Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who is wrong, India or Pakistan ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Who is wrong, India or Pakistan ?

    Hi all,

    Why do Indian and Pakistani always keeps on fighting. And each one of us is just forcing their own views. But who is right and who is wrong?
    We are fighting over Kashmir. Paki says that it belongs to them and Indians says that Kashmir belongs to them.
    Ok, let’s try sensibly to find out each one’s stand. I hope no one will try to be rude here.
    I may have some wrong information, so you may correct me.


    In 1947 India got divided into two parts, India and Pakistan. Kashmir King was not able to decide whether to go with India or with Pakistan (lets forget hydrabad etc for a while).
    Before the king could decide anything, Pakistan attacked Kashmir.
    (Some people say that king was killing Muslims in Kashmir, but there is no proof of this claim.)
    Seeing this attack on his country, the King approached India and decided to Merge Kashmir in India.
    Indian Army them stopped the Pakistani’s infiltration in Kashmir. But UN came in between and ceased the war.
    After this we fought another two War’s over Kashmir, but Kashmir was still peaceful place.

    Suddenly, the Valley atmosphere started to become Hot in late 80’s (after almost 40 years).
    Pakistani Leaders, Army etc. all started talking about Kashmir and Kashmir people. Although they use to talk about it before this time too, but this time they were extra serious.
    Rest we all know. From that point onwards, people started to die everyday, mostly by “freedom fighters” / terrorists. But initially the people that were getting killing in India Kashmir were all Hindus, Later police and army were also targeted.

    Nothing of this sort was happening in Pakistani Kashmir.

    Now every Pakistani is saying that Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. Why? Because almost 90% of the Kashmir population is Muslims (rest are either killed or ran to some other parts of India). And I think this is the biggest reason for most of the Pakistani’s.

    But India has more Muslims then in Pakistan. So Pakistan can’t claim Kashmir on the basis of Muslim population.

    Pakistani’s give one more reason for supporting the “freedom fighter” (most of which are not Kashmiri nationals)
    One more reason is that they (Pakistani’s) wants to free Kashmir from Indian Rule.

    Free nation means: -
    A nation who have their own government and is not ruled by any other nation” Right (a generic definition).

    If that is the case, why don’t Pakistan Free PoK first? Please give PoK status of Nation and then ask India to Free Kashmir.

    Pakistan says that its all Kashmiris fighting in Indian Kashmir.
    I have a very recent example, when Pak entered Kargil and said that they were all mujahidins. But later they called all them back in a single day. If they were “mujhahidins”, how were they obeying Pak government?

    Are there any other claims also?
    India also may be killing innocent people in Kashmir, but that will happen anyway if someone from one particular region kill people of other community and attack government. Pakistan will also do the same thing. I am not saying that India is Clean. We have also occupied ciyachine (donno how to spell that)

    Now Please let me come to one conclusion. Kashmir is just one “Bahaana”. It’s a Tree of ghosts, which was planted by British’s in 1940’s.
    The Hindu - Muslim problem started only after 1940’s, before that it was not so serious. In those days it was policy of British’s, if they had to leave any country , they use to make them week by dividing them.
    If India would not have divided at that time, we would not had any Kashmir or Hindu- Muslims issues. But this tree of ghosts is still here and now we have many ghosts on our heads. And in place of killing these Ghosts we are doing whatever these Ghosts are asking us to do.

    Now these Ghosts are talking about “all out” war. But remember War is not a game. It would kill thousands of people, in India as well as in Pakistan.
    And the ghost is also asking for a “nuclear war”, which would kill millions of people on both sides.

    We all are fools who are fighting each other, and forget that we still have same blood in our body and we have same history. If mughals had not invaded India, there would have no Hindu – Muslims problems in the subcontinent.

    #2
    kashmir is symptom of india-pakistan problem.
    even if kashmir is given to pakistan
    the problem is not going to go away.
    it is not sim[ly hindu-muslim problem
    otherwise why in the world pakistan
    more worried about kashmir than welfare
    of all muslims in the sub-continent .

    Comment


      #3
      munnu :> u need a crash course on reasons for the demand and creation of Pakistan. Also how the Islam spread in sub-continent and the role of Mughals.
      I am only responsible for what I say, not for what you understand.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by munnu:
        Hi all,

        Why do Indian and Pakistani always keeps on fighting. And each one of us is just forcing their own views. But who is right and who is wrong?
        We are fighting over Kashmir. Paki says that it belongs to them and Indians says that Kashmir belongs to them.
        Ok, let’s try sensibly to find out each one’s stand. I hope no one will try to be rude here.
        I may have some wrong information, so you may correct me.
        Munnu. Your post is both factual and incorrect. This paradox leads you to believe that there is a simple answer. However, life is not that simple. Whatever happened in the early days of partition has happened. There are UN Resolutions dating from 1948 onwards. These would not have been ratified had there been no recognition of a dispute. Without getting into blaming either side, India is on record as saying they do not recognise the UN Resolutions because subsequent treaties have superceded them. This is a doubtful argument. If the the treaties superceded the resolutions, why did Indians not then convert the treaties into UN Resolutions to get legal and moral backing for their stand. For Pakistan to leave Kashmir, it is incumbant on India to leave Kashmir unreservedly, and then hold a plebiscite, as per UN Resolutions. Indians do not want to leave and hold plebiscite, hence for this reason Pakistan will not leave.


        Comment


          #5
          well lets set aside everything UN pakistan claims, indian claims.

          just ask kashmiries on both side what they want. whatever they want let them have it. its basic human right.
          why india scare of conducting plebesite? if they are fair?
          pakistan defintely allow AK to take part in any international solution of whole kashmir.

          ------------------
          End is Begining!
          پاکستان پاکستان

          Comment


            #6
            simla agreement supersedes un ressolution.
            it becomes bilateral issue . there is no mention of un in simla agreement.
            since pakistan produced nukes after simla
            agreement it thinks it can use it to get kashmir. did anything change after simla
            agreement except introduction of nukes by both sides.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by rvikz:
              simla agreement supersedes un ressolution.
              it becomes bilateral issue . there is no mention of un in simla agreement.
              since pakistan produced nukes after simla
              agreement it thinks it can use it to get kashmir. did anything change after simla
              agreement except introduction of nukes by both sides.

              Ok lets suppose its bilateral issue, but indian dont include kashmir in talks? then how can it be resolved? we can not talk trade talks before kashmir.
              india even dont think its an issue. well reality it is an world issue, even india deny it. fact on ground doesnt change.

              UN resultions cant be superceded mate until both pakistan resign from UN.


              ------------------
              End is Begining!
              پاکستان پاکستان

              Comment


                #8
                From a famous columist in India

                Mr Straw, do you know who created the Kashmir mess?
                Are we to allow Pakistan to continue to train new armies for invasion and to allow its territory to be used as a base for these attacks? The obvious course of action is to strike at these concentrations and lines of communications in Pakistan territory. From a military point of view this would be the most effective step. We have refrained from taking it because of political considerations. We shall have to reconsider this position because a continuation of the present situation is intolerable. If Pakistan is not prepared to help in putting an end to this war or even to try to withdraw these invaders then we should help ourselves, even by crossing some part of Pakistan territory and hitting at their concentrations. This involves a risk of war with Pakistan. We wish to avoid war, but it is merely deluding ourselves to imagine that we are avoiding war so long as the present operations are continuing on either side.



                Thus spoke Nehru, India's first prime minister!

                When? On December 20, 1947, eleven days before the Kashmir issue was referred to the United Nations. Eleven days which turned out to be momentous for India's future. Is it not strange that today, 55 years later, similar circumstances have come to haunt the present prime minister?

                At this point in time, it is useful to remember the role of Great Britain, particularly of Lord Mountbatten, to understand how Albion has been single-handedly responsible for the Kashmir imbroglio. For this, it is necessary to go back to a year before the British left the jewel of their empire.

                In 1946-47 they were perhaps ready to depart, but not to lose their influence in Asia and the world. For the past two centuries, the defence of their empire had been centred on the Indian subcontinent and the Indian Ocean [known as the British lake]. The British Empire, born from a trading company, was basically a sea-empire. This was brilliantly demonstrated by K M Panikkar, the historian [unfortunately turned diplomat] in his famous book, Asia and the Western Dominance. But at the beginning of the 20th century, two new factors appeared on the strategic scene: one was aviation [whose role was masterfully demonstrated by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour in 1941] and petrol [and therefore the importance of Middle East.

                When the British chiefs of staff were ordered to submit a report on the strategic consequences of their departure from the subcontinent, all the generals agreed that Pakistan was the more important of the two future dominions, because of the possibility of installing air bases in the north of the country [to control Russia] and naval bases opening to the Arabian Sea in the south. A brotherly contact with the Muslim states in the Middle East was an added bonus.

                Another argument, which made Pakistan more reliable, was that Mohammed Ali Jinnah was extremely keen to remain in the Commonwealth while the Indian National Congress could not make up its mind. Jinnah once forcefully told Mountbatten: "You can't kick us out.'

                The dies were cast in May 1947 when the chiefs of staff reported: "From the strategic point of view there were overwhelming arguments in favour of West Pakistan remaining within the Commonwealth, namely that we should obtain important strategic facilities..."

                Subsequently this policy was implemented, partly with the unknowing [not to say foolish] collaboration of the Congress. When the time of independence came and Jinnah insisted on becoming the first governor general of Pakistan [London had thought Mountbatten could be the governor general of both dominions], the Congress offered the job in India to the viscount.

                This was the first of a long series of blunders. Then, when the issue of Junagadh and Hyderabad came up soon after Independence, a defence committee of the Cabinet was created. And who was its chairman? A Britisher.

                This was a surrealistic situation: two dominions, one with a Pakistani governor general, the other with a British; two armies, both with British generals [though India tried from the first months to indigenise her cadre]. The 'Indian' British generals took orders from the British governor general and not from the Indian government; the defence committee was chaired by a Briton, which most of the time was overriding the Cabinet's decisions and a 'stand-down' order stated that British officers would not fight one another.

                Such was the situation when the raiders trained, equipped and directed by Colonel Akbar Khan, military adviser of the Pakistani prime minister, entered Kashmir at the end of October 1947. The story is too well known to be recounted here, but the interesting point is that the British constantly played a double game. General Douglas Gracey, the Pakistani army commander, knew of the raiders' attack beforehand, but did not 'inform' his Indian counterpart. Later on, information kept circulating, but in one direction only. This shows that London, with the help of Mountbatten, was determined to implement the strategic plans of HMG.

                Another strange situation: Mountbatten, formal head of the Indian State, took upon himself to be the mediator also. Can we imagine the captain of a World Cup soccer team being the referee at the same time, while also acting to make a third country win?

                Once a friend of mine visiting Israel was asked by his hosts: "What do you see as a difference between India and Israel?" My friend answered: "In Israel, you use your guts, in India we wait for the Grace." The Grace struck when Mountbatten's cousin [Elizabeth II] got married in London, forcing him to leave India for two weeks in November. During this time, the Indian commanders did so well that they secured Srinagar and stabilised the Uri sector. They could have advanced and taken back Muzaffarabad if they had not received orders from Delhi to stop their advance.

                The last two months of 1947 is a long tale of the British authorities trying to 'restrain' India from chasing out the raiders. This explains why Nehru, though a great admirer of the governor general, was really fed up at the end of 1947 and why he wrote the note quoted earlier.

                When he got to know the content, the cunning Mountbatten decided to act fast. From the start, he had been of the opinion that the best way to derail an Indian offensive, which would have finished off Pakistan, was to refer the case to the United Nations where it would be quickly buried. We should not forget that not only was Mountbatten a fine soldier and an over-charming man, he was also a clever politician who knew perfectly well that, even within Clement Attlee's Cabinet, there were enough people like Noel Baker, the Commonwealth secretary, who would immediately take Pakistan's side against India.

                He [Mountbatten] used all his influence on Nehru (and he had a lot) to convince him that it was 'The Solution' and the world would immediately condemn Pakistan for supporting and assisting the raiders. During the following defence council meeting on December 20, he forced Nehru and his colleagues to accept the idea to make a reference to the UN. Reluctantly the Indian prime minister agreed: India would appeal, but would at the same time prepare a contingency plan for attacking the raiders' sanctuaries in eastern Pakistan.

                On December 22, Nehru sent an ultimatum to Pakistan prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan that the raids should be stopped immediately failing which India would consider a counter attack. It is to be noted that at that time the Indian leadership was a deeply divided lot and the next day Sardar Patel sent a resignation letter to Nehru for being sidetracked on the Kashmir issue. This was not to help India's case!

                However, the man who had commanded the Allied forces in Asia had scored a first point: the principle of a reference to the UN was accepted. The next step for the governor general was to kill the Indian military plans. He did not hesitate to spend Christmas day writing a very long missive to Nehru highlighting the advantage of the UN solution and the danger of a military escalation.

                We should not forget that if a war had broken out between the two dominions, the British officers posted in both dominions as well as the governor general would have lost their jobs and would have had to pack their bags for the native island.

                Mountbatten told Nehru clearly that "his considerations were not inspired by military considerations, but by the fact that it would mean war between India and Pakistan". In other words, he was not really interested by the merits of the case or whether Pakistan was on the wrong side of the fence; he wanted to avoid a war and its consequences for the United Kingdom.

                Nehru soon discovered that Mountbatten's interests in the reference to the UN were only "to get a team nominated to come out and deal with the business and help to stop the fighting". The next day, Nehru answered with another very long letter and made it clear that he agreed about stopping the fighting: "Yes, certainly, but how? We neither started it, nor can we stop it. Of course, we can, in a sense, surrender. That I am sure you would not advise us to do.... The very idea is hateful." But it was indeed what the governor general wanted India to do... and this in the interests of the Crown and Mountbatten's own career and reputation.

                Seeing that his plans were not fully working, Mountbatten launched another attack, he secretly passed all the correspondence (and even the minutes of the defence council) to Attlee asking him to intervene and put pressure on Nehru. At the same time, he advised Nehru to inform the British prime minister of the 'latest developments' making him believe that it would help India's cause in the UN. It would have been strange if Attlee had written on his own about what he was not supposed to know! Not knowing that Attlee had already been fed with all the details of meetings and correspondence, Nehru naively tried again to explain India's position.

                He was to receive a lecture the next day that attacks on the 'nervous centres' of the raiders in Pakistan were not 'justified in international law as India was not entitled to take this action in self-defence'. Attlee told him that not only was he totally wrong legally, but any actions along this line would tarnish Nehru's international reputation and stature.

                At the same time, London passed all the correspondence and other documents to the US and France, asking them to put pressure on India to avoid destroying the raiders 'sanctuaries'; the US complied immediately. It was enough for the Indian prime minister to 'try' the UN solution.

                The events that followed are too well known. India's case was buried in the bureaucratic corridors of the UN, thanks to Noel Baker and his American colleagues; the raiders were allowed to remain on Indian soil.

                Fifty-five years later, these territories are still in the possession of Pakistan and the same type of attacks are allowed from across the border, as a result of which tens of thousands have been killed in Kashmir and the Kashmiri Pandits, Nehru's own race, have been cleansed in the world's indifference.

                Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, is coming to India on Wednesday on a 'peace mission'. He has announced his arrival with fanfare: he declared that the question as to "who should run Kashmir was never fully resolved" and has called Kashmir an "unfinished business". In view of this, on his arrival in Delhi, he should immediately be asked by his Indian counterpart: "Sir, do you know who created the Kashmir mess?" If he says "No", he should politely be told to go back to London and visit the India Office Library and records and spend a weekend in the Broadlands Archives Trust in Romsey, Hampshire, to consult the Mountbatten Papers. He will get the answer.

                If he says "yes", he should be told that India has its own interests and follows its own policy and if the UK wants to restrain somebody, it should restrain those who created the mess. India is now an independent nation, no more a colony under a British governor general. But India definitively agrees with him that Jammu & Kashmir is an 'unfinished business'.

                Comment


                  #9
                  I think that the history was, that all the Muslim majority provinces preferred to join Pakistan at the time of partition of the Sub-Continent.Kashmir had a very large Muslim population and a non muslim ruler, so legally speaking, that too should have been a part of Pakistan, the British, as you rightly said, intentionally demarcated the boundary by giving to India,Gurdaspur, District Batiala, which in fact at that time was majority Muslim, to India, this was strategically a very important gateway to Kashmir. So while the Muslim majority province of kashmir wanted to join Pakistan, the ruler was not too much willing to do so and as the date of decision drew near, the pressure went on increasing till the time that the ruler, because of whatever reasons, decided to go against the will of the majority, thereby sparking off the riots that we all are well aware of.
                  The British have a history of leaving behind an issue which can keep their influence, not to mention their arms industry rolling, it was Kashmir in the case of India and Pakistan and it was Kuwait in the case of Iraq, so these potential flashpoints keep the western intersets alive!
                  Both India and Pakistan have committed errors in the past and we both simply do not have the guts to come out and say the truth, why after all should we budge from our stance if the other side doesnt,huh??
                  Is this the right thing to do, only time will tell, but by that time, it may be way too late!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    [QUOTE]Originally posted by munnu:
                    And each one of us is just forcing their own views.

                    No. Pakistan has always maintained that the UN Security Council Resolution should be implemented. Its India that refuses to abide by it.

                    Kashmir King was not able to decide whether to go with India or with Pakistan (lets forget hydrabad etc for a while).
                    Before the king could decide anything, Pakistan attacked Kashmir.


                    The maharaja was strong-armed by India into acceding to India, despite have a 97% muslim population. That resulted in Indian forces ammassing Kashmir, which resulted in a revolt by the Kashmiris, and that is when Pakistan stepped in.

                    Suddenly, the Valley atmosphere started to become Hot in late 80’s (after almost 40 years).

                    Forget the UN resolutions, the '62 war, the '65 war? All might not be directly related to Kashmir, but had the Kashmir dispute in the backdrop. And Kashmiris waited a painfully long period to allow the indian govt to let the Kashmiris have their say, via a plebiscite, as promised to them.

                    But initially the people that were getting killing in India Kashmir were all Hindus, Later police and army were also targeted.

                    Check reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, both international organizations, and see what they have to say about Indian army's conduct in Occupied Kashmir.

                    Nothing of this sort was happening in Pakistani Kashmir.

                    Exactly.

                    But India has more Muslims then in Pakistan. So Pakistan can’t claim Kashmir on the basis of Muslim population.

                    The muslim population in India is perhaps more than it is in Pakistan, but it is scattered, not concentrated in any one state. And by the rules and guidelines that defined the partition in '47, all muslim majority states were to be a part of Pakistan. Kashmir has a clear muslim majority, whereas, no state in India has a muslim majority, which is why Pakistan does not mention them.

                    Pakistani’s give one more reason for supporting the “freedom fighter” (most of which are not Kashmiri nationals)

                    I understand you have interviewed them all to determine that? The state of Jammu and Kashmir includes Held Kashmir and Azad Kashmir, both, and a person who would cross over from Azad Kashmir to held Kashmir would be as much of a Kashmiri national as anyone else.

                    If that is the case, why don’t Pakistan Free PoK first? Please give PoK status of Nation and then ask India to Free Kashmir.

                    Its called Azaad Kashmir It is free. The United Nations resolution is free to be implemented there. Journalists are allowed there. NOT in Held Kashmir.

                    If they were “mujhahidins”, how were they obeying Pak government?

                    According to the indian govt itself, the mujahideen still have several kargil peaks under control. So doesnt seem as if they have obeyed anyone.

                    We have also occupied ciyachine (donno how to spell that)

                    Siachen. And no, you havent occupied it. You like to think you have. Its at best, divided 50-50, and the terrain is so unfriendly, the scenario changes on a daily basis.

                    The Hindu - Muslim problem started only after 1940’s, before that it was not so serious.

                    Allama Iqbal died in '38, and long before that, in '33, he had suggested that Muslims of India have a seperate state for themselves.

                    If its not about religion, then how do you factor in the Gujaraat massacres? What does that have to do with Kashmir? That would have happened even if Kashmir issue wasnt there. How do you defend that? How do you defend your government in the face of that disgraceful episode? Heck, even the CM wasnt made to leave.

                    Now these Ghosts are talking about “all out” war. But remember War is not a game. It would kill thousands of people, in India as well as in Pakistan.

                    India needs to know that. Pakistan has repeatedly talked of negotiations. Pakistan has said we will NOT attack. Its india that ammassed its forces...india that took the first step of starting a missile race, a nuclear race, and what not. Pakistan has merely reciprocated.

                    If mughals had not invaded India, there would have no Hindu – Muslims problems in the subcontinent.

                    And the bottom line, just before departing, all the while touting hindu-muslim harmony, you made it clear that even for you, its all about hindu-muslim rivalry. The mughal era brought a lot of prosperity to the subcontinent, and its wrong to blame the mughals for downfall of the place.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Both sides are wrong,they are fighting over a country that is not either ones and both should get out this is a line from a Kashmiri about this subject from another thread
                      >>>>. A Kashmiri will never feel he is an Indian. He will never accept India. Nor will he accept Pakistan. We want freedom<<<

                      Sounds to me the people who matter most the ones who live there want both countries gone.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by just2much:
                        Sounds to me the people who matter most the ones who live there want both countries gone.
                        Pakistan has always said the will of the Kashmiris shoudl be respected, through a plebiscite.

                        It is India that denied this to the Kashmiris. They respond by sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers who aren't exactly 'planting flowers'!

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I hear what your saying, but they should have to vote for their freedom from both countries when neither country should be there in the first place? It doesn't sound like it makes much sense to me what your saying is you can vote for the freedom we took away from you in the beginning.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            well i dunno wat freedom of kashmiries did pakistan take away...i mean kashmiries in Azad Kashmir ar pretty free and have their freedom...seriously i have a cousin who married a kashmiri who is from 'bagh' a city very near LOC b/w pakistan and India and seriously he doesn't have any qualms about being a Pakistani...well for ur benefit he is a doctor.

                            But yes i know ppl in indian held kashmir donot really want to be with Pakistan OR India

                            Comment


                              #15
                              As I said, everyone is sure that thier countary is "good guy" and the other countary is "bad guy". which is not practically possible.
                              we are told a wrong version of history in our countaries. Its not entirly correct.
                              the things that I noted down here are the things that the whole world is saying.
                              some of you may know some very (and educated) old people (grandfather etc.), you can ask them about the History.

                              I can see many Paki's using bad language, this is the probelm with you guys, they never use civilized language.
                              I

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X