This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Zahoor
wrote on July 4th, 2009
Given below are historicl facts which please read in between the lines and inform your friends and countrymen about it. This will remove your misunderstanding if you really want to be an un biased, humane and a reasonable person. Kashmir issue was taken to United Nations by India and later India started Rape of its own Commitments.
Reporting Nehru’s statement on holding plebiscite in Kashmir, The Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, in its January 2, 1952 issue quoted him saying: As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.
The drama of so-called accession of Kashmir to India by Maharaja Hari Singh was staged by the Congress leaders in connivance with British Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, who was made the first Governor- General of India by Hindus to over see completion of partition plan to damage Pakistan. The mere fact that no document of accession is available with India or on UN record is proof of a combined plot that was hatched by Hindu leadership with their British well-wisher.
India is continuously harping on the blatant lie that Kashmir is an integral part of India. How has a disputed territory suddenly become part of India when the commitments made by her to allow people of Kashmir to express their choice have not been honoured. No plebiscite has been held. The Kashmiris have not opted to accede to India in any plebiscite. The UN had already ruled in 1951 and again in 1957 that any elected assembly in Indian occupied Kashmir shall have no right to decide the future of the state as to the question of accession to India or Pakistan.
The honourable Prime Minister and other prominent leaders of that ‘great nation’ had made solid solemn pledges and commitments that people of Kashmir shall be given the right to decide their future. These commitments made by India to the world, Pakistan and the Kashmiris are reproduced from the book, 1 ” The Undying Spirit”.
Part-I
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s Telegram to British and Pakistan Prime Ministers, October 27, 1947.
“I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of people, and we adhere to this view”.
Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India, replies to Maharaja’s (alleged) request for accession to India, October 27, 1947.
“In consistence with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
October 28,1947.
“In regard to accession also, it has been made clear that this is subject to reference to people of State and their decision”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s broadcast to nation from All India Radio, November 2, 1947.
“We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given (and the Maharajah has supported it) not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have referendum held under international auspices like the UN We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people, and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer”.
” We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their way. It is for them ultimately to decide”.
” And let me make it clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a State to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of the State. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added to proviso to the instrument of accession of Kashmir”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Pakistan Prime Minister,
November 4, 1947.
“I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which I made last evening. I have stated our Government’s policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to the people of Kashmir.
I further stated that we have agreed on impartial International agency like UN supervising any referendum”.
“This principle we are prepared to apply to any state where there is a dispute about accession. If these principles are accepted by your Government there should be no difficulty in giving effect to them”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
November 8, 1947.
“…. where the State has not acceded to that Dominion whose majority community is the same as State’s, the question whether State has finally acceded to one or other Dominion should be ascertained by reference to the will of people”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s letter to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
November 21, 1947.
“Kashmir should decide question of accession by plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Constituent Assembly, November 25, 1947.
“In order to establish our bonafides, we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation. The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s telegram to Pakistan Prime Minister,
December 12, 1947.
“We have given further thought, in the light of our discussion in Lahore, to the question of inviting UN to advise us in this matter. While we are prepared to invite UNO observers to come here and advise us as to proposed plebiscite, it is not clear in what other capacity the UN help can be sought…
“… I confess, however, that I find myself unable to suggest anything beyond what I have offered already, namely, to ask UNO to send impartial observers to advise us regarding the plebiscite.”
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Constituent Assembly of India, March 5, 1948.
“Even at the moment of accession, we went out of our way to make a unilateral declaration that we would abide by the will of the people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or referendum. We insisted further that the Government of Kashmir must immediately become a popular government. We have adhered to that position throughout and we are prepared to have a plebiscite, with every protection for fair voting, and to abide by the decision of the people of Kashmir”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Constituent Assembly of India,
March 5, 1948.
“… Ultimately there is no doubt in my mind that, in Kashmir as elsewhere, the people of Kashmir will decide finally, and all that we wish is that they should have freedom of decision without any external compulsion”.
White Paper on Kashmir issued by Government of India, 1948.
“The question of accession is to be decided finally in a free plebiscite, on this there is no dispute. There will be no victimisation of any native of the State, whatever his political view may be, and no Kashmiri will be deprived of the right to vote”.
Gopalaswami Ayyangar’s address in Constituent Assembly May 27, 1949.
“No doubt we have offered to have a plebiscite taken when the conditions are created for the holding of a proper, fair and impartial plebiscite. But if the plebiscite produces a verdict which is against the continuance of accession to India of the Kashmir State, then what we are committed to is simply that we shall not stand in the way of Kashmir separating itself from India”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement at press conference in London, January 16, 1951 (reported in The Statesman, New Delhi January 18, 1951)
“… We all agreed that it is the people of Kashmir who must decide for themselves about their future externally or internally. It is an obvious fact that, even without our agreement, no country is going to hold on to Kashmir against the will of the Kashmiris”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, February 12, 1951.
“We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations; we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s address at public meeting in Srinagar, June 4, 1951 (reported in The Hindu, Madras, June 5, 1951).
“First of all, I would like to remind you of the fateful days of 1947 when I came to Srinagar and gave the solemn assurance that the people of India would stand by Kashmir in her struggle. On that assurance, I shook Sheikh Abdullah’s hand before the vast multitude that had gathered there. I want to repeat that the Government of India will stand by that pledge, whatever happens. That pledge itself stated that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their fate without external interference. That assurance also remains and will continue”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s report to All- India Congress Committee (reported in The Statesman, New Delhi, July 9, 1951)
“Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for India or Pakistan. 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. It is here today that a struggle is being fought, not in the battlefield but in the minds of men”.
Krishna Menon’s Press statement in London
(The Statesman, New Delhi, August 2, 1951)
“It is not the intention of the Government of India to go back on any commitment it has made. We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir – a pledge made to the people of Kashmir because they believe in democratic Government… We do not regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement, as reported by Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, January 2, 1952.
“Kashmir is not the property of either India or Pakistan, it belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmir people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting Kashmir…”
We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution… As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.”
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, June 26, 1952.
“If, after a proper plebiscite, the people of Kashmir said, ‘we do not want to be with India’, we are committed to accept it though it might pain us. We will not send an army against them. We will accept that, however hurt we might feel about it, we will change the Constitution, if necessary.
“India is a great country and Kashmir is almost in the heart of Asia. There is an enormous difference not only geographically but in all kinds of facts there. Do you think (in dealing a with Kashmir) you are dealing with a part of UP or Bihar or Gujrat ?”
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s speech at public meeting in New Delhi, as reported in The Times of India, Bombay, July 7 1952.
“In any event, from the start India was committed to the principle of letting the final word regarding accession rest with the people of the princely states and there could be no getting away from that commitment. In fact, that was why India had accepted Kashmir’s accession only provisionally in 1947, pending the expression of the will of the people”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, August 7, 1952.
“… With all deference to this Parliament, I would like to say that the ultimate decision will be made in the minds and hearts of the men of Kashmir and not in this Parliament or at the UN…. First of all, let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of our people. The good will and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principle that this Parliament holds…. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means; we will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. We want no forced marriages, no forced unions…
“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 people of Kashmir; it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense, and in spite of all we have done we would willingly leave Kashmir if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving, we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them at the point of the bayonet.
“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.”
Joint Communiqué by Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India, August 20, 1953.
“The Kashmir dispute was specially discussed at some length. It was their firm opinion that this should be settled in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State with a view to promoting their well-being and causing the least disturbances to the life of the State. The most feasible method of ascertaining the wishes of the people was by fair and impartial plebiscite. Such a plebiscite had been proposed and agreed to some years ago. Progress, however, could not be made because of lack of agreement in regard to certain preliminary issues. The Prime Ministers agreed that these preliminary issues should be considered by them directly in order to arrive at agreements in regard to this. These agreements would have to be given effect to and the next step would be appointment of a Plebiscite Administrator”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s letter to Prime Minister of Pakistan,
September 3, 1953.
“… We suggested the salutary rule that the Plebiscite Administrator should be chosen from some small and more or less neutral country of Asia or Europe. There are many such countries and there should be no difficulty in finding an eminent and impartial person from among them.
“As a result of the plebiscite over the entire state, we would be in a position to consider the matter, so that the final decision should cause the least disturbance and should take into consideration geographical, economic and other important factors.
“I should like to make it clear that there is no intention on my part to exclude the UN from this question of Kashmir. The Plebiscite Administrator would function under UN supervision but it seems to me quite obvious that while the UN can be helpful, any settlement must depend upon the consent and co-operation of India and Pakistan. Therefore, it is for us to agree and not to look to the UN to produce some settlement, without our agreement.
“… If we aim, as we must, at closer and co-operative relationship between India and Pakistan, we must find a solution of the Kashmir problem which is not only satisfactory to the people as a whole there but is also achieved without bitterness and sense of continuing wrong to India or Pakistan.
“… Obviously, the Kashmir problem is of high importance; in some way the most important problem before us, and we must tackle it”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s letter to Pakistan’s Prime Minister,
November 10, 1953.
“You refer to the question of regional plebiscite. I can only repeat what I endeavoured to put before you when we met. Our object is to give freedom to the people of Kashmir to decide their future in a peaceful way so as to create no upset, as we said in our joint statement…
“Therefore, I had suggested that the plebiscite should be for the State as a whole and the detailed result of the plebiscite would then be the major factor for the decision to be taken. The detailed result will give us a fairly clear indication of the wishes of the people not only in the state as whole but in different areas.”
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, February 22, 1954.
“[The Constituent Assembly of Kashmir] did not come – it cannot come – in the way of our observing our international commitments in regard to a plebiscite, in regard to anything”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s speech, as reported in The Times of India, May 16, 1954.
“India will stand by her international commitments on the Kashmir issue and implement them at the appropriate time.
” The repudiation of international commitments would lower India’s prestige abroad”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in India Council of States, May 18, 1954.
“Every assurance we have given, every international commitment we have made in regard to Kashmir holds good and stands. Difficulties have come in the way and may come in its fulfilment, but the difficulties are not of our seeking but of others. But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance and international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands”.
Nehru, Indian Prime Minister’s statement in Indian Parliament, March 31, 1955.
“… Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied about between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir”.
Part-II
Letter from Government of India to UN, December 31, 1947.
“… The people of Kashmir would be free to decide their future by the recognised democratic method of plebiscite or referendum, which in order to ensure complete impartiality may be held under international auspices.
” This was also in accordance with Mahatma Gandhi’s view, since he had stated that the India Government sent troops by air to Kashmir telling the Maharaja that the accession was provisional upon an impartial plebiscite being taken of Kashmir irrespective of religion”.
Gopalaswami Ayyangar at Security Council, January 15, 1948.
“In accepting the accession they [the Government of India] refused to take advantage of the immediate peril in which the State found itself and informed the Ruler that the accession should finally be settled by plebiscite as soon as peace had been restored. They have subsequently made it quite clear that they are agreeable to the plebiscite being conducted if necessary under international auspices”.
Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January 15, 1948.
“On the question of accession, the Government of India has always enunciated the policy that in all cases of dispute the people of the State concerned should make the decision.”
Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January 15, 1948.
“… We have no further interest, and we have agreed that a plebiscite in Kashmir might take place under international auspices after peace and order have been established”.
Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January 15, 1948.
“… Whether she [Kashmir] should withdraw from her accession to India, and either accede to India or remain independent, with a right to claim admission as a member of the UN – all this we have recognised to be matter for unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir after normal life is restored there.
“We desire only to see peace restored in Kashmir and to ensure that the people of Kashmir are left free to decide in an orderly and peaceful manner the future of their State. We have no further interest, and we have agreed that a plebiscite in Kashmir might take place under international auspices after peace and order have been established”.
Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, January, 1948.
“The question of the future status of Kashmir vis-à-vis her neighbour and the world at large and a further question, namely, whether she should withdraw from her accession to India and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent with a right to claim admission as a member of the United Nations – all this we have recognised to be a matter of unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir after normal life is restored to them”.
Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, February 3, 1948.
“… As the Security Council is aware, the Government of India is fully committed to the view that , after peace is restored and all people belonging to the State have returned there, a free plebiscite should be taken and the people should decide whether they wish to remain with India, to go over to Pakistan, or to remain independent, if they choose to do so”.
Gopalasawami Ayyangar, at Security Council, February 6, 1948.
“… When the emergency has passed and normal conditions are restored, she will be free, by means of a plebiscite, either to ratify her accession to India, or to change her mind and accede to Pakistan, or remain independent. We shall not stand in the way if she elects to change her mind. That, I think, is the proper description of India’s attitude.”
Sir Benegal Rau, at Security Council, February 7, 1950.
” It is therefore clear that the admission of representatives from any particular State into the Indian Constituent Assembly did not necessarily imply accession. As I have said, Kashmir had this right to representation ever since April 1947; it acceded tentatively, in October 1947 so that the accession came after the grant of the right and not the other way round”.
Telegram from Indian Prime Minister Nehru to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, August 16, 1950.
“We have not opposed at any time an overall plebiscite for the State as a whole but you made some alternative suggestions because you came to the conclusion that there were no prospects of an agreement as to conditions preliminary to such a plebiscite….
“We have always recognised that any plan for a plebiscite should be such that the people concerned would be enabled to express their feelings freely and without fear….
“It has always been our view that, in the event of a plebiscite, the people of Kashmir should decide their future for themselves. Kashmiris who have gone out of the State should, of course, be entitled to return for this purpose. But I do not think that others have any claim to participate in a plebiscite campaign.”
B. N. Rao in Security Council, March 29, 1951.
“The Constituent Assembly* cannot be physically prevented from expressing an opinion on this question if it so chooses. But this opinion will not bind my Government or prejudice the position of this Council.”
* Which was to be convened by the Kashmir National Conference for deciding the accession issue – ED.
Krishna Menon, Indian Representative at UN General Assembly, referring to Congo Problem, April 5, 1951.
“Irrespective of the voting of this resolution, an abstention or two, the fact is that is the law of the United Nations at the present time…. My government has always taken the view that resolutions, if they are passed, must be implemented.”
Letter of September 11, 1951 addressed to the UN Representative for
India and Pakistan.
“As regards paragraph 4, the Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible.”
Letter from Indian Prime Minister Nehru to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, September 11, 1951.
“… The Government of India agree that the Plebiscite Administrator should be appointed as soon as conditions in the State, on both sides of the cease-fire line, permit of a start being made with the arrangements for carrying out the plebiscite. To appoint the Plebiscite Administrator before would be premature.
“The Government of India would, therefore, prefer such a proposal to be omitted from the present document; it would be more appropriately included in proposals that deal specifically and in detail with the holding of the plebiscite and connected matters.”
Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, at Security Council, December 8, 1952.
“We do not seek to go behind the UNCIP resolutions, or to ignore the vital elements of principle contained in them… We have always adhered to the UNCIP resolutions…. We cannot be a party to the reversal of previous decisions taken by the United Nations Commission with the agreement of the parties.”
Krishna Menon, at Security Council, January 24, 1957.
“… I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.”
Krishna Menon, at Security Council, February 8, 1957.
“It is possible, for any sovereign state to cede territory. If, as a result of a plebiscite, the people decided that they did not want to stay with India, then our duty at that time would be to adopt those constitutional procedures which would enable us to separate that territory.”
Krishna Menon, at Security Council, February 20, 1957.
“The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNCIP, the assurance given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight – that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not.”
Krishna Menon, at Security Council, October 9, 1957.
“…These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it.”
Krishna Menon, referring to Goa, The Statesman, Delhi, January 19, 1962.
” India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them.”
Part-III
UN Commission for India and Pakistan, January, 1949.
“As a result of these conversations the Commission on December 11, 1948, communicated its proposals to the two Governments. The main points of those proposals were: that the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by way of a free and impartial plebiscite, that the Secretary General of the UN would nominate in agreement with the commission a plebiscite Administrator who would be a person of high international standing and who would derive from the Government of Jammu and Kashmir the powers which he considers necessary to organise and conduct a free and impartial plebiscite….
“Both Governments… accepted the proposals and declared the cessation of hostilities in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as from January 1, 1949.”
UN Mediator Dr. E. Graham’s proposals to UN September 7, 1951.
“The Governments of India and Pakistan:
“4. Reaffirm their acceptance of the principle that the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the UN”
Proceedings of Security Council, January – February, 1957.
“On February 21, the Security Council requested its President (Gunnar Jarring of Sweden) to examine with the two Governments any proposal likely to promote settlement of the Kashmir issue having regard to the earlier resolutions of the Council and the UNCIP. By an earlier resolution of January 24, 1957, the Council had affirmed its old stand to determine Kashmir’s future by plebiscite and declared that any action by the Kashmir assembly and its support by the parties would not constitute disposition of the State in keeping with that principle.”
Resolution adopted by Security Council on January 24, 1957.
“The Security Council:
“Having heard statements from representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
“Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its Resolutions of 21 April 1948, 3 June 1948, 14 March 1950 and 30 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 conducted under the auspices of the United Nations;
“Reaffirms the affirmation in its Resolution of March 30, 1951 and declares that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of the “All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference” and any action that Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or action by the parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle;
“Decides to continue its consideration of the dispute.”
CONCLUSION
Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, pursued a policy of deception, a rape of his own pious commitments and remained a perfect disciple of Hindu Political Statecraft i.e. Chanakiya. Dr. Ayyub Thukar makes an interesting comment:
” Sir Owen Dixon was once forced to affirm that, the fellow (Nehru) is lying. Others have said of him that in and out of office, he was fond of riding a high moral horse. He thereby not only threw dust in the eyes of the world, he also succeeded in deceiving himself. He finally arrived like a Humpty Dumpty, at the stage where words did not mean what they connoted, but what he said they meant”.
The deception by the prominent successive Indian Leadership has been blasted off for good by the Nuclear Blasts in the sub-continent. The scenario in South Asia has changed. The entire world community now accepts that Kashmir is the root cause of bad blood between India and Pakistan. The carefully worked out strategy by India to put the Issue in the cold forever has failed. Kashmir has come into the limelight, despite all efforts by India to the contrary. It is time that India realises the gravity of the situation and tries honestly to end the sufferings of Kashmiris forever; who are fighting to gain liberty from Indian occupation. More than a 100,000 kashmiries have been killed from 1989 (when armed freedom struggle started ) till date. This is in addition to thousands of detentions, forced disappearances, rape & molestation of innocent women by security forces which is a routine and every now and then kashmiries have to make protests to stop these human rights voilations. The main Sessionist parties & groups have after proper due deligence decided to turn armed struggle in to a peaceful one but no body seems to be caring.The sooner good sense prevails on the leaders, politicians and Decision Makers in India, Pakistan, Great Britain, European Community, USA, United Nations And Kashmir for resolving Kashmir problem once for all, the better it will be for the well being of mankind

Reply

Varun Vasisht
wrote on July 4th, 2009
I’ll be frank with you . The ‘comment’ was longer than the post and I didn’t have any inclination to read it all the way . Anyways , what I grasped of it was that it was little more than quotations from Indian leaders from time to time , largely Nehru. As far as the post is concerned , I still feel the same way. Another thing I noticed was your use of terms like – “Hindu Political Statecraft i.e. Chanakiya” and “who was made the first Governor- General of India by Hindus” , I must say that such language is ‘unhealthy’ . The Kashmiris say that theirs is a Jihad , now being a Hindu I feel anything but sympathy for them .

Reply

Varun Vasisht
wrote on July 4th, 2009
I can gauge the credibility of your ‘unbiased,humane and reasonable’ opinion by your communal language and how you so conveniently demonize India and Hindus while Pakistan comes off as a saint . If you’re a Pakistani , which I believe you are, don’t preach . You have no right to …



Zahoor
wrote on July 5th, 2009
KASHMIR IS KEY TO PROSPERITY:
History is what it is. Resolutions passed in UNO and commitments made by the Head of the World’s largest democracy are important peices of history.If one is not inclined to read it, abide by it and learn from ones own mistakes and the mistakes committed by others that will not be the fault of history. We need not be sentimental while being on the web. Let us agree on one issue that Kasmir Problem needs to be resolved amicably so that their are no more wars between India & Pakistan. We will be saving very vast resources presently deployed for defence, anti-militancy activities and crushing of peaceful freedom struggle by Kashmiries. The resouces thus saved can be utilised in India, Pakistan and Kashmir for human development & economic upliftmant of millions of poor and down todden people of this region.

Reply

Varun Vasisht
wrote on July 5th, 2009
If India has backed out from time to time on Kashmir,Pakistan too has given every reason to India to do so . I completely agree that the Kashmir issue has to be resolved . It’d go a long way in improving relations between both the countries , which would be beneficial for the whole region . But , blaming each other isn’t the way forward . You blame us , we blame you back . It’s a stalemate . Both countries need to own up to their mistakes . Neither of us is a saint here. Both the countries are equally responsible for the present situation . Being candid about our mistakes would build mutual trust between the two nations whereas accusations would only result in hatred on both sides .

Reply

Rahul Sarin
wrote on July 9th, 2009
It’s easier said than done, my friend. Pakistan has one part of Kashmir, India has the other. The logical and practical solution is to turn this into a formal border. We ought to grow up now, it’s high time we all do. Pakistan must realize that it can never have the entire Kashmir and it’s a far-fetched dream. India on the other hand must let go of what is gone now. The time is for a permanent solution. Bulk of the disputed land is uninhabitable. What are we really fighting for? But just blindly passing the buck to India is highly immature. Pakistan needs to commit itself to the cause which it is not ready to. Maybe some of you are but that voice is too weak. It’s give and take my friend.

Reply

Zahoor
wrote on July 5th, 2009
KASHMIR IS KEY TO PROSPERITY:
I agree with the above remark in ful. But, this needs a strong determination and will. If the politicians just want to please their owm vote bank and grind their own axe, the civil society in this region has to prevail upon the people who matter and who decide our fate that it will be in the best interest of humanity and all nations in this region to settle the Kashmir dispute once for all & at an earliest.

Reply

Rahul Sarin
wrote on July 9th, 2009
Somehow, I do not have much sympathy for the Kashmiris. I really don’t. They enjoy special rights, they have their own constitution, they get the maximum aid but in the end they choose to outcast themselves by cribbing that nothing is done for them. They waste their time destroying public property and show their solidarity with the neighbour. They eat, live, study and enjoy all the rights of Indians and in the end they crib. The problems Kashmiris face are more pronounced because of their own attitude towards the problem.

Reply

Zahoor
wrote on July 14th, 2009
KASHMIR IS KEY TO PROSRERITY IN SOUTH ASIA:
Mr. Rahul
I have sympathy with you because of your prefrence for not willing to fight for the resolution of old and historical diputes recognised internationally and even those where resolutions have been passed in UNO. You do not seem to be interested in removal of causes of terrorism and finish slavery and subjugation from the globe. You also prefer to deliberately consider human rights voilations committed by Indian security forces in kashmir as geuine and pardonable security operations conducted in indian national interest. You also feel that the defence budget of India and Pakistan are aid to Kashmiries. you are not inclined to agree that both the countries India & Pakistan can save around 80% of their defence expenditure if Kashmir problem is solved and the amont saved can be channalised for economic, human, knowledge and health development of the poor people of Pakistan, India and KASHMIR. Above all there will be peace in the region and ten million kashmiries will feel honoured when they will be granted right of self determination as promised and committed to them by India, Pakistan & UNO.

Reply

Rahul Sarin
wrote on July 15th, 2009
Had you read the previous comment I had left on this very page, you would know exactly how I feel. I agree that Kashmir is the key to prosperity but the attitude of the Kashmiris needs to change my friends. How about I say the Pakistan army and intelligence agencies stop using their land to further their own interests? The security forces are there because of the constant backtracking and betrayal by the successive Pakistani governments. What is gone is gone now. Pakistan shall never have the Indian Kashmir and India shall never get back what is lost. It’s time to draw permanent lines and commit ourselves to the cause of peace in the region. As Varun had said before, you do not have the right to preach. Both nations are at fault here but Pakistan does not want to accept that. By inciting people in Kashmir against India, the Pakistan govt. has not and will never achieve anything. In turn, it has only led to the pathetic state your nation is currently in. Your govt. and people shy away from committing to eradicate the unscrupulous elements from your land. I respect your feelings and echo your sentiments with regards to peace but blaming it on the human rights violations is just lack of maturity. The security forces and extra cautious because of the conditions that the terrorists supported and nurtured by Pakistan have created. I do not condone some of their actions but their presence is necessary. The Kashmiri’s have a choice to make here. They must align themselves with one side completely and stop playing this double game. Blaming every robbery, murder rape etc. on the security forces and going around torching half the city is shameful. This shows they do not want peace to prevail. The security personnel are undoubtedly involved in some crimes and violations there but just branding them as villians is stupid on your part. They risk and lose their lives to protect these very Kashmiris and get no appreciation from them.
It’s time Pakistan stops this proxy war. Really, you have gained nothing. You have zero future this way. Your infrastructure is unsecure, half of the nation is a war zone, the economy is dead whereas your next door neighbour is booming and growing. Every third day the Army comes to power. Introspect first my friend, only then comment. You will find that Pakistan really needs to take the first step here. India can only follow.

Reply

Varun Vasisht
wrote on July 16th, 2009
CEASE FIRE……..

Reply

Varun Vasisht
wrote on July 16th, 2009
I can now very well imagine what our diplomatic talks must look like.

Reply

DAWER
wrote on July 17th, 2009
world community need to know that Kashmir problem is not a land dispute between India & pakistan. This is basically the matter of the right of self-determination that was promised to the people of Kashmir by the Governments of India & Pakistan 62 years ago and the resolutions passed in the U.N. security Council & General Assembly bear a testemony to this. For permenant and a lasting resolution of Kashmir dispute the aspirations of Kashmiri people need to be be given top priority and the intersts of India & Pakistan should come only next. Around 100,000 people in kashmir have given sacrifice from 1989 onwards for a cause. Whosoever says that freedom struggle of Kashmiries is not indeginous and is there only because of pakistan sponsorship is “BIASED”. Kashmiries by and large feel that Pakistan is a small Userper and India the Great is a big and large Userper particularly because it is India that is backing out of its committment of granting right of self determination to Kashmiries. What ever the Historical facts are there, all the stake holders and peace seekers must join their hands and not their fists to find an amicable solution to the Kasmir Problem.

Reply