Obama visit: Kashmiri Americans up the ante

Home

Search By

Back to Article List

by Sandhya Jain

on 09 Nov 2010

Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Kashmir would have inevitably featured in the subterranean subtext of discussions between US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi on Monday. Hence our gratitude that American voters have rendered his a lame duck Presidency just prior to his arrival. New Delhi has little reason to pander to Washington’s strategic thinking regarding our sensitive northern state and adjacent neighbourhood, and should disdain American Muslims of Kashmiri origin who may be part of the US entourage.

For New Delhi, it is pertinent is that barely six weeks before his India trip, Mr Obama appointed notorious Kashmiri separatist Farooq Kathwari to the President’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. The fabulously rich owner of a famous interior design firm, Kathwari is a member of the powerful Council on Foreign Relations and an eloquent advocate of an independent Islamic nation of Kashmir.

To this end, in 1996, he founded the Kashmir Study Group whose members (as per its website) include Gary L. Ackerman and James A. Leach of the US House of Representatives; Dr. Walter Andersen, Johns Hopkins University (author of a famous work on the RSS titled, The Brotherhood of Saffron); Dr. Ainslie T. Embree, Columbia University; Dr. Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr., University of Texas, Austin (both India experts); and 20 other academics and retired diplomats. There is no Indian or Pakistani membership.

During Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s tenure, in 2003, Kathwari lobbied extensively for the Livingston proposal prepared by his Kashmir Study Group, titled, Kashmir – A Way Forward. As that agenda remains alive on the American table, it may be instructive to examine its salient features. The blueprint begins with the falsehood that prior to annexation by the Mughals, Kashmir for 3,000 years of recorded history was an independent entity with distinct cultural and geographic features; in other words, it had no political or civilisational link with India.

Kathwari proposed a subterfuge called a “reconstituted Kashmir entity” straddling the Line of Control, with its own government, flag and constitution, but without international personality (whatever that means), and with special relationships with India and Pakistan. Its boundaries would be determined through internationally-supervised ‘ascertainment of peoples’ wishes’ (in other words, a UN plebiscite), and it would afford free access to both India and Pakistan.

Under this plan, the present Line of Control would continue until India and Pakistan decide to alter it in their mutual interest (or one party manages to do so by force), as the New Entity would be demilitarized (they still hope India will fall into this trap!).

The Limited Sovereignty of this proposed Entity would be guaranteed by India, Pakistan, and international bodies (unstated whether UN or America or NATO), and the New Entity would be secular and democratic, with power to legislate all matters except defense and foreign affairs (defence would be the responsibility of India and Pakistan; foreign policy is left vague. What is not explained is why the Islamic Republic of Pakistan would agree to a secular Entity, and why Kashmiri stone-pelters fighting for Nizam-e-Mustafa would agree to a secular and democratic regimen, which is precisely what they are resisting in Kashmir?)

According to the Kashmir Study Group, India and Pakistan would work out the financial arrangements for the Kashmiri Entity, which could include a separate currency. As a sweetener, the proposal gives all displaced persons, including Kashmiri Pandits, who left any portion of the Kashmir Entity the right to return to their homesteads (but who, other than the Hindus, was displaced? Why were they displaced, and who will guarantee their security?).

More recently, on Nov. 1, 2010, Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai, executive director of the Washington-based Kashmiri American Council, crawled out of the woodwork to exult that “Kashmir is giving proof that it is not going to compromise, far less abandon, its demand for Azaadi (freedom) which is its birthright and for which it has paid a price in blood and suffering…”

Fai’s ingenuous solution is to go back to the point of agreement when India and Pakistan separately took the issue to the UN Security Council. This point, he claims, is the agreement that the “future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided by the will of the people of the State as impartially ascertained in conditions free from coercion.” As a prerequisite, this involves demilitarization of the State (i.e. withdrawal of forces of both India and Pakistan) and a plebiscite supervised by the United Nations.

In reality, the UN specified that Pakistan as the aggressor state must vacate all territory of Jammu and Kashmir as it existed on Aug. 15, 1947, and India would re-occupy its seized territory. But what’s a white lie to a die-hard separatist committed to serving the colonial interests of western masters? Dr Fai suggests – wishful thinking – that India and Pakistan together prepare a plan for demilitarization of the State with joint safeguards for security. He seems unaware of the heightened alert in New Delhi following the movement of Chinese troops into Gilgit-Baltistan and adjacent to the strategic Siachin glacier.

Meanwhile, doubtless as a prelude to the Obama visit, our home-grown seditionists continue to mouth treason and provoke the authorities, which are desperate to turn a blind eye to their antics. Close on the heels of the Arundhati Roy-Syed Ali Shah Geelani treachery in Delhi on Sept. 29, West Bengal’s Jadavpur University permitted Delhi University lecturer Syed Abdul Rehman Geelani (of Parliament attack fame) to address a seminar titled ‘Azadi’, organised by a Maoist student group called the United Students Democratic Front.

Speaker Siddhartha Guha Roy spun a yarn on the ‘independent’ history of Kashmir and stressed that the state be separated from India. This provoked a member of the audience, Arun Shaw, to raise questions about the role of Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee in integrating Kashmir with the rest of India. All hell broke loose and the organizers brought out pre-stocked sticks and rods to chastise the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad and Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha activists.

For India, poetic justice came when the All Party National Alliance (APNA) in Muzaffarabad, Occupied Kashmir, decided to observe October 22 as ‘Black Day’ from 2011 onwards, to protest the 1947 Pakistani invasion which partitioned the erstwhile princely state. It seems the people of the region have had enough of the Islamic paradise.

The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com

User Comments Post a Comment

Kashmir, officially referred to as Jammu and Kashmir, is an 86,000-square-mile region in northwest India and northeast Pakistan so breathtaking in physical beauty that Mugal or Moghul emperors in the 16th and 17th century considered it an earthly paradise. The region has been violently disputed by India and Pakistan since their 1947 partition, which created Pakistan as the Muslim counterpart to Hindu-majority India.
History of Kashmir
After centuries of Hindu and Buddhist rule, Muslim Moghul emperors took control of Kashmir in the 15th century, converted to population to Islam and incorporated it into the Moghul empire. Islamic Moghul rule should not be confused with modern forms of authoritarian Islamic regimes. The Moghul empire, characterized by the likes of Akbar the Great (1542-1605) embodied Enlightenment ideals of tolerance and pluralism a century before the rise of the European Enlightenment. (Moghuls left their mark on the subsequent Sufi-inspired form of Islam that dominated the subcontinent in India and Pakistan Britain invaded in the 19th century and sold the entire Kashmir Valley for half a million rupees (or three rupees per Kashmiri) to the brutal repressive ruler of Jammu, the Hindu Gulab Singh. It was under Singh that the Kashmir Valley became part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The 1947 India-Pakistan Partition and Kashmir
India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1947. Kashmir was split as well, with two-thirds going to India and a third going to Pakistan, even though India's share was predominantly Muslim, like Pakistan. Muslims rebelled. India repressed them. War broke out. It wasn't settled until a 1949 cease-fire brokered by the United Nations and a resolution calling for a referendum, or plebiscite, allowing Kashmiris to decide their future for themselves. India has never implemented the resolution.
Instead, India has maintained what amounts to an occupying army in Kashmir, cultivating more resentment from the locals than fertile agricultural products. Modern India's founders, Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi, both had Kashmiri roots, which partially explains India's attachment to the region. To India, "Kashmir for the Kashmiris" means nothing. Indian leaders' standard line is that Kashmir is "an integral part" of India.
In 1965, India and Pakistan fought their second of three major wars since 1947 over Kashmir. The cease-fire three weeks later was not substantial beyond a demand that both sides put down their arms and a pledge to send international observers to Kashmir. Pakistan renewed its call for a referendum by Kashmir's mostly Muslim population of 5 million to decide the region's future, in accordance with a 1949 UN resolution. India continued to resist conducting such a plebiscite.
Kashmir Today
According to a Congressional Research Service report, "Relations between Pakistan and India remain deadlocked on the issue of Kashmiri sovereignty, and a separatist rebellion has been underway in the region since 1989.
Tensions over Kashmir rose dangerously in fall 2001, forcing then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to de-escalate tensions in person. When a bomb exploded in the Indian Jammu and Kashmir state assembly and an armed band assaulted the Indian Parliament in New Delhi later that year, India mobilized 700,000 troops, threatened war, and provoked Pakistan into mobilizing its forces. American intervention compelled then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who had been particularly instrumental in further militarizing Kashmir, provoking the Kargil war there in 1999.
Like the Arab-Israeli conflict, the conflict over cashmir remains unresolved. And like the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is the source, and perhaps the key, to peace in regions far greater than the territory in dispute.

Khan Sahib
November 06, 2013

Report Abuse

1. The ambiguity in the accession of J&K to India was created by Nehru when he did not allow Sardar Patel to deal with this only State. In fact both had a verbal spat over Hyderabad, Sardar Patel abruptly leaving the meeting and never attending any meeting later, but taking Police action against Nizam, splitting Hyderabad among the three neighbouring States.

2. When Nehru denied Gen.Cariappa's request to delay by a week for going to U.N. as a complainant, by which time he expected all invaders to be cleared out of the J&K, Nehru had his way, called cease fire and went to UN to solve the issue.

3.Though US supported India in the accession issue, British called back their representative and deliberately delayed UN Resolution, which was later diluted making this an issue which continues till date.

4.TIMESNOW released a secret letter written by President Obama to Nawaz Shariff which indicated possible trade off of J&K to Pakistan, by influencing such a decision through the gullible Manmohan SIngh.

5. The very purpose of appointing the interlocuters with traitor Padgaonkar with a predetermined agenda to give importance to the separatists but to remain silent on over 3 lakh Hindu Pandits ethnic cleansed and living as refugees in their own Country exposed the betrayal of UPA to people of India to incise J&K off the Indian Map.

6. The only hope now is a change of Govt. at Delhi and abolition of all clauses treating J&K as a special State and assimilating it with India with a firm hand.

GPK Pillai
November 06, 2013

Report Abuse

Indira Gandhi, notwithstanding her irn political will lacked geo-political sense. She made two horrendous mistakes - after breaking up Pakistan in 1971 she failed to annex east pakistan to India where it belonged. Second J&K was never a bilateral issue. India never accorded Pakistan the status of a oarty is dispute. Indira Gandhi signed the disastrous Shimla Pact with Bhutto which made J&K for the first time a bilateral issue. Indira Gandhi legitimised Pakistan's claim to J&K. India must forcefully end all secessionist forces in the state, end J&K's special status, delegitimise the J&K state constitution. No use abrogating Article 370 without trashing the state constitution.

Radha Rajan
November 06, 2013

Report Abuse

GPK Pillai and Radha Rajan are absolutely right. The separatist Jammu & Kashmir Constitution has to go and divisive, anti-people and anti-democratic Article 370 has to be removed from the Indian statute book to bring the state par with other states of the union.

Hari Om
November 06, 2013

Report Abuse

It is about time now that Indians stop dreaming of akhund Bharat ,Indira Gandhi (and even the Indians today) did not have the guts to swallow East Pakistan, the two nation theory is still live and kicking, the struggle is still going on in East Bengal (call it Bangladesh or East Pakistan but read Muslim Bengal) for "independence" from Bharat's domination. The traitor's party ("father of nation" mujeeb's) is trying its best to please the puppeteer aka Bharat and I foresee another martial law soon over there as the traitors are getting out of hands.
India should worry about Assam, Naxals, Khalistan and of course who can forget Kashmiris who are up till here with Indian atrocities.
If the "Mr" Modi gets elected it will only expedite the process of Indian going back to the original 560 states!

observer
November 06, 2013

Report Abuse

Prof.Hari Om has brought constitutional reality about J and K to the fore and nailed the lie of those who challenge the accssion of the state to India.I endorse the comment made by Ms Radha Rajan.

I would like to add the following to what Prof.Hari Om has said above:

Jammu & Kashmir's accession to India is complete and ConstitutionalThe partition of the Indian subcontinent should be seen in the perspective of the Anglo-Muslim alliance that was forged by the British to retain their strategic foothold in the Indian subcontinent to have an access to the Russian activities and the appreciable influence on the Central Asian region mainly in terms of oil reserves. As the oil reserves were in the domain of the Central Asian and Middle Eastern Islamic countries and regions, the British encouraged the separatist Muslim sentiment in India to impress the Muslim world and at the same time kept the nationalist movement for the Indian independence under check, which the British viewed as the ‘Hindu Nationalist’ upsurge.

Kashmir problem is the outcome of the ‘Great Game’ which the British played to keep the separatist Muslim element alive to keep its stakes high even though World War II had changed the dynamics of the strategic world order. This move was further meant to make the north-Indian borders weak and pregnable forever and the result is the present Kashmir crisis. It was a clear move to sow the seeds of the balkanisation of the Indian Union.

The process of maintaining the checks and applying brakes on the Indian nationalists had been devised by the British well before 1947 and Jinnah was a British prop to materialise the separatist Muslim claims for the partition of India.

These ploys and what was going on in the British mind has been revealed by Krishna Menon, who was close to the British circles, in the following words to Lord Mountbatten well before the partition on June 14, 1947, ”Is this frontier of (the northwest of India abutting Afghanistan & Iran) still the hinterland of the Imperial Strategy? Do British still think in terms of being able to use this territory and all that follows from it? There is considerable amount of talk in this way; and if Kashmir, for one reason or another, chooses to be in Pakistan, that is a further development in this direction. I do not know of British policy in this matter. I do not know whether you know it either. But if this be the intent, this is tragic … As it becomes more evident, the attitude of India would be resentful and Britain’s hold on Pakistan would not improve it.” (pp.15-16, The Untold Story of India’s Partition)

Menon was pointing towards the British strategy of using West Pakistan as a base to stop the Soviet expansion towards the Indian Ocean, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf and secondly he implied that British policy was so ‘subterranean“ that even the Viceroy was ignorant of it? These intrigues shaped the Kashmir problem and result is the present state of chaos and desperation.

Accession of the Jammu & Kashmir State to the Indian Union needs to be understood by keeping in mind the traits of the British and the separatist Muslim mindset of the Muslim League nurtured by the imperial policy makers to divide India to suit their strategic hold on the subcontinent.

There is a false premise on which Jammu & Kashmir’s accession to India is always understood by certain vested interests: “That the Radcliffe Boundary Commission award giving Gurdaspur District to the Indian East Punjab was announced on August 17, 1947, two days after the new Dominions of India and Pakistan had already come into being.” This is totally absurd.

The demarcation of the areas that would go to Pakistan had already been decided by the British well before 1947, the year of the partition. Its blueprint was prepared by the Viceroy Lord Archbald Wavell in 1946 to forge an alliance with Jinnah’s Muslim League, the foundation of this unholy alliance was laid in 1940-41 by his predecessor Linlithgow to project Jinnah as the sole spokesman of ‘Muslim India’.

The same blueprint was kept under cover till the opportune time came in 1947 for the British withdrawal. It was deliberately kept in abeyance so that the finger of suspicion for the vivisection of India is not raised against the British Empire.

Narender Singh Sarila, who was an ADC to the last Viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten, was a witness to the British decisions and policy. Has observed candidly in his book The Untold Story of India’s Partition that “secret archives cannot be depended upon to reveal the entire picture. Many decisions that are taken by government are never committed on paper or, if so committed, are not revealed even after the probationary period for keeping them under wraps has lapsed. For instance, Lord Mountbatten’s reports to London, sent after August 15, 1947, while he was the governor-general of India, have not been unsealed even after almost sixty years, thereby depriving us of information surrounding British policy on Kashmir“.(pp.168,The Untold Story of India’s Partition)

Lord Wavell was constantly in touch with the Secretary of State in London. His blueprint for the partition was being taken seriously in London. On January 29, 1946, the Secretay of State revealed the British policy by stating, in a telegram to Wavell, that ”It would help me to know when I may expect to receive your recommendation as regards definition of genuinely Muslim areas if we are compelled to give a decision to this (Partition)”. (pp.194-195,The Untold Story of India’s Partition)

Gurdaspur district was not incorporated into the Indian Union after the partition, Wavell’s partition plan forwarded to London on February 6-7, 1946 makes it clear as to what was in store for millions of people of the Indian subcontinent. His partition plan which was implemented by his successor Lord Mountbatten reads ”1) If compelled to indicate demarcation of genuinely Moslem areas I recommend that we should include (a) Sind, North-West Frontier Province, British Baluchistan and Rawalpindi, Multan and Lahore Divisions of Punjab, Less Amritsar and Gurdaspur districts … 2) In the Punjab the only Moslem–majority district that would not go into Pakistan under demarcation is Gurdaspur. Gurdaspur must go with Amritsar for geographical reasons and Amritsar being the sacred city of Sikhs must stay out of Pakistan…” (pp.195,The Untold Story of India’s Partition)

Therefore it becomes clear that the decision regarding the Gurdaspur district was taken well before partition and the argument regarding its inclusion in the Indian Union after the partition does not hold any ground as it is far from the historical fact made amply clear by Lord Wavell’s partition plan.

So the point raised by the fifth columnists and other left liberal intellectuals that “Maharaja Hari Singh could not accede to the newly created Indian Dominion and the Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru could not accept such a request on or before August 15, 1947 because under the provision of July 1947 Indian Independence Act passed by the British Parliament, Pathankot tehsil at that time, the only geographical link of Jammu & Kashmir, was located in Gurdaspur District of west Punjab which had been notified under the aforesaid Act as part of Pakistan“is falsification of the reality.

Another observation by these individuals that “The Maharaja Sahib had therefore no other option than to think of Standstill Agreement with both new dominions of India and Pakistan and making Jammu & Kashmir an Eastern Switzerland of Asia“ is another misinterpretation of constitutional realities and the facts. As India under the British was composed of British India and the Princely States which accepted the British rule, the rulers of these States were thus bound to accede to one of the dominions and there was no provision for their independent existence. The celebrated political scientist MK Teng, in the preface to his book titled Kashmir: the Myth of Autonomy has cleared this misconception regarding the accession of Jammu & Kashmir and other Princely States to the Indian Union. He writes, “The partition of India did not envisage the accession of the Princely States to the dominion of India and Pakistan on the basis British India was divided. The partition of India left the States out of its scope and the transfer of power accepted the lapse of the Paramountcy: the imperial authority the British exercised over the States. The accession of the States to India was the culmination of a historical process which symbolised the unity of the people in the British India and the Indian States”. (pp.VII, Kashmir-Myth of Autonomy)

It is a populist view in order to cover the truth regarding the accession that Maharaja Hari Singh was trapped and was hence indecisive to accede to India. To clear this misconception further Teng writes, ”In 1947, when Jammu & Kashmir acceded to India, the ruler of the State, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the same standard form of the Instrument of Accession, which the other major Indian States signed. The accession of the State to India was not subject to any exceptions or pre-condition to provide for any separate and special constitutional arrangements for the State. Neither Nehru nor Patel gave any assurances to Hari Singh or the National Conference leaders that Jammu & Kashmir would be accorded a separate and independent political organisation on the basis of the Muslim Majority character of its population.” (pp.VII, Kashmir-Myth of Autonomy)

Thus it is crystal clear that the accession of the Jammu and Kashmir State to the Indian Union is complete in the Constitutional manner.

http://www.niticentral.com/2013/02/23/jammu-kashmirs-accession-to-india-is-complete-and-constitutional-49388.html

MAHESH KAUL
November 07, 2013

Report Abuse

Sh.GPK Pillai has made apt observations,wish the Indian state wake up from the slumber and uphold the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Indian nation in Jammu and Kashmir.Nation is supreme over individuals

MAHESH KAUL
November 07, 2013

Report Abuse

Kashmir, the oldest dispute at the UN Agenda
The Kashmir dispute is the oldest unresolved international conflict in the world today. Pakistan considers Kashmir as its core political dispute with India. So does the international community, except India.
India's forcible occupation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 is the main cause of the dispute. India claims to have ‘signed' a controversial document, the Instrument of Accession, on 26 October 1947 with the Maharaja of Kashmir, in which the Maharaja obtained India's military help against popular insurgency. The people of Kashmir and Pakistan do not accept the Indian claim. There are doubts about the very existence of the Instrument of Accession. The United Nations also does not consider Indian claim as legally valid: it recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory. With the exception of India, the entire world community recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory. The fact is that all the principles on the basis of which the Indian subcontinent was partitioned by the British in 1947 justify Kashmir becoming a part of Pakistan: the State had majority Muslim population, and it not only enjoyed geographical proximity with Pakistan but also had essential economic linkages with the territories constituting Pakistan.
History of the dispute
The State of Jammu and Kashmir has historically remained independent, except in the anarchical conditions of the late 18th and first half of the 19th century, or when incorporated in the vast empires set up by the Mauryas (3 rd century BC), the Mughals (16th to 18th century) and the British (mid-19th to mid-20th century). All these empires included not only present-day India and Pakistan but some other countries of the region as well. Until 1846, Kashmir was part of the Sikh empire. In that year, the British defeated the Sikhs and sold Kashmir to Gulab Singh of Jammu for Rs. 7.5 million under the Treaty of Amritsar. Gulab Singh, the Mahraja, signed a separate treaty with the British which gave him the status of an independent princely ruler of Kashmir. Gulab Singh died in 1857 and was replaced by Rambir Singh (1857-1885). Two other Marajas, Partab Singh (1885-1925) and Hari Singh (1925-1949) ruled in succession.
Gulab Singh and his successors ruled Kashmir in a tyrannical and repressive way. The people of Kashmir, nearly 80 per cent of who were Muslims, rose against Maharaja Hari Singh's rule. He ruthlessly crushed a mass uprising in 1931. In 1932, Sheikh Abdullah formed Kashmir's first political party—the All Jammu & Kashmir Muslim Conference (renamed as National Conference in 1939). In 1934, the Maharaja gave way and allowed limited democracy in the form of a Legislative Assembly. However, unease with the Maharaja's rule continued. According to the instruments of partition of India, the rulers of princely states were given the choice to freely accede to either India or Pakistan, or to remain independent. They were, however, advised to accede to the contiguous dominion, taking into consideration the geographical and ethnic issues.
In Kashmir, however, the Maharaja hesitated. The principally Muslim population, having seen the early and covert arrival of Indian troops, rebelled and things got out of the Maharaja's hands. The people of Kashmir were demanding to join Pakistan. The Maharaja, fearing tribal warfare, eventually gave way to the Indian pressure and agreed to join India by, as India claims, ‘signing' the controversial Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947. Kashmir was provisionally accepted into the Indian Union pending a free and impartial plebiscite. This was spelled out in a letter from the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, to the Maharaja on 27 October 1947. In the letter, accepting the accession, Mountbatten made it clear that the State would only be incorporated into the Indian Union after a reference had been made to the people of Kashmir. Having accepted the principle of a plebiscite, India has since obstructed all attempts at holding a plebiscite.
In 1947, India and Pakistan went to war over Kashmir. During the war, it was India which first took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on 1 January 1948. The following year, on 1 January 1949, the UN helped enforce ceasefire between the two countries. The ceasefire line is called the Line of Control. It was an outcome of a mutual consent by India and Pakistan that the UN Security Council (UNSC) and UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed several resolutions in years following the 1947-48 war. The UNSC Resolution of 21 April 1948--one of the principal UN resolutions on Kashmir—stated that “both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”. Subsequent UNSC Resolutions reiterated the same stand. UNCIP Resolutions of 3 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 reinforced UNSC resolutions.
KASHMIR ISSUE IN A NUTSHELL
The current agitation in Indian-Held Kashmir is rooted in the struggle of the people for the exercise of the right of self-determination. Peaceful processions chanting demands for freedom were fired upon by Indian Army and police. Thousands of men, women and children have been killed or wounded.
1. New Delhi's allegation of assistance to the Kashmiri people from the Pakistan side is unfounded. Objective reports in foreign media testify that the Kashmiri agitation is indigenous.
2. Pakistan upholds the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. These resolutions of 1948 and 1949 provide for the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite for the determination of the future of the state by the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
3. The basic points about the UN resolution are that:
• The complaint relating to Kashmir was initiated by India in the Security Council;
• The Council explicitly and by implications, rejected India's claim that Kashmir is legally Indian territory;
• The resolutions established self-determination as the governing principal for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. This is the world body's commitment to the people of Kashmir;
• The resolutions endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan reached through the mediation of UNCIP, that a plebiscite would be held, under agreed and specified conditions.
1. The Security Council has rejected the Indian contention that the people of Kashmir have exercised their right of self-determination by participating in the "election" which India has from time to time organized in the Held Kashmir. The 0.2% turn out during the 1989 "elections" was the most recent clear repudiation of the Indian claim.
2. Pakistan continues to adhere to the UN resolutions. These are binding also on India.
3. The Simla Agreement of 2 July 1972, to which Pakistan also continues to adhere, did not alter the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory:
· Para 6 of the Agreement lists “a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir" as one of the outstanding questions awaiting a settlement.
· Para 4 (ii) talks of a "Line of Control" as distinguished from an international border. Furthermore, it explicitly protects "the recognized position of either side." The recognized position of Pakistan is the one, which is recognized by the United Nations and the World Community in general.
· Article 1(iv) obviously refers to the Kashmir issue when it talks of "the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedeviled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years"

Khan Sahib
November 07, 2013

Report Abuse

IT IS JUST MUSLIM STUPIDITY AND EXTREAMISM

Name one muslim country has defeated a non-muslim country in modern times: You can’t because they lost every war they’ve started:

(1)Israel vs the muslim arabs; Israel has crushed them each time
(2)Russia vs British/EU-sponsored chechen islamic terrorist state; the Russians crushed the European/British sponsored chechens islamists.
(3)The muslim Uigurs vs China; the Chinese crushed the Uigurs.
(4)The Animist and Christian south Sudanese vs the murderous muslim arab north sudanese; the Arab sudanese were defeated.
(5)The Somali Islamic forces (al-shabab) vs the Christian Ethiopians; the Ethopians crushed the muslim al-shabab.
(6)The African Union (animist and christian) vs the Al-Shabab; Al-shabab were defeated and driven out of magodishu (somali capital).
(7)The US military vs pakistan sponsored ismellic taliban; the taliban driven from power and forced to hide in the bushes.
(8)Hindu India vs MUSLIM Pakistan;India defeats and humiliates MUSLIM Pakistan each time, including India dismembering and cutting-in-half Pakistan in 1971.

som
November 10, 2013

Report Abuse

@som
Well said
Not one muslim country today has an effective military force of indigenous design. Neither does any Muslim country possess an effective economy without having a rare forward-thinking benevolent dictator and considerable help from foreigners.
Two rare examples of Islamic countries with decent economies; the UAE and Malaysia (that’s it).
The UAE has developed only because foreigners out number the local emiratis 2:1 and because the Emirs realized the shortcomings of their own talentless ignorant tribes.
Malaysia is developed only because e a benevolent dictator (Mahathir-Mohammed) protected the Chinese(buddhist) and Indian (hindu) business communities (Chinese and Hindu-Indian talent base). However, neither of these countries has any real industrial & technological base, their economies are heavily services and commodities oriented (banking/real-estate –> UAE, Palm-oil, banking –> Malaysia).

As for muslim countries with a descent military, only Turkey has anything approaching a modern military and that only because Ataturk DE-Islamisized the Turkish military. Even so, with Nato supplying Turkey with logistics and weaponry, Turkey is totally dependent on NATO and therefore has no staying power.

Pakistan’s military is joke, there is no greater proof for this than their reliance on terrorism as their only means to strike out at India. They don’t stand a chance against the Indian military on the battlefield (and they know it). They are out classed both in terms of quality of the Indian soldier and officers as well as the Indian military’s superior technology, organization and structure. And the Gap between India and those poor inbred fanatical bastards in Pakistan increases everyday (so much so that India is really focused on China and has Pakistan contained).

karan
November 10, 2013

Report Abuse

@som&karan
What are you people all worried about? Muslims are hopeless morons that have time and time again proven that they cannot run a modern state or economy let alone organize themselves in any descent manner to create a modern efficient mass killing military machine. Why? Because their religion is rooted in primitive Medieval concepts of loot, rape, murder and pillaging for war booty; i.e. carrying out raids and mindless large-scale massacres motivated by rape-lust and greed is their idea of military strategy.

JiangDong
November 10, 2013

Report Abuse

@Jiang Dong
You are right.
It is not just muslim stupidity and extremism generates Hindu assertiveness and militancy in India but biggest threat is CHRISTIAN TERRORIST WITH THE MASK OF MAO ON THEM already acquired one third of India.

hari
November 10, 2013

Report Abuse

Comments are free. However, comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. Readers may report abuse at editorvijayvaani@gmail.com