Kashmir solution just a signature away: Kasuri

nandu

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
1,913
Likes
162
Kashmir solution just a signature away: Kasuri

LAHORE: Former foreign minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri has said the solution to the Kashmir dispute is just a signature away once India and Pakistan decide to pull the file from the rack.

While addressing the concluding session of the two-day seminar � held as part of the ongoing Aman ki Asha campaign, launched by the Jang Group and Times of India � and later talking to The News and the Times of India here on Friday, the former foreign minister revealed the previous Musharraf government had completed almost 90 per cent of the spadework on the half-a-century old Kashmir dispute by 2007 as the whole exercise just needed the formal signature of all the three parties to the issue - Pakistan, India and representatives of Kashmir.

�All India and Pakistan now need is to defreeze the process. The entire paper-work has been done. The copies of related documents are safe with some friendly countries as well,� said Kasuri.

Kasuri said that negotiators from Islamabad and New Delhi had quietly toiled away for three years, talking to each other and Kashmiri representatives from the Indian side as well as Kashmiris settled overseas to reach what he described as the �only possible solution to the Kashmir issue�.

He said the two sides had agreed to full demilitarisation of both Indian Kashmir as well as Azad Kashmir. In addition, a package of loose autonomy that stopped short of the azadi and self-governance aspirations, had been agreed on and was to be introduced on both sides of the disputed frontier. ``We agreed on a point between complete independence and autonomy,�� he said.

He said that hardliner Sayeed Ali Shah Gilani was the only Kashmiri leader who refused to come on board. ``He would accept nothing but merger with Pakistan, which ironically is something we too wanted but knew wasn�t practical. I once had a seven-to-eight hour meeting with him and even Musharraf met him but he refused to budge,�� Kasuri said. He refused to give details of the stance other moderate Kashmiri leaders adopted.

He said the former government had finalised the formula of giving independence to the Kashmiris like the one they had before the dispute surfaced in 1948. When Pakistan and India decided to engage the Kashmiri leadership, it made it clear the people of Kashmir would not settle for anything less than the kind of independence they had during the tenure of the maharaja before the partition. However, with the scenario changed altogether, and Pakistan and India having strategic compulsions against such an independence, the issue had to be worked out again on different lines�.

``Well, India and Pakistan had serious reservations over that kind of independence. So, it was decided let the Kashmiris have their homeland as desired by them, and Pakistan and India should roll a plan for gradual evacuation of the strategically important parts of the united Kashmir,�� the former foreign minister informed.

�It was also decided both the countries would gradually withdraw their forces from Indian and Pakistani held territories of Kashmir. We decided a nominal chunk of forces would be kept back in the strategically important areas of liberated Kashmir for sometime,�� he added.

Furthermore, Kasuri went on to say, Indian and Pakistani governments decided not to sell victories in their respective countries for avoiding a general public backlash in the other. `�It was a dicey situation in terms of political fallout of any solution back home in both the countries. If that exercise had to materialize, both the countries needed to tell their respective masses what actually had been done for breaking the status quo,�� Khursheed Kasuri said. He maintained it was very hard for making the public accept the achieved results either. So, at one point in time, it was decided to make the Line of Control (LoC) `irrelevant� so that the Kashmiris could be allowed to move freely across the Valley, using their ID cards.

He said: �The two nuclear neighbours were quite worried about the volatile situation in the region, especially around the LoC. There were insurgencies in both the countries. The freedom struggle in Indian-held Kashmir and the growing menace of terrorism in Pakistan were becoming a cause of serious concern for the two governments by the end of 2005. The Mumbai attack worked as a catalyst for finding an immediate solution to all issues, which had the potential of sparking a full-fledged armed conflict in the subcontinent�. Kasuri further explained both the countries just couldn�t afford any Mumbai-like attack in India as it would force them to retaliate at all costs.

He said the three-year long arduous efforts were rendered fruitless by the sudden emergence of the judiciary-executive row in 2006, which forced the Musharraf regime to put the matter on the backburner for the time being. Kasuri further revealed former president Pervez Musharraf had a possible signal from the Manmohan Singh government in early 2006 vis-�-vis formalizing the almost reached solution in August 2006. Or, if delay was inevitable, the announcement to this effect could be made by March 2007. However, Kasuri added, he suggested President Musharraf to hold the process back for a while as the political situation in Pakistan was not conducive for unveiling such a big plan, which had the popular sentiments involved to a great extent. As the media, the opposition, the people, especially the civil society and the lawyer community, resorted to opening afterburners against the former president in the aftermath of the judicial crisis, any initiative, however sincere and productive, by the government would be eyed with suspicion.

He said to soften public opinion before making this breakthrough public, India and Pakistan decided to resolve the Sir Creek issue. Indian PM Manmohan Singh was scheduled to come to Pakistan in 2006 for signing the settlement of the Sir Creek issue. However, the Indian government postponed the meeting in view of general elections in India the same year. The Sir Creek matter was put ahead of the already agreed agenda on Kashmir with the purpose to give more credibility to Indo-Pak endeavours. ``There was a usual perception that Pakistan and India just couldn�t resolve any mutual dispute through bilateral engagements,�� said the former foreign minister.

�By that time, Pakistan and India had already held over 15 informal meetings for chalking out a feasible plan to settle the dispute. In the latter part of the deliberations, both the countries realised the need for involving the crucial party to the conflict, the Kashmiris, in the ongoing negotiations. Apart from Indo-Pak meetings during the process, India and Pakistan held talks at various levels with the Kashmiri leadership. ``I had held covert meetings with the Kashmiri leadership even in other countries,�� Kasuri added. Meanwhile, a senior Indian official involved in the backdoor talks corroborated the statement of the former forign minister.

Kasuri was all praise for the Jang Group of Publications and the Times of India Group. He said only the media had the guts and the credibility to take such an initiative of warming the process again, which was a whisker away from glory. ``The media can make the difference at this point in time. If more credible media groups joined the cause, wonders could be done in near future. I hope these two media giants kept the momentum up for sometime till the respective audience realised the significance of peace in the region.�� Kasuri stressed the need for frequent media people movement across the border, which, he believed, would go miles in propelling this vital campaign.


http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28466
 

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,730
Nothing "out of the box" there as musharraf used to term it, since more or less majority in India has reclined to this kind of a pact but can such a deal be sold in pakistan, where people are all too emotional about the whole issue, fund terrorism in India by way of donations, and where these terrorists are idolized as heroes.

If this were to come to fructification, in fact the only viable solution and so I term Kashmir a "non-issue", in that case what happens to the resolution passed by the Indian parliament on a unified Kashmir under the Indian republic.

That said such a deal can certainly not be done under any non military government in Pakistan, or they will sold as traitors by the ever powerful pa and isi, so one has to wait for the next coup to happen, but if done then what happens to the pa/isi who mainly survive with an iron fist thanks to animosity with India, and once this deal is done they might have no other as relevant anti-india plank to sell back home to justify their large and strangle hold existence.

This will hold more relevance if musharraf was to divulge the whole deal, and the role played by the pa in getting it done, may be then a democratic setup can take it forward, otherwise it's a wait till the next coup in Pakistan.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,707
The information about this deal always comes from Pakistanis and never supported by claims from Indian establishment. More likely that this Kurshid guy is blabbering to stay in the news. How many times have we not heard about this time and again. I don't know why media keep meddling this BS again and again.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
720
well in india's case nothing can be bartered away in back door deal every resolution and deal has to go through parliament with 2/3rd vote.same thing happened in civil nuke deal.As pertain to kashmir first indian parliament has to deal with article 370 and the resolustion on POK as part of india passed under narashima rao's govt.Any indian govt. of the day just cant barter away kashmir in back door deal.Instead Manmohan shing govt was thinking about demilitarizing siachin on which general JJ singh fought tooth and nail when he said today if we vacate siachin what is the gurantee that pak army wont occupy it in future like they did in kargil.then it will be difficult to re-occupy it.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
105
Not sure how credible this is unless confirmed by his Indian counterparts.

As long as we are not talking about changing borders, I think India is fine with some extra autonomy. Of course all Kashmiri Pandits should return to their homes and all terrorist scum need to dispatched to hell.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
720
when todays govt cant even dare to present nuke liability bill and women reservation bill in loksabha for fear of being defeated how can they present the resolution on contentious issue like kashmir which itself goes againt the spirit of indian constitution.These are the lies spread by musharraf and his Former foreign minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri.Sure there were dicussion on kashmir in the period 2005-2008 and at that time muharaff was peddeling cenab formula for settleng the dispute and even manmohan singh accepted that there were discussion and there were agreement on some issues but he never confirmed that we were close to signing off.For pakistan it seems easy issue but its not it has to go through proper channwels of parliament and constitution which in pakistan always remain in suspended animation in last 62 yrs and it was re-written 7 times.

Pakistan is undoubtedly the most 'constitutionalized' country because Pakistan's Constitution has already been written seven times ! Very befitting the supposedly a 'stickler for constitutional propriety' Jinnah. That, it is as yet an unsatisfactory instrument is another matter, though. thats excluding the Constitutional Amendments that get passed every now and then that mutilate the very character and make wholesale changes almost amounting to a new Constitution, as just happened with the 18th Amendment.

1956 Constitution (The first two)
The first constitution was adopted on March 23, 1956, the day coinciding with the day of the Lahore Resolution demanding a separate nation on Mar. 23, 1940. The Constitution took so many years because the West Pakistanis feared that a Constitution would allow the majority East Pakistanis more say in governance and kept on delaying the matter. The First Prime Minister, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan's role in this was significant.

How the Constitution was created is another story by itself, as is anything in the Land of the Purest. The first Constituent Assembly lasted a little over seven years from Aug. 11, 1947 until Oct. 24, 1954. The Governor General Ghulam Mohammed dissolved the Constituent Assembly for lack of progress, though it was in the final stages, on Constitution making though the real reason was he did not like the Constitutional provisions circumscribing his own powers. Ever since that time, the tension between the Prime Minister and the President has persisted without a satisfactory resolution. Anyway, Ghulam Mohammed then convened an arbitrary Constituent Convention which drafted the second Constitution of Pakistan in 1956 and adopted on March 23, 1956.

The new constitution was based on the "Objectives Resolution" earlier adopted on Mar. 12, 1949, within six months of Jinnah's death and over the strong objections of the minorities, in the then Constituent Assembly. All Muslims voted for it and all non-Muslims voted against it and thus it was carried by a margin of 21 "for" and 10 "against". This was the polarisation that only became deeper as the years progressed. The "Objectives Resolution" was a set of Islamic ideals recommended by a group of ulemas formed expressly for that purpose by Liaquat Ali Khan. It said, among other things, "Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures; "

General Zia-ul Haq's innocuous-sounding Revival of the Constitution Order 14 of circa 1985 introduced an Annexure to the above which removed the word 'freely' by a sleight of hand.

The 1956 Constitution was abrogated by Gen. Ayub Khan on Oct. 7, 1958 with the imposition of Martial Law.

1962 Constitution (The next two)
Thus, the very first Constitution which was about to see light in circa 1954 that was abruptly dismissed by Ghulam Mohammed and the subsequent 1956 Constitution, second in the long list, that was abrogated by Ayub Khan, bit the dust. Ayub Khan then promised to draw up a new Constitution in keeping with the 'social and economic conditions' and by 'consulting the people and the best brains'. He then assembled another Constitution Committee which submitted its report to Ayub Khan on May 6, 1961. The Chief Martial Law Administrator, Gen Ayub Khan was again unhappy with the new Constitution and he summarily rejected that. He then formulated his own Constitution, The Fourth Constitution, which was then forced on the hapless nation in June, 1962.

In any case, Field Marshal Ayub Khan was not one to be too enamoured of democracy. Ayub Khan famously remarked in his radio address to the nation after deposing Iskander Mirza, "Democracy cannot work in a hot climate. To have democracy we must have a cold climate as in Britain."

Thus, two more Constitutions were drafted in Ayub's tenure. The Fourth Constitution of 1962 lasted a while, for as long as Ayub Khan was in power.

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Constitutions
Ayub Khan's Constitution, fourth in the illustrious list of Constitution drafting efforts, was later rescinded by Gen. Yahya Khan who usurped power from F.M. Ayub Khan . He introduced an Interim Presidential Constitution (!) in March, 1970 which thus became the country's fifth Constitution. Gen. Yahya Khan himself outlined the new Sixth Constitution on Dec. 16, 1971 even as his commander Gen. A.A.K. 'Tiger' Niazi and his 93000 troops were unconditionally surrendering to India in Dhaka. The Seventh Constitution was promulgated on Aug. 14, 1973 by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

Pakistan's Constitution

Introduction
Pakistan's constitution has been undermined by a pattern of military coups interspersed with short-lived civilian rule. Not until 1973 was a constitution written by a democratically elected assembly. Even following that, the document has been continually reshaped by coups and the wishes of powerful members of Pakistan's political elite. It has swung between a parliamentary form of democracy and one in which executive power rests with the president. In the latest of repeated moves to amend the document, in April 2010 Pakistan signed into law constitutional reforms (BBC) that transferred key powers from the president to the prime minister and the parliament. It also provided for greater autonomy to the provinces and extended fundamental rights to include right to education and information. The changes were demanded by the Pakistani public and the politicians as a reversal to measures taken by former military chief and president Pervez Musharraf.
Historical Context
Experts say some of Pakistan's main constitutional principles and controversies still stem from colonial times. At the time of its independence in August 1947, Pakistan inherited the Government of India Act of 1935 (PDF) as its constitutional model--a framework designed by a colonial power to govern a colony that provided for a strong central government, a bureaucracy dominated executive unanswerable to the legislature, and very limited representation with continuation of feudal domination over politics. Under this act, the head of the state was the governor-general and legislative functions were performed by the constituent assembly, which was tasked with enacting a new constitution. The governor-general had the power to appoint or dismiss ministers at his discretion as well as assume emergency power.
1956 Constitution: The constitution of Pakistan that came into existence on March 23, 1956, abolished the office of the governor-general and provided for power-sharing arrangements between the president and the prime minister. East Pakistan (now the independent state of Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (known as Pakistan since 1971) were to have equal seats in the national legislature. While parliamentary and federal in form, the constitution ensured that the president retained supreme powers and the center was more powerful than the provinces. But this constitution had a very short life. The country's first general elections were scheduled for February 1959, but President Iskandar Mirza, fearing a rise in East Pakistan's influence could undermine his hold on power, abrogated the constitution before the elections in 1958, establishing martial law and appointing army chief Ayub Khan as chief martial law administrator. This set a precedent for the military to assert itself into the country's political affairs. It also led to a pattern of takeovers, subversion of constitutional provisions, and a military-bureaucracy dominated executive that superseded the elected parliament.
1962 Constitution: A new constitution came into effect in 1962 which failed to include fundamental rights until the first amendment was made to it, granting the executive power to the president and abolishing the office of the prime minister. Most significantly, it institutionalized the intervention of military in politics by providing that for twenty years, the president or the defense minister must be a person who had held a rank not lower than that of lieutenant-general in the army.
In 1969, the 1962 constitution was suspended, martial law was declared, and General Yahya Khan took over. After the secession of East Pakistan to form the new state of Bangladesh, a new constitution was brought in 1973.
The 1973 Constitutional Framework
The 1973 Constitution was the first constitution to be framed by elected representatives in Pakistan.The 1973 constitution created a parliamentary form of democracy in which the executive power is concentrated in the office of the prime minister. It established the Pakistani president as the formal head of state, bound to act on the advice of the prime minister. The parliament consists of two houses--the national assembly and the senate. The Constitution also provides for four provincial governments and the distribution of legislative power between the federation and the provinces. Moeen Cheema, assistant professor of law and policy at Lahore University of Management Sciences, says that though the constitution provided for it, provincial autonomy was never really implemented by the 1973 constitution. He holds all military and civilian governments guilty on this charge.
The new constitution included an article (6) which stated anyone who now abrogated or attempted or conspired to abrogate or subvert the constitution shall be "guilty of high treason." It was an attempt to guard against the takeover of the state by future military rulers. This did not stop army chief General Zia ul-Haq from staging a coup, proclaiming martial law in 1977, holding the constitution in abeyance, and putting in its place a Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO). The PCO not only gave the military regime the right to rule but also the right to amend the constitution at will. The regime used this to fashion a new constitutional order for the post-martial law period. In 1985, the 1973 constitution was revived but an eighth amendment was introduced into the constitution that changed its basic structure and some of its essential features. It shifted the executive power from the office of the prime minister to that of the president and under article 58(2)(b) he was also given the right to dissolve the national assembly at his discretion. Experts say the amendment diminished provincial autonomy and created a weak legislature and a docile judiciary.
Article 58(2)(b) was used in the 1990s by the president to dismiss the elected governments of Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif on charges of corruption. Sharif, when he came to power a second time in 1997, abolished the article and instead gave the prime minister the power to dissolve the national assembly. When Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf deposed him in a coup in 1999, yet another phase of constitutional amendments began.
Military Rulers and the Constitution
Experts say there is a clear pattern to the military coups and the classic maneuvering that follows to give these coups legitimacy and strengthen the powers of the military rulers. Tracing it from the first military takeover to the most recent one (in 1999 by Musharraf), Cheema says the army chiefs take six important steps. They co-opt the bureaucracy; use accountability against politicians; entrench the army in political and civil affairs; create a new breed of politicians subservient to them under the guise of local government reform; hold elections to create some sort of democratic legitimacy; and finally move to co-opt the judiciary.

Role of the Judiciary
As this Backgrounder points out, Pakistan's courts and judges are cast as protectors of the constitution in a separation-of-powers system. In many circumstances, however, they have found it expedient or necessary to accommodate constitutional changes or unconstitutional maneuvers by Pakistan's leaders. They have done so either because they thought this was essential to their own survival or that of the state.
Legal history expert Tayyab Mahmud writes in Utah Law Review that while the successive constitutional crises that confronted the Pakistani courts were not of their own making, "the doctrinally inconsistent, judicially inappropriate and politically timid responses fashioned by the courts ultimately undermined constitutional governance." The refusal of the Chief Justice and twelve other Supreme Court judges to sign Musharraf's decision to suspend the constitution and rule by decree in November 2007, for the first time, brought the judiciary and the executive in direct confrontation with each other.
Musharraf's Legacy
Musharraf's 1999 coup, declaration of emergency, and creation of a PCO were also validated by the Supreme Court on the basis of the doctrine of state necessity. The PCO barred any court from making any order against the Chief Executive (Musharraf) or calling into question the emergency. The Supreme Court gave Musharraf the authority to amend the constitution and three years to hold general elections. In 2002, Musharraf engineered a controversial referendum which elected him as president for five years. The referendum also put in place a legal framework order which, through article 58(2)(b), restored power in the president to dissolve the national assembly at his discretion.
Musharraf was reelected in October 2007 in another controversial election. The following month, he declared another state of emergency, suspended the constitution (which had been amended through the legal framework order), and brought in another PCO. This time the PCO targeted the judiciary and the media. As per the constitutional provision, a presidential ordinance in Pakistan can only be effective for four months unless it is approved by parliament or is reissued. Human rights activist I.A. Rehman writes "the extra-constitutional regimes have developed a tradition of exempting ordinances issued while the constitution is in abeyance." Therefore, he says, the ordinances issued by General Musharraf between October 1999 and November 2002 are not subject to the lapse rule even though they never received the parliament's approval. These include the two ordinances that amended the basic media laws barring the use of any material which defames or brings into ridicule the Head of State, or members of the armed forces, or executive, legislative or judicial organs of the state. "A more draconian curb on the freedom of expression cannot be imagined," writes Rehman.
Under an amendment to the 1952 Army Act, the military can now try civilians for a wide range of offenses previously under the country's judiciary. "The military is Pakistan's principal human rights abuser, yet Musharraf has changed the law so that it can play judge, jury, and executioner," says Ali Dayan Hasan, a South Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch. Another decree has ended the independence of the Pakistani Bar Association. Hasan sharply criticizes the move as politically motivated: "This is a despicable attempt to end political opposition by threatening the livelihoods of government critics."
Constitutional Reforms
In April 2010, Pakistan adopted comprehensive reforms through the passing of the eighteenth amendment that restored many of the provisions of the 1973 constitution. It limited the powers of the president and restored power to the provinces. It reversed constitutional changes made by former military chief and president Pervez Musharraf by transferring presidential powers to the parliament and the prime minister, including the rights to dissolve an elected parliament and to appoint military chiefs. Even as analysts welcomed the amendment's promise of devolution of powers from the center to the provinces, most believed distribution of revenues from natural resources between central government and the provinces may be challenging to implement (Dawn).
Still, the constitutional reforms may not prevent future military coups. Washburn University's Ali Khan says, "Constitutional violations will continue to occur until two things happen: Political elites behave within the rule of law, and armed forces decide not to intervene." Here, Khan says, the answer may lie with a resistant judiciary that refuses to ratify a military coup, as seen with the emergency proclaimed by Musharraf in 2007.

Moreover any pak govt. of the day never respects the treaties and resolutions signed by previous govt. case in point is the recent denial by pakistani foreign minister shah mahmood qureshi about having any knowledge about Musharraf governments deal on kashmir.

Qureshi, Kasuri not on same page
ISLAMABAD – Who is at fault, the incumbent Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi or the former one Khurshid Kasuri? TheNation was confused on Monday after the two top guns issued two contradicting statements regarding developments on the Kashmir issue between the two neighbours, Pakistan and India.
Foreign Minister Qureshi had denied of any progress made on the Kashmir issue during the past several years. While former Foreign Minister Kasuri strongly reacted to Qureshi's statement on Monday and claimed that a remarkable development was made on this burning issue.
Talking to TheNation from London on Monday, Khurshid Kasuri, a key member of Musharraf-led government, confirmed that India and Pakistan had almost reached a settlement over the Kashmir issue after a series of back-channel talks during the Musharraf-led government.
"President Asif Zardari, according to my knowledge, was aware of the details of the back-channel diplomacy and the Presidency has the related record of the details regarding talks on the Kashmir issue," he confirmed.
"It might be a total disconnection between the Presidency and the Foreign Office over the issue. How is this possible that a Foreign Minister of Pakistan is not in knowledge of this issue of much importance between India and Pakistan?" Kasuri wondered.
"If the Presidency has the record, normally the Foreign Office should have an access to it if it is related to the foreign policy of Pakistan. Moreover, it would be fair assumption that the Presidency would share the details with the Foreign Minister," he added.
This correspondent couldn't contact Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi despite repeated attempts for getting his remarks on this issue. Even a text message was dropped at his cell phone requesting to call back, however, the Minister did not bother to answer till filing of this report.
It is pertinent to mention here that both India and Pakistan are expected to resume talks this month with special focus on the issues of Kashmir and terrorism.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,322
Likes
11,632
Country flag
When ever we talk of J&K its only kashmir that we talk about. What about gilgit baltistan, those are indian territories held by pakistan. Why doesnt that come up on the discussion table?
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
720
When ever we talk of J&K its only kashmir that we talk about. What about gilgit baltistan, those are indian territories held by pakistan. Why doesnt that come up on the discussion table?

Kashmir Resolution In Indian Parliament
The Indian Government has to take into consideration the Indian Parliament Special Resolution on Kashmir of 1994 (unanimously passed) that the territorial integrity of Kashmir is nonnegotiable. If this stands unchanged then the Indian government has very little leeway for a flexible approach towards Hurriyat.

The Resolution was unanimously adopted and unanimously passed on February 22, 1994. It reads: This House note with deep concern Pakistan's role in imparting training to the terrorists in camps located in Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, the supply of weapons and funds, assistance in infiltration of trained militants, including foreign mercenaries into Jammu and Kashmir with the avowed purpose of creating disorder, disharmony and subversion:

Reiterates that the militants trained in Pakistan are indulging in murder, loot and other heinous crimes against the people, taking them hostage and creating an atmosphere of terror;

Condemns strongly the continued support and encouragement Pakistan is extending to subversive and terrorist activities in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir;

Calls upon Pakistan to stop forthwith its support to terrorism, which is in violation of the Simla Agreement and the internationally accepted norms of inter-State conduct and is the root cause of tension between the two countries reiterates that the Indian political and democratic structures and the Constitution provide for firm guarantees for the promotion and protection of human rights of all its citizens;

Regard Pakistan's anti-India campaign of calumny and falsehood as unacceptable and deplorable.

Notes with deep concern the highly provocative statements emanating from Pakistan urges Pakistan to refrain from making statements which vitiate the atmosphere and incite public opinion;

Expresses regret and concern at the pitiable conditions and violations of human rights and denial of democratic freedoms of the people in those areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which are under the illegal occupation of Pakistan;

On behalf of the People of India,

Firmly declares that-

(a) The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means;

(b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity;

and demands that -

(c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression; and resolves that -

(d) All attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely.
"
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,280
This guy has not farted from a long time he has done now.............
 

Quickgun Murugan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
778
Likes
20
The information about this deal always comes from Pakistanis and never supported by claims from Indian establishment. More likely that this Kurshid guy is blabbering to stay in the news. How many times have we not heard about this time and again. I don't know why media keep meddling this BS again and again.
Not sure how credible this is unless confirmed by his Indian counterparts.

As long as we are not talking about changing borders, I think India is fine with some extra autonomy. Of course all Kashmiri Pandits should return to their homes and all terrorist scum need to dispatched to hell.

I for one strongly believe that its true. Former foreign secretary Mani Shankar Iyer too conforms with this in a recent interview to Pakistani channel. Indian establishment is too scared to reveal any kashmir developments as any compromise regarding this issue will become a huge political issue in parliament.

India for one is better off with the current status quo position.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
720
Mani Shanker (Ex. Indian Ambassador) Special with Najam Sethi
Najam Sethi - Mani Shankar Aiyar video talks about ManMohan Singh and Geelani walking hand in hand to accept the Nobel piss prize. He is open about what MMS and Mushy had agreed to. It was not against the parliament resolution regarding the status of J&K, BUT CERTAINLY AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THAT RESOLUTION.One thing to note is that mani shankar iyer is the biggest peacenick in congress.He was hell bent on completeing IPI line when he was petroleum minister in last UPA govt,but had to be removed under usa pressure on iran and nuke deal.




 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quickgun Murugan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
778
Likes
20
I was referring to above conversation only. Mani Shankar is the worst thing to happen to us as foreign sec. Manmohan could hardly tacle Sharam el Sheik, forget Mr Iyer's ambitious steps. Indian people need to be prepared before such mammoth decisions get made else the govt. will be crushed under pressure.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top