal for not implementing a resolutions ,we hardly see!!!.
cric45master 1 year ago
Kashmiris want plebiscite in accordance with u.n resolution,having options as india, pakistan and independent kashmir.
>>
The UN resolution does not give a choice for "indepndence" but joining with India or Pakistan. You don't even have your facts right. It had 4 PARTS - the first required Pakistan to remove their troops and tribes. This was a "pre-condition" to the other parts.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
Kashmir was part of British India as a principality. Lord Mountbatten had promised Indian kings that they would get to choose whether to join with Free India or Pakistan. That was implemented in the 1946 Simla Agreements in British India, with Pakistani leaders agreeing with the Indians. Maharaja Hari Singh chose India, and never disputed the accession till his death in 1961. There! Now post this part here.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971Kashmir was never a part of india.It was an united kingdom(A princely state)., Mountabatten, in his speech to Chamber Of Princes made on 25 June 1947, said: "...... The Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom - technically and legally they become independent."2ndly maharaja had the intention to remain independent, had the circumstances not arisen like that.
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971Kashmir: Any decision made by any monarch/king(maharaja) is undemocratic.Kings come n go;But land belongs to its people.A monarch is not elected by people;Therefore his decision is undemocratic
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ********The Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown.
*************************
So why didn't you first READ THE ACT??? According to the Indian Independence Act in 1947, all Indian states were free to accede the new Dominion of India or Pakistan. This is part of the partition agreements, and also the line of communication made by Mountbatten to the rulers earlier.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Kashmir was never a part of india*******
It WAS historically a part of old India for quite a while - part of the Mughal empire, etc. It was also under limited British rule despite a maharaja. And he chose India per the accession made to Mountbatten. And Kashmiri lawmakers ratified that accession AFTER being voted into power in free and fair elections in which the Kashmiri public voted. Kapeesh?
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 India was never a part of india.The onus is on u to prove otherwise.Ur answer says it all!!!!Ur ony answer is Acession document!!!! On analysing in accordance with(Art. 38 statute of icj)contract;Is questionable as it lacks the intention n consideration;Maharaja accession to india is undemocratic(He is a monarch; not elected!!!!!! n his clear intention to b independent had the circumstances not been like that! cancells the treaty of ascession.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***India was never a part of india.The onus is on u to prove otherwise.****
>> ALL your blabbering and inarticulate bull apart, you need to consider the history of Kashmir - it was part of the Mughal empire...historically Indian.
The Maharaja was given the legal right (along with HUNDREDS of other rulers) by Lord Mountbatten and partition agreements to accede to India or Pakistan.
DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Kashmiri lawmakers RATIFIED the accession via a democratic vote.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master
***India was never a part of india.***
What a genius! India = India, you idiot. How can a country not be a part of itself?
***Maharaja accession to india is undemocratic***
The British gave the RULERS the right to choose, along with partition agreements. They accepted the terms and chose.
Kashmiri lawmakers CHOSEN DEMOCRATICALLY in 1952 RATIFIED the accession. That was a democratic vote via political representation.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 This proves u r blind; u dont see beyond seeing.Kashmir was never a part of india.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***This proves u r blind; u dont see beyond seeing.Kashmir was never a part of india. ***
Proves jack squat.
Kashmir was ruled by Mughal India and also by Maharaj Ranjit Singh.
The accession was legal by the terms set by the British, and accepted by the Kashmiri Maharaja.
The Kashmiri people's representatives (democratically elected in free and fair elections) ratified the accession, which is a democratic decision via people's representatives to accept India.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Kashmir was ruled by Mughal India and also by Maharaj Ranjit Singh.>>>>>>>>>Kashmir is not a part of india.Happy...(By way of ur argument then spain is arab country, india is british country,Half of the world is british n before tht india is arab country.India before partition n after partition is totally different.
.Acession was illegal.Already answered.
Kashmiris dont vote. they whoever few vote for development n prosperity. This argument is also answered.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Acession was illegal.Already answered.***
As phony as anything ever. The accession was accepted by Mountbatten as legal, and ratified by a vote by Kashmiri lawmakers, chosen in free/fair elections. So it was both legal and democratic (via representative vote).
Also, I was showing that Kashmir was part of India historically, THEN it was acceded by the Maharaja to India (like the other hundreds of principalities), THEN the accession was ratified democratically by lawmakers.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 So it was both legal and democratic (via representative vote).I have already answered u n i cant answer U again n again, while u can , as u propably sit idle all the time.
Kashmir was not like other principalities(Get ur facts straight)It was not like other pricipilities!!!Its status is different.Read nehrus statement in U.n.And ahh it was not a part of india(Read history one more time).Ratified by who????
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master You don't even know who ratified it. A 100 percent Kashmiri Muslim body of lawmakers ratified the accession - so that is a democratic reference to the people (as they were voted by the Kashmiri public).
Nehru promised a "reference to the people" and "choice" ....not the same thing as a plebiscite. It was misconstrued as a plebiscite because of the UN resolution, but semantics dictates that a representative vote is also a democratic choice.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Maharaja Hari Singh voluntarily acceded to India;Look at the circumstances he signed the document of accession.His intention to b independent.Moreover maharja accession is illegal as maharaja is not elected.India has always decieved people of kashmir.Nehru promise to people of kashmir in U.n , Indhira-Sheikh agreement for autonomy.
U say Nehru promised a "reference to the people" and "choice" ..not the same thing as a plebiscite: The question is has that choice been given to the peple
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 You don't even know who ratified it. A 100 percent Kashmiri Muslim body of lawmakers ratified the accession
Name the ones who ratified it.Moreover who r they to decide kashmirs future. They r not elected!!!Therefore their decision is undemocratic.THeir being muslims or hindus does not matter!!!Nehru did not promise plebiscit>> .How sick of u to misinterpret nehrus statement . Either way itz independent kashmir, r as per u pakistan as it was muslim majority
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Name the ones who ratified it.Moreover who r they to decide kashmirs future. They r not elected!!!***
>>
Sigh! It's no point talking to you. Over and over I said they were elected in free and fair elections held in 1952. They were 75 Muslim Kashmiri lawmakers in Sheikh Abdullah's camp.
So - that was a reference to the people via representational vote by elected lawmakers. They were Kashmiri lawmakers ELECTED by Kashmiris in 1952. (The UN even monitored the elections).
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Voting for status of kashmir n voting for state govt. is totally different.Voting is unimportant, what for people vote is important. People voting for development n peace does not mean they vote/accept india.U cannot wishaway kashmirs sentiment n right to b independent with 1952,2002 n 2008 elections.And if u talk about sheikh abdullah ratification of accession document, then u need to consider why n what for he did it.Autonomy was the compromise remember!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***How sick of u to misinterpret nehrus statement . ***
>>
No, you're the sick one. I have been totally honest. The govt. of India felt that a "reference to the people" could be interpreted in different ways, and elected lawmakers' ratification was one such way. Kapeesh?
Moreover, Nehru himself did not have authority to decide things, you need to study law. There were constitutional and other factors. BUT - he did allow a vote of ratification to sustain his posturing.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Elected ratification was one such way.Then talk abt abdullah- new delhi agreements on autonomas govt.Promise for "choice"This shows ur lack of understanding on the subject.Had the peoples wish been considered, then the situation would not b like this in kashmir.No kashmiri wants t b with india r pakistan.Every kashmiri wants independence.There would not have been movements like non-violent movements n violents ( militancy ) in the past., had the peoples wish been considered.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Then talk abt abdullah- new delhi agreements on autonomas govt.Promise for "choice"This shows ur lack of understanding on the subject.***
>>
No - you are confusing "autonomy" with independence, plebiscite, etc.There is a need to give J&K more autonomy - and J&K has its own constitution as well. This is not a plebiscite, India does have some rights over J&K as well. Omar Abdullah is pushing for more autonomy, I support that as well...
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 No - you are confusing "autonomy" with independence,>>>>
I m not! i m saying india has been dishonest to the people of kashmir, they have not fulfilled any promise they made to the people of kashmir.An autonomas govt. , a devolved govt like ireland, scotland, wales is the solution before itz too late.That way india will keep their respect, if they have any! r luv for the people of kashmir.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***I m not! i m saying india has been dishonest to the people of kashmir, they have not fulfilled any promise they made to the people of kashmir.***
>>
Say what you want, there was dishonesty far more from others - Britain, Pakistan. Mr. Nehru agreed to ratification, not a plebiscite. Sure - state governments are dishonest, that is the nature of politics, but the accession to India was not dishonest. The reduction in autonomy was however not fair.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Mr. Nehru agreed to ratification, not a plebiscite.
Is this a statement of urs ,or this is ur interpretation of Mr nehrus statement.If itz an interpretation , then there r different interpretations of the same statements by nehru?And the majority interpretative view is, itz plebiscite!!!!! But if it a statement by u, then u r dishonest as well,as u interpret statements to suit ur planned biased answers.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master **Is this a statement of urs ,or this is ur interpretation of Mr nehrus statement....if it a statement by u, then u r dishonest ***
>>
Listen genius, you need to see two things:
1) The ENGLISH language used was "de-coded"...the words can be used widely. The Govt. of India did the same, and they also had discussions with Sheikh Abdullah. He wanted ratification per a 1939 rule.
2) Nehru could also not make unilateral promises, kapeesh? There are laws on how much power he had.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 both ways ur statement proves india has been dishonest, bcoz using a decoded language n decieving the people of kashmir is then an international sin n their crimes consequently, because of it in kshmir.U mean he intentionally created the chaos.Then india politicians must be prosecuted for inciting hatred n therefore crimes thereof......Dont try to b a smarta******e.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***both ways ur statement proves india has been dishonest, bcoz using a decoded language n decieving the people of kashmir***
>>
You are the dishonest one. ANY politician worth his salt will be careful about making promises and leave options because he faces LIMITS. We cannot presume for Mr. Nehru, but the Govt. of India followed a fairly legalistic interpretation. A "choice" is not a plebiscite.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***U mean he intentionally created the chaos.Then india politicians must be prosecuted for inciting hatred
>>
Don't try to be a dumbass. I don't mean he intentionally tried to create chaos. He was too cultured for that. He simply made statements knowing his CHOICES were limited. He can't just offer plebiscite etc - he would need approval from the parliament. So he used the word "choice" - which could impute ratification. He did not incite hatred.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971Choice is no where mentioned, in part 3 of 1948 resolution" Status of j&k will b decided in accordance with the "will"of kashmiri people " is mentioned. So u now a liar as well.To interpret " what will of kashmiri people means" Itz simple;But since u will not budge, Go n read the resolution 19 ,1951 of u.n.Where it Give reference to 1948 resolution, where itz as under:--contd...
cric45master 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cric45master ***Choice is no where mentioned, in part 3 of 1948 resolution" Status of j&k will b decided in accordance with the "will"of kashmiri people " is mentioned. So u now a liar as well.***
>>
Are you a mad person? I used the word "choice" with Nehru's speech. So you are the liar by falsely accusing me.....
The UN Resolution in its FIRST PART required Pakistan to remove troops/tribes. DON'T mention Part three when Part one is still to be implemented. You can't cherry pick bits....
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Most kashmiris dont know the facts - they hear "azaadi" and get excited .>>The onus is on the indian people to know all sides more then the kashmiris.Their reactions n sentiments are reactions to what they have gone through over 63 years of indian brutality.Itz enough for them to hear Azaadi n get excited.The onus is on u!!! to know what makes them ought to have that sentiment.Itz this blind nationalism they makes people butchers n unjust!! wars like world war 2, nazism, contd
cric45master 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cric45master ***The onus is on the indian people to know all sides more then the kashmiris.Their reactions n sentiments are reactions to what they have gone through over 63 years of indian brutality***
>>
This is total hogwash. You claimed things on behalf of the Kashmiris, but most do not in fact have full knowledge of all issues.
Also, "brutality" was caused due to militancy and lawlessness, and a number of steps were taken to quell brutality as well.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 ANY politician worth his salt will be careful about making promises ?
The fact of the matter is his intentions changed after making promise to people of kashmir.And hence Sheikh abdullahs arrest later!!!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cric45master ***The fact of the matter is his intentions changed after making promise to people of kashmir***\
>>
No - he was supposed to RATIFY the accession owing to a 1939 rule which Sheikh Abdullah insisted on. It was done with unanimous consent of Kashmiri politicians. He may or may not have had a plebiscite in mind. Moreover, assuming he did.....it may have been in context with the UN Resolution which required Pakistan to remove troops and tribes - which was NOT done.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47(1948) of 21 April 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948 and 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January,1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite***
>>
Genius - the resolutions ALL required Pakistan to vacate J&K. Which they have not. Plebiscite was only after a number of steps taken by Pakistan, then India, then both countries. Kapeesh? Don't apply cherry picked facts out here - resolutions come in whole form.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Listen u idiot;I gave u the interpretation of the part 3 of 1948 resolution"That kashmirs status will be decided in accordance with the will of its people" meant?By referring to resolution 91 1951 U.N.Where itz clearly mentioned "in accordance with will means plebiscite".Had it not been the case then a reference to plebiscite would not b given with respect to resolution 1948 in resolution 91 1951. kapeesh!And ahh no need to answer , with ur biased stupid logic n understanding.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Listen u idiot;I gave u the interpretation of the part 3 of 1948 resolution***
>>
Idiotic is you - babbling away! You can give all the "interpretation" in your rambling BUT there were PRE-CONDITIONS to a plebiscite. Even the 1951 resolution had reference to past resolutions.
......Pakistan had to remove their troops and tribes FIRST. End of story. India has no obligation to hold any plebiscite without that done first. Study law before you speak...
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Contd "1" the law principle is, to prove anything!U reference it with third neutral source.And that neutral source is u.n resolutions ,where i have proved it "will of people" meant "plebiscite".And in the light of purposive interpretation principle;U go to the sources to know what it meant , to figure out itz purpose.And in the light of statements by nehru in U.n n in varoius forums, the circumstances in which document of accession was signed,Kashmir history n moreover contd "1"
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***u.n resolutions ,where i have proved it "will of people" meant "plebiscite"***
>>
You proved jack squat. The plebiscite was to be held AFTER Pakistan complied with the requirement for troop removal, and vacating its invading tribes. So you defeat yourself....the plebiscite was dependent on TWO prior steps....and Pakistan did NOT implement the first step here. Nehru would never make the resolution binding without its entirely complied with...he was trained as a lawyer, no fool.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Contd part 1...
The most feasible method of ascertaining the wishes of the people was by fair and impartial plebiscite.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Joint press communique of the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan issued in Delhi after their meeting on 20 August 1953).
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 “If, after a proper plebiscite, the people of Kashmir said, ‘We do not want to be with India’, we are committed to accept that. We will accept it though it might pain us. We will not send any army against them. We will accept that, however hurt we might feel about it, we will change the Constitution, if necessary.”
cric45master 1 year ago
Comment removed
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv 1971Contd part 1,Moreover, The 1948 resolution , mentioned "regualr forces to b removed n not all forces" ,So from that view ,india is responsible, for not implementing, Though i dont want to play blame games.Itz irrelevant who was responsible for not implementing.Propably both india n pakistan are to b blamed.But the point is time n again india has been unjust to people of kashmir.Itz time to fullfill itz promises n give independence to kashmir!!!Contd
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Moreover, The 1948 resolution , mentioned "regualr forces to b removed n not all forces" ,So from that view ,india is responsible,***
>>
Bull. I am QUOTING the exact text of a 1948 resolution for India (partial text):
"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.... "
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master
ANOTHER part of the resolution, not complied with.....exact text:
"The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavors: 1. 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"
Not done by them.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***But the point is time n again india has been unjust to people of kashmir.***
>>
Not with respect to the accession, no. Not with respect to the Maharaja's accession, the subsequent elections of 1952 (monitored by the UN), the unanimous ratification by 75 Muslim Kashmiri lawmakers.
Injustices came when there was militancy, and that was mostly brought in by the Pakistanis and few rebellious forces. And these injustices have or are being rectified.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971On the basis of chain of events that led to alleged document of accession;It is evident that document of accession was no way signed before 27 oct 1947, by recent research (N if u want a copy of the facts of research, i will provide u one).Therefore india violated kashmir soveriegnity by occupying kashmir n is an occupier. We all know the legitimacy of document of accession is questioned?duress/undue influence are such factors.And 3rdly ...
cric45master 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shiv1971 @shiv1971 whether in fact the document of accession was signed at all, is another question raising serious doubts over itz legitimacy; atleast not untill And for the sake of argument if i agree it was signed, then under document of accession(white paper 1948)Indian rights is extremely restrictive upon kashmir.Moreover peoples wish was never considered,Therefore maharja signing it is , is irrelevant ,undemcratic n illegal.As far as ur question of ratification by 75 kashmiri
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Injustices came when there was militancy, and that was mostly brought in by the Pakistanis and few rebellious forces.
The biggest injustice is indian occupation of kashmir!There is no terrorism as u call it in kashmir. People who r fighting are kashmiri freedom fighters,.Though u know everyone wants to cash in,Therefore there r elements within n outside including indian intelligence who play a part in it as well.But the bottom line is kashmir is kashmiris.Itz not a part of india!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***The biggest injustice is indian occupation of kashmir!***
>>
Make up emotional hogwash.
J&K was acceded legally to India.
So no "occupation" per the partition constitution - involving agreements made by the British, Pakistani and Indian leaders.
Finally, 75 Kashmiri Muslim lawmakers ratified the accession in a legal and democratic set up. They were voted in by the free will and vote of the Kashmiri public. They voted to sustain the accession.
So clearly, you are discredited.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***But the bottom line is kashmir is kashmiris.Itz not a part of india!!! ***
>>
And who are you to decide that? 75 Kashmiri lawmakers VOTED for the ratification of the accession. They had the popular back of the Kashmiri public. They were voted in FREE & FAIR elections monitored by the UN in 1952. *They* said Kashmir is acceded to India by democratic powers vested in them by the Kashmiri people. So - you are "caught" again & again...
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Itz time to fullfill itz promises n give independence to kashmir!!! this is sober approach.Hard approach is, kashmir was never a part of india.India has claims over kashmir only on the basis of document of accession.As i have mentioned in numerous posts itz undemocratic n is illegal.Bakshi ghulam muhammad ratification the document of accession feb 1954.He was a puppet put in place after abdullahs arrest by india.India has no claims on kashmir n for that matter anyone whatsoever on kmr.
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 the resolutions ALL required Pakistan to vacate J&K. Which they have not."Plebiscite" was only after a number of steps taken by Pakistan, then India, then both countries. Kapeesh?
See how u said first it was choice not plebiscite;And now u say itz is plebiscite provided conditions.On all fronts u have been a liar.And ahh my question was not as to why resolutions were not implemented.But resolution Included plebiscite.Itz leaders n people like u who disgrace india by lying repeatdly
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***See how u said first it was choice not plebiscite;And now u say itz is plebiscite provided conditions.On all fronts u have been a liar... resolution Included plebiscite.Itz leaders n people like u who disgrace india by lying repeatdly***
>>
Listen jerk, READ a bit slowly! I used the word CHOICE for *Nehru's* claims.....
The Resolution from the UN is DIFFERENT.
Either you are a a bull crap propaganda extraordinaire OR you are mental dunce. A pity either way.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 I used the word CHOICE for *Nehru's* claims.....
The Resolution from the UN is DIFFERENT. Either you are a a bull crap propaganda extraordinaire OR you are mental dunce. A pity either way.
U r the one who has acted like a jerk.Go back to the arguments we started the debate with n u will understand my pt.What i m saying is nehrus staement can b interpreted in different ways.And ur justification for ur interpretation is fine, but Contd... "1"
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***And ur justification for ur interpretation is fine,***
>>
AHA! We see finally that this guy got it. Nehru left is ambiguous. ANY interpretation may have been used.
Most important, Nehru couldNOT make promises for a plebiscite without the parliament. So he left it open-ended is the likely guess. He was trained as a LAWYER, and knew his limits - so whatever he may have wanted, he actually worded it in a way where multiple options can be used.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Nehru couldNOT make promises for a plebiscite without the parliament.
The matter of the fact is,On december 31, 1947, Allthough Highly unconstitutional, The offer of plebiscite was made to j&k by Mr. nehru.And i cant believe how big a liar u r?U lie repeatdly.The nehrus statements are crystal clear.Here are qoutes from some of the statements made by nehru in press, in u.n n in parliament.It needs no interpretation.Part 1 contd....
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 How many statements u want me to pull out of the archives to show, that Mr nehru offered plebiscite to people of j& k even before the first 1948 U.N resolution was issued on kashmir issue.Such one example is his statemnt in u.n before resolution was issued!There are propably hundreds of statements were Mr. nehru confirmed plebiscite as way of ascertaining wishes of people after 1948 resolution.And his commitment to it despite 1948 resolution not implemented.Contd.....part 1
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***How many statements u want me to pull out of the archives to show, that Mr nehru offered plebiscite to people of j& k even before the first 1948 U.N resolution was issued on kashmir issue.***
>>
Nehru wanted a referendum for ALL kingdoms - but Mountbatten had made promises to the rulers that they would choose. Jinnah sided with the British. So Nehru went along with their insistence. Kapeesh?
Now - PULL out statements of his about "plebiscite" - let's see. Cite sources.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***What i m saying is nehrus staement can b interpreted in different ways***
>>
I AGREE here. Any interpretation may be used. It could be a referendum (plebiscite), or it could be representational vote (ratification).
How did you have the gall to call India "dishonest" in this regard? How did you have the gall to declare the accession illegal - when the British India Independence Act of 1947 allows it? At least be FAIR in your comments much as you despise it...
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Report to the All-India Congress Committee, 6 July 1951; The Statesman, New Delhi, 9 July 1951).
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 We have always right from the beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people deciding their fate by referendum or plebiscite………..”Nehru (1948 press statement)
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971Contd. "1" factual reality.Nehrus statement must meant plebiscite!Either you are a a bull crap propaganda extraordinaire OR you are mental dunce. A pity either way>>>>> Thats certainly true for u, since u misinterpret my statements n are babbling nonsense continously showing ur frustation.
cric45master 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cric45master ***factual reality.Nehrus statement must meant plebiscite!***
>>
You mean - "your reality". The FACTS of what he meant can never be known. For instance, he may have kept multiple options since he knew of a 1939 Kashmiri rule for ratification, and that's what Sheikh Abdullah impressed on him. That was also a democratic choice.
In any case, his statements PROVED NOTHING in favor of a plebiscite. His terms were ambiguous. Period.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Nehrus statement must meant plebiscite!***
>>
Round and round the mulberry bush you go. I wrote AT LEAST 3 posts showing that MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS were possible since Nehru used his words cleverly (trained in law, he perhaps knew that offering a plebiscite may be untenable due to parliament laws and a ratification - demanded by Sheikh Abdullah - would perhaps be easier).
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Nehru couldNOT make promises for a plebiscite without the parliament.
Kashmir should decide question of accession by plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of the United Nations.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Letter No. 368-Primin dated 21 November 1947 to Prime Minister of Pakistan).“
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Thats certainly true for u, since u misinterpret my statements n are babbling nonsense continously showing ur frustation. ***
>>
Ah....using my own attacks on your tedious nonsense back on me! You are so inarticulate - perhaps if you posted CLEARLY and did not straddle from resolutions to Nehru's choice of words (which openly does NOT suggest any linkage to the UN resolutions) - then maybe we wouldn't have to experience frustration with you propaganda-like prattle.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 “We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide.” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 12 February 1951).
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***And the majority interpretative view is, itz plebiscite!!!!! ***
>>
Not necessarily. Do you have a vote on it? Most people don't even know the facts - they just hear "azaadi" and get excited and don't reason all sides.
The real question is: who cares? Mr. Nehru's English was very good (he went to Harrows and Cambridge) and he left the part OPEN to interpretation. Perhaps it was deliberately, but his words DO ALLOW a ratification vote to qualify as "choice".
Shiv1971 1 year ago
majority interpretative view is, itz plebiscite!!!!! ***Not necessarily. Do you have a vote on it.
@Shiv1971 Do u have vote on it to prove otherwise.U tend to read too much between the lines!!!! Mr. Nehru's English was very good (he went to Harrows and Cambridge) and he left the part OPEN to interpretation.>>>>Oh what a reasoning.Another interpretation is He was ultimately kashmiri n Internally felt kashmirs sentiments for independence.Therefore his statements again n again plebiscite for j&k
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***An autonomas govt. , a devolved govt like ireland, scotland, wales is the solution before itz too late***
>>
More autonomy along those lines is indeed desired. The Indian govt. would also be willing to offer it, but the security environment and inefficiency have kept it from doing so. But there is seriously a need to reconsider Kashmiri autonomy within the Indian union. That would be in keeping with earlier agreements, or at least close.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 R u acting on behalf of the indian govt, n saying that inefficiency n security problems r the reasons why india has not acted till now.Dear ,reasons for acting that way goes much deper.In todays world enemies r created to have wars.Propably u dot understand the economics of arms/corporate nature of it.For india, kashmir is a play field;where they play their dirty politics .And these very security problems are because of the more then half a million army presence there!
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 The reduction in autonomy was however not fair.>>>>
I appreciate ur honesty here.....
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***I appreciate ur honesty here..... ***
>>
Look, there are real problems and there is a need for a good leader who is intelligent and understands the problems and sides with the people to solve this.
You can talk "azaadi" - guess what? It won't solve half of the problems - poverty, factions, Pakistani forces, and so on....
What is needed is (1) More autonomy close to what was originally decided in the 1940s, (b) human rights orgs in J&K active, and (c) govt. job schemes
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 You can talk "azaadi" - guess what? It won't solve half of the problems - poverty, factions, Pakistani forces, and so on
People do not ask for independence to solve problems.Problems arie everywhere.Itz the feeling, The air of freedom that passes through ur hair,The sunlight that kisses ur forehead, The walk of freedom.Itz abt the sacrifices u have made for it, the sufferings u have gone throough , n the future vision for ur country n ur children.No occupation n no foriegn rule.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Itz the feeling, The air of freedom that passes through ur hair,The sunlight that kisses ur forehead, The walk of freedom.***
>>
Feelings change after you face the same problems over and over. Violence, terror, poverty etc will sour everything. Also, freedom can be felt if you have broad and liberal rights and good governance and economy - what any good democracy ought to give its people. So make your state government accountable to give you that if you want freedom.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971Also, freedom can be felt if you have broad and liberal rights and good governance and economy - . So make your state government accountable to give you that if you want freedom>>>>>>
These things take u closer to feeling free.But itz not the same!!! Oh, what an answer.Ur answer deserves a gold medal.Probably u should have asked the same from British instead of independence.Why double stndards.....Moreover u would not understand.U follow blind nationalism!!!!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shiv1971 Most kashmiris dont know the facts - they hear "azaadi" and get excited .>>
iraq war are the examples to show, how much people get swayed by nationalism;Try to b a human first n u will feel kashmiri sufferings n their right to b independent
cric45master 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shiv1971 Most kashmiris dont know the facts - they hear "azaadi" and get excited .>>
iraq war are the examples to show, how much people get swayed by nationalism;Try to b a human first n u will feel kashmiri sufferings n their right to b independent
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master They r not elected!!!Therefore their decision is undemocratic.***
>>
Wrong on each count. They were ELECTED in circa 1952. The elections were with UN monitors and were free and fair. They were ELECTED by the Kashmiri public.
Their vote was a *free vote* as political representatives BACKED BY THE VOTE OF THE KASHMIRI PEOPLE. It is democratic, just like how the US Congress is democratic.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971Amazing How u r stuck with ur stupid cherrypicked answers.Their vote was a *free vote* as political representatives BACKED BY THE VOTE OF THE KASHMIRI PEOPLE. It is democratic, just like how the US Congress is democratic>>>>>>.Democatic india what a bull!
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Democatic india what a bull! ***
>>
Crock of bull was from you! Omar Abdullah - the man in the video and scion of the famous Abdullah family - LOST in 2002, then won in 2008. Proof of democracy when you see a change of govt. Way before, there was election rigging, but not in 1952, 2002, 2008.....
And Pakistani Kashmir has none of this democratic setup as given in an EU report...
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Kashmir was not like other principalities(Get ur facts straight)***
>>
I got my facts right. Kashmir was different but not that different. Mountbatten had told the rulers (including the Kashmiri one) that they had to accede to India or Pakistan, and they were given the choice.
This became the basis of the partition agreements between Indian and Pakistani leaders.
Maharaja Hari Singh voluntarily acceded to India and therefore act under the rights afforded by Britain to him.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971
Since u brought mountbatten to discusssion;Then u should remember that mountbatten in his own words said"Accession is illegal, if the people will is not considered".
how amateur of u to bring partition theory into discussion; then as per the choice, kashmir should have been a part of pakistan.
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Read the letter send by sheikh abdullah to patel;Which mentioned'Preparing the army of kashmir for security purposes, once the indian army is out of kashmir,Indian army was meant to throw out pakistani forces out of kashmir, not to occupy kashmir for ever!
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***Read the letter send by sheikh abdullah to patel;***
>>
Sheikh Abdullah made many claims and you need to READ THEM ALL and not cherry pick whatever suits you. His own camp ratified the accession. Also, he dropped demand for a plebiscite in 1975, and in 1948 (Feb 5) he told the UN Security Council: 'Whether Kashmir has lawfully acceded to India is not the point at issue'... he knew the accession was legal, and all it needed was ratification, done some years later.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 he told the UN Security Council: 'Whether Kashmir has lawfully acceded to India is not the point at issue'... he knew the accession was legal>>>>>>>>So u r assuming he knew accession was legal?Another interpretation of the same statement is that he meant past is past n what is the point whether accession is legal r not.The point is ,kashmir is sufering n itz peoples wishes needs to b considered therefore lets concentrate on present situation .
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***So u r assuming he knew accession was legal?Another interpretation of the same statement is that he meant past is past n what is the point whether accession is legal r not.***
>>
Oh - so this very articulate man could not tell the UN Security Council that the accession was illegal? That too, just after the accession....?? Stupid. If it was illegal he would have every reason to invalidate it...
Why did the 75 Kashmiri lawmakers (all in his camp) RATIFY the accession later?
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 this shows u r blind;U dont see beyond seeing.kashmir i meant!!!
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 **India was never a part of india.*** b Already answered u.Read all my comments u will find my answer.
cric45master 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Without the involvement of kashmiris;this is utter rubbish n undemocratic!!
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master A 100% Kashmiri body of lawmakers chosen in free/fair elections (monitored by the UN) held in 1952 RATIFIED the accession. That is a democratic reference to the people. They were lawmakers *chosen by the Kashmiri public*, and were Kashmiri Muslims themselves.
In 2002, 43% of Kashmiris voted. In 2008, 61% voted. The European Union and the US monitored the former, and the US Ambassador called it free and fair elections.
There are issues, but democracy exists in some form.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
Comment removed
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master these are just arguments for ascension to pakistan. the day pakistan takes in pakistani passport carrying citizens stuck dwelling in refugee camps in bangladesh for the last 30 years, native urdu speaking muslims btw, then come back and talk about kashmir. The fact is it is india's only muslim-majority state. if kashmir goes, they will demand to throw out all muslims to pakistan and we already know you pakis dont want us.
xgotfiveonitx 1 year ago
@xgotfiveonitx Pakistan on the face of this earth has taken the most of immigrant ...1 core ppl come to pakistan on independence ...my dad is from india ... recent example of 5 lack afghans after the war started ...
jehanzaib001 1 year ago
@jehanzaib001 true, but why cant they take in their own passport carrying citizens, muslim, urdu-speaking, bihari's, stuck dweling refugee camps for the last 30 years. there are plenty of videos on youtube regarding that.
xgotfiveonitx 1 year ago
@cric45master
Read your history book better. I am Kashmiri also. Now - the UN resolution was NON-BINDING, and had 4 parts. The first was Pakistan's part - to remove their troops and tribes. That has *not happened*.
Second, the 1946 Simla agreements gave the RULERS of kingdoms the right to choose. Maharaja Hari Singh did - and never disputed it till his death in 1961.
Final - Kashmiri lawmakers chosen in democratic elections (monitored by the UN) RATIFIED the accession by vote.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 I have read the history book better then u.Well, while u read;i understand!First of all under international law;Resolutions are non binding indeed.But u should know that kashmiris fighting for independence(Their right to self determination) is part of customary international law.2ndly Any decision made by any monarch/king(maharaja) is undemocratic.Kings come n go;But land belongs to its people.A monarch is not elected by people;Therefore his decision is undemocratic.3rdly contd
cric45master 1 year ago 2
@cric45master Well, while u read;i understand!First of all under international law;Resolutions are non binding indeed.
>>
Well, obviously you don't understand, even if you read. Some UN Security Council resolutions ARE BINDING, some are not.
*********
*********
But u should know that kashmiris fighting for independence(Their right to self determination) is part of customary international law.
>>
Which one? Don't use catchwords like "self determination" without understanding the legal basis.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 Resolutions by their very legal nature are not binding.U not so Genius!!!!.Self determination is not a catch phrase,Important resolutions like GA Res 2649 (XXV),para 2; Art 1 ICCPR), Res 1514(part ist ) n cases like "quebec" case establishes it.
Customary international law;Which one????This showsu have no knowledge of international law.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ******Resolutions by their very legal nature are not binding.******
Easy to prove you wrong! Security Council Resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII. So why babble about "self determination" (a right but not the way you imagine it) or whether resolutions are binding?
And using Quebec as an example is stupid....that was under Canadian law.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 3rdly u should know that either no or Majority of the kashmiris dont take part in the elections.And among those whoever handfull, who take part in the elections do so for development n prosperity.This does not legitimize Indian govt.
And ahh please dont camouflage urself as a kashmiri.Respect n peace!
cric45master 1 year ago 3
@cric45master 3rdly u should know that either no or Majority of the kashmiris dont take part in the elections...This does not legitimize Indian govt.
>>
Thank you for your legal "expertise". In fact, 43% voted in 2002 despite threats from militants (supported by Pakistan), and 61% voted in 2008.
BUT - the percentage of people voting does not define a democracy. IF the Indian govt. gave them them a CHOICE TO VOTE (or stand elections), that does make for a democracy.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
Comment removed
cric45master 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shiv1971 IF the Indian govt. gave them them a CHOICE TO VOTE (or stand elections), that does make for a democracy.>>
Does not legitimize the establishment, Only the people's participationn acceptance of it legitimizes it. kashmiri people dont participate in elections!!!!!!! Few, who participate vote for Development n prosperity!!!!!
Voter turnout %age shown is fake.Voting is rigged
cric45master 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shiv1971 IF the Indian govt. gave them them a CHOICE TO VOTE (or stand elections), that does make for a democracy.>>
This does not legitimize the establishment,but the people's participation .And kashmiri people dont participate in elections.Few, who participate vote for Development n prosperity!!!!!
Voter turnout %age shown if fake.Voting is rigged
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master
The UN resolution gave a choice between India and Pakistan only...no "independence" genius.
It also had 4 PARTS. The FIRST PART called for Pakistan to remove their troops and tribes. This was a "pre-condition" to the next and so on. Plebiscite was in PART 4. How do you *not* blame Pakistan? - which failed to implement the very first part... Resolutions don't happen in piecemeal, you have to take it all...
Shiv1971 1 year ago
@Shiv1971 i was talking about 1948 resolution.Not so genius!!!Read the catch phrase 'future status' of Kashmir in the resolution; u will independent kashmir as an option.
cric45master 1 year ago
@cric45master ***i was talking about 1948 resolution.****
So was I. The plebiscite was for either India or Pakistan.
*******************
Customary international law;Which one????This showsu have no knowledge of international law.
>>
Mention the law. There is nothing like "self determination" in wild context - you just cherry pick law and apply it where it does not apply. There are rights like self determination BUT they exist within limits.
Shiv1971 1 year ago
GeneticAnthropology 2 years ago
i object to your list. dravidians are people who speak a dravidian language, it has nothing to do with skin coor. vajpayee, musharrif, khaleda zia, singh, khan, awish, rani, kapoor, are NOT dravidians. rani is punjabi, kapoor is an aryan pathan, and the rest in this list are north indians.
xgotfiveonitx 2 years ago