Why is Kashmir issue unresolved yet with Pakistan?

[SANITY]

India as a democratic country will not do what fascist or dictatorial regimes do, there are democratic things which will help in nation building based on Constitution of India, instead of asking people to leave from that area.

Fascism or dictatorship is probably different from what I was talking about because I haven't spoken of a whole community to sent out but that part of community who want an Indian soil to be specifically reserved for them with their law and cultures alone. Those who believe in Democracy and are compatible with people of other faiths or atleast tolerant enough have not been asked to leave.

What do you think? Is it fascism?

 

[Srinivas_K]

Fascism or dictatorship is probably different from what I was talking about because I haven't spoken of a whole community to sent out but that part of community who want an Indian soil to be specifically reserved for them with their law and cultures alone. Those who believe in Democracy and are compatible with people of other faiths or atleast tolerant enough have not been asked to leave.

What do you think? Is it fascism?

Those who are not tolerant are free to leave, Pakistan should accept them. But that is not the case after partition.

The doors are closed in 1950's on Pakistani side.

 

[SANITY]

What paper do they have to show to state the authenticity of the part of the territory they hold? Do they have any instrument of accession signed by Lord Mountbatten or confirming to any British India act?

" What paper do they have to show to state the authenticity of the part of the territory they hold?" ------ Who are you referring by "they"? India or Pakistan.

 

[ladder]

" What paper do they have to show to state the authenticity of the part of the territory they hold?" ------ Who are you referring by "they"? India or Pakistan.

I am an Indian, therefore 'they' is Pakistan.

 

[Srinivas_K]

Nice post !!

Read it a little seriously -

OK, who went to the UN? Was it India or Pakistan ? so your assertion that India is afraid of going to UN is not valid !
What does going to Un laterally means - it means solving a problem diplomatically. Is not it ?
After that There was a cease fire agreement between the two countries. - it was not brokered by the UN .
Then there was Tashkent Agreement .

Then there was Shimla agreement between the two countries.
Then there is Indus Water agreement between the two countries ... so on and so fourth.

Bilateral mechanism is also an agreed diplomatic means and fully recognised as per international laws.

Why does not Pakistan honour those agreement ?
What is the guarantee that if India wins referendum Pakistan would cease in meddling in J&K affairs ? Punjab was not disputed still Pakistan meddled with that. North East is not disputed still Pakistan is meddling there. And many other places ...

Secondly, why did Pakistan not follow the conditions of Un resolution ?

Thirdly, who will agree with a 65 years resolutions when ground conditions have deliberately been altered in J&K by Pakistan by :-
* Changing entire demography of POK
* By forcible capture of Northern Areas
* By ethnic cleansing of Valley.
* By using her Army to forcibly annex J&K in 1965, 1971 and 1999 ? Where was UN then?

Pakistan's obsession or rather strategy of third Party mediation is driven by its inferiority complex, perceived might of India, a desire not to talk to Hindus ( who were their slaves) and get over very difficult situations they land up in. Whether it was 1965, 1971, Kargil, water issue or Cricket issue, Parakram or any issue, Pakistan always want a third Party to intervene to overcome the dilemma that Indians have forced an issue on Pakistan. No leader of Pakistan can ever go back and face its people if he agrees to any thing bilaterally. If it is due to third party the leader can always blame third party - like in the aftermath of Kargil.

In its dealing with India, Pakistani politicians, bureaucrats, Army or diplomats are not capable of talking to India in spite of great favours given by Indians to Pakistan in the aftermaths of all the conflict during all negations and treatise. It does not go down their ego filled throats and minds. They would surrender to China all their land but not to evil Yindoo baniyas. That is their problem..... That is the baggage all Pakistanis carry...

So the time of Un mediation on Kashmir is long over and lots of water have flown down the Sindh to fall back to 1948. Pakistan would like the subcontinent to fall back to the Mogul period but that is not possible. Indian would like India to fall back to the time of Chandragupta but that is also not possible today...

UN intervention therefore, is unrealistic and unproductive. Pakistan having fought four war and long drawn proxy war can not ask for third Party Mediation or UN intervention . Pakistan has been following a constant war in J&K militarily and by using terrorists. India has faced that and shall win in that war. Pakistan is trying to follow multi pronged approach but can never succeed.

Pakistan would be lucky if they manage to keep what was left over in 1971 rather than aspiring to gain something out of India.

 

[SANITY]

we have something in detail in this regard as below. an Indian stand but this is what we know since schooling :ranger:

That is a good, long and aggressive speech. Though I am not sure whether India should go offensive without support from nations like America, Russia, Britain, France, Australia as their view on India's action will play a significant role in India's reliability and this image of peaceful civilization who has faced alot and worked really hard to get where it is along with belief in Gandhian methods coming from our cultural roots.

We lost a bit of our reputation when we acted with aggression to take Goa from coloniolist Portuguese that were already on downfall and posed no genuine threat to us. We got heavy criticism specially in US where the then president JF KENNEDY who used to see India most positively in the image of Gandhi spoke of India as " Preacher caught coming out of Brothel". We don't need that again.

They do deserve a proper warning and India must have all preparation in advance to justify its acts or we will suffering from our tempted acts of aggresion.

Also an aggresive approach would mean a lot of destruction and staking millions of lives.


We are capable enough to strenthen our Defence which will be simply impossible to be penetrated, at least not by Pakistan. Aren't we?

 

[Srinivas_K]

That is a good, long and aggressive speech. Though I am not sure whether India should go offensive without support from nations like America, Russia, Britain, France, Australia as their view on India's action will play a significant role in India's reliability and this image of peaceful civilization who has faced alot and worked really hard to get where it is along with belief in Gandhian methods coming from our cultural roots.

We lost a bit of our reputation when we acted with aggression to take Goa from coloniolist Portuguese that were already on downfall and posed no genuine threat to us. We got heavy criticism specially in US where the then president JF KENNEDY who used to see India most positively in the image of Gandhi spoke of India as " Preacher caught coming out of Brothel". We don't need that again.

They do deserve a proper warning and India must have all preparation in advance to justify its acts or we will suffering from our tempted acts of aggresion.

Also an aggresive approach would mean a lot of destruction and staking millions of lives.


We are capable enough to strenthen our Defence which will be simply impossible to be penetrated, at least not by Pakistan. Aren't we?

India is not eying any resources or territories of other countries. If India goes to war, it will be to defend its own people, territory and resources.

 

[SANITY]

India is not eying any resources or territories of other countries. If India goes to war, it will be to defend its own people, territory and resources.

India had already faced a bit of criticism for its added aggresion over recent ceasefire violation. Britain and America are in dillema about how should they go about Modi in Indian government. Don't we need to defend ourselves without offence? Don't we need to be careful about lives on the other side loses due to their lack of care for their own people?

 

[SANITY]

B4 commenting check Portuguese went to UN also they said they are legitimate owners and some west'n nations also supported them

Idiot One of the major reason for future wars is WATER

Who said BRITISH, who gave power to Brit's THEY ARE THEMSELVES ILLEGITIMATE RULERS.Why should indigenous kings obey them

Right point if I didn't misunderstand.

 

[ladder]

India had already faced a bit of criticism for its added aggresion over recent ceasefire violation. Britain and America are in dillema about how should they go about Modi in Indian government. Don't we need to defend ourselves without offence? Don't we need to be careful about lives on the other side loses due to their lack of care for their own people?

Who criticized? Time for you to come out of your veil and talk factually.

 

[Srinivas_K]

What is Police action from when police started invade.They are Indian Army dressed in Police and killed those mofo's.What is meaning of Nizam agreed...... do u think after killing their whole army is he have any choice

Nizam who is a sub ordinate of Mugals, he only need a small lathi to make him scare and run

Fake Martial race classified by british

 

[Srinivas_K]

-----------------------------

 

[Srinivas_K]

The agreement is between India, Britain and Pakistan

, typical cry baby :cool2:

Secondly, Portugese went to UN and might have said this

We have occupied Indian lands and persecuted lot of Christians and others in the name of Goan inquisitions and looted their wealth, please make us legitimate owners of the India lands, even though we came from foreign lands and converted local people

People who have no legitimate rights and are bound to loose will only resort to these provoke, complain and whining tactics

B4 commenting check Portuguese went to UN also they said they are legitimate owners and some west'n nations also supported them

Idiot One of the major reason for future wars is WATER

As I said earlier, Princely states are different, their princess are told to merge with either India or Pakistan............ Who said BRITISH, who gave power to Brit's THEY ARE THEMSELVES ILLEGITIMATE RULERS.Why should indigenous kings obey them

 

[ladder]

Let this kid whine and cry .... this is the breaking point of debate here, From here on there will be no logic since these questions are out of logic but

Err, please come again,

You feel the below questions don't need to be corroborated by @SANITY factually?

1. India had already faced a bit of criticism for its added aggresion over recent ceasefire violation.

2. Britain and America are in dillema about how should they go about Modi in Indian government.

3. Don't we need to defend ourselves without offence?

4. Don't we need to be careful about lives on the other side loses due to their lack of care for their own people?

================

Well I smell something here (above questions), which is definitely not a bleeding heart.

 

[SANITY]

Why should we care abt criticism from Brit&Umericans ................yup they are milky white record in Human Rights&Invading
Why should we care abt Paki's ........ are they cared 200 Indians lives in 26/11 and many more Blasts in India

I think Modi response is smooth in future u will see more MUSCULAR ....coz he already won Maha&haryana :thumb:

I am no Modi fan, maybe that is why and he seems like an actor but it's off topic so I will leave it right here. Though you might be right that we need not worry about them but we aren't planning to walk alone and should show a better sense in moral judgment.

 

[SANITY]

Who criticized? Time for you to come out of your veil and talk factually.

I certainly didn't mean an open criticism from an international stage but concern and guessings going on. I will have to find those articles again.

 

[Srinivas_K]

Err, please come again,

You feel the below questions don't need to be corroborated by @SANITY factually?

1. India had already faced a bit of criticism for its added aggresion over recent ceasefire violation.

2. Britain and America are in dillema about how should they go about Modi in Indian government.

3. Don't we need to defend ourselves without offence?

4. Don't we need to be careful about lives on the other side loses due to their lack of care for their own people?

================

Well I smell something here, which is definitely not a bleeding heart.

I replied to wrong post, the comment is not related to @SANITY posts, sorry !

 

[ladder]

I certainly didn't mean an open criticism from an international stage but concern and guessings going on. I will have to find those articles again.

Well I wouldn't go into someone's bedroom to check if they are criticizing or not.

Find those articles.

 

[Srinivas_K]

I am no Modi fan, maybe that is why and he seems like an actor but it's off topic so I will leave it right here. Though you might be right that we need not worry about them but we aren't planning to walk alone and should show a better sense in moral judgment.

A bollywood Hero ??

 

[SANITY]

Alright I will apologise and take back my comments on Modi and criticism of our aggression on loc.

I have found the articles but on re reading, it seems I might have misinterpreted.

Sorry again. but why was he banned in UK and US from entering?

Is there a button to delete comments unwanted by the one who posted?