[QUOTE=SADIA SHAFIQ;705942]
According to me Kashmir should be made buffer independent state so it may control its own resources .It will definitely solved the issue because the new state may sign agreements regarding water diversion and damming .It will bring prosperity in the region of Kashmir and tourism industry will also flourish due to its ever green alluring natural scenes .It will strengthen internal stability in Pakistan and increase trade between regional countries.In order to save Baluchistan and Gilagat Baltistan area , the resolution of Kashmir conflict is needed direly[/QUOTE]

AoA

You have your own logic for solution of theis issue. But as far as I interrupt, the issue should be solved as per the legal and logical interpretations caused during the partition of British India into India and Pakistan. If we see the partitition plan and its consequent events as a whole, then we must not close our eye from the fact that Kashmir should be part of Pakistan because of its contiguity, will of majority population and historical links. :)) .

You should not overlook the historical context of the issue. Thank you.

Regards

[QUOTE=Muhammad T S Awan;705959]AoA

You have your own logic for solution of theis issue. But as far as I interrupt, the issue should be solved as per the legal and logical interpretations caused during the partition of British India into India and Pakistan. If we see the partitition plan and its consequent events as a whole, then we must not close our eye from the fact that Kashmir should be part of Pakistan because of its contiguity, will of majority population and historical links. :)) .

You should not overlook the historical context of the issue. Thank you.

Regards[/QUOTE]

What is legitimate or legal thing: history, UN Security Council resolution, contiguity, demographics, shimla Agreement and Lahore declaration?

I did not overlooked history rather emphasized on it by promoting basic human rights and democracy.


History says that Raja Hari Singh sold that state, but history always ignored Janagrh , Ferooz pur and zeera tehseel ; these provide a gate to enter in this Valley . We had ignored the ‘’polo operation ‘’ in Hyderbad state. No one look over the issue Nizam wanted to accede with Pakistan. We gave our hands deliberately to others and now claimed , ‘’please follow what history says , what UN says , what international community says , what Pakistan`s government says , what Army says ; but we have never said , what Kashmiri People wanted/ what they says ! What is their basic right?


But let me check the history: the UN Security Council says that conflict of Kashmir should be solved according to the will of these people. If they want independence, let them be and if they want to accede then it would be done according to plebiscite and this is what I have said and emphasized on their basic right to become a free nation and get rid from the shackles of slavery. I have told demographics as well which is reported by BBC.


I have given my opinion and you have the right to do so .But doing so we should stay for human rights rather on our interests. Kahsmir will never accede to Pakistan unless there would be a military intervention or the political parties of Kashmir wanted to do so. But Political parties are divided into two factions: one want an independent state, other wanted accession with Pakistan .Military intervention is out of chance. We have always been holding same rigid stance that Kashmir is our jugular vein and integral part.For bearing such stance we had to suffer a lot , now we have other fears like Baluchistan issue , separatism in Balatistan , terrorism in KPK and all of us knew the root causes of sepratism and terrorism . We want conflicts should be solved on tables but how ? It should be through bargain and negotiations . We want balkanization of Pakistan or Kashmir ?

[QUOTE=SADIA SHAFIQ;705992]
But let me check the history: the UN Security Council says that conflict of Kashmir should be solved according to the will of these people. If they want independence, let them be and if they want to accede then it would be done according to plebiscite and this is what I have said and emphasized on their basic right to become a free nation and get rid from the shackles of slavery. I have told demographics as well which is reported by BBC.


I have given my opinion and you have the right to do so .But doing so we should stay for human rights rather on our interests. Kahsmir will never accede to Pakistan unless there would be a military intervention or the political parties of Kashmir wanted to do so. But Political parties are divided into two factions: one want an independent state, other wanted accession with Pakistan .Military intervention is out of chance. We have always been holding same rigid stance that Kashmir is our jugular vein and integral part.For bearing such stance we had to suffer a lot , now we have other fears like Baluchistan issue , separatism in Balatistan , terrorism in KPK and all of us knew the root causes of sepratism and terrorism . We want conflicts should be solved on tables but how ? It should be through bargain and negotiations . We want balkanization of Pakistan or Kashmir ?[/QUOTE]

I) A Plebiscite is usually having two questions, Yes or No in this case, India or Pakistan.. At that time, it was naturally for two options, either join Pakistan or join India, there was no option of independence ( i feel :cr)

II) Why not balkanization of India :thinking . As per a report, last year, maximum number of bomb blasts were not in Pakistan, Iraq or even in Afghanistan . They were in India esp its North Eastern part but media makes the stories ;) .

Note: You may like to have a look at following documents to see wthere there was an option of independence or not, they had to choose between Pakistan or India

[url]https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/sasia.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.kashmirlibrary.org/kashmir_timeline/kashmir_chapters/plebiscite.shtml[/url]

Regards

[QUOTE=Muhammad T S Awan;709141]I) A Plebiscite is usually having two questions, Yes or No in this case, India or Pakistan.. At that time, it was naturally for two options, either join Pakistan or join India, there was no option of independence ( i feel :cr)

II) Why not balkanization of India :thinking . As per a report, last year, maximum number of bomb blasts were not in Pakistan, Iraq or even in Afghanistan . They were in India esp its North Eastern part but media makes the stories ;) .

Note: You may like to have a look at following documents to see wthere there was an option of independence or not, they had to choose between Pakistan or India

[url]https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/sasia.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.kashmirlibrary.org/kashmir_timeline/kashmir_chapters/plebiscite.shtml[/url]

Regards[/QUOTE]
Its a long debate ..Thanks for your opinion .Just one thing we can not force people to accede but we should encourage independence .They are slave since British rule.I must encourage what Kashmir`s leader says :



[I][CENTER]Mirwaiz said, “When the world community can play an active role in solving Kosovo, Sudan and East Timor like issue, why not the same with Kashmir? The international community should initiate serious steps to solve the dispute for once and all”.[/CENTER]
[/I]

[I][CENTER]“Being a lucrative market for the world business, India was emerging as an important destination for many countries who have their economic interests attached to the nation. Despite this reality, it should not be ignored that Kashmir issue was the main source of tension between the two nuclear armed countries, India and Pakistan from Past many decades,” he said.[/CENTER][/I]


[URL="http://www.risingkashmir.com/mirwaiz-seeks-kosovo-like-solution-for-kashmir/"]http://www.risingkashmir.com/mirwaiz-seeks-kosovo-like-solution-for-kashmir/[/URL]


& go for it

[URL="http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article49862"]http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article49862[/URL]

[CENTER][I]
The movement for independence of the entire state is mainly supported by Kashmiris who inhabit the more populous Kashmir Valley and who would like both India and Pakistan to vacate the areas they are occupying. They base their claim on the fact that the state was formerly an independent princely state, is geographically larger than at least 68 countries of the United Nations, and more populous than 90
[/I]

[I]
The movement for independence in the Kashmir Valley gained momentum in the late 1980s when Kashmiris protested against their continuing allegiance to the Indian Union. In the present day, if a regional plebiscite offered independence as an option, it is possible that the majority of Kashmiris would vote in favour of independence.

With an approximate land mass of 1,800 square miles (80 miles long, 20 to 25 miles wide) it is much larger than Monaco and Liechtenstein – but only one-tenth of the size of Bhutan. Whether or not the rest of the state retained its current political affiliations, many Kashmiris therefore believe that the valley could be viable in its own right.

In terms of livelihood, the valley could sustain itself through tourism, handicrafts and agriculture.

But an independent Kashmir Valley would also need to retain good relations with its neighbours in order to survive economically. Not only is the region landlocked, but it is snowbound during winter.

An independent Kashmir Valley would have the advantage of giving neither Pakistan nor India a victory out of their longstanding dispute. But although Pakistan might favour the creation of an independent Kashmir Valley, India would be unlikely to agree to the loss of territory involved.[/I][/CENTER]





[URL="news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/6.stm"]news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/6.stm[/URL]

[QUOTE=Muhammad T S Awan;709141]

II) Why not balkanization of India :thinking . As per a report, last year, maximum number of bomb blasts were not in Pakistan, Iraq or even in Afghanistan . They were in India esp its North Eastern part but media makes the stories ;) .



Regards[/QUOTE]

1.As per report no Indian state/province has filed an application in US Congress for a separate state . Who did it you knew ! (Baluchistan )

2.As far as experience is concerned : India did not loose any piece of land . We lost East Pakistan .

3.There is bombings /conflicts in North eastern belt leading towards south because of various issue in India . I do not want to elongate but hats off to SiriLanKan `s army who saved itself from Tamils .Now leading South Asia in education field .

4. What about Siachin our army is so poor in fact India have occupied the top of siachin galciers and our army has just feet of it before Siachin avalanche!

[QUOTE=SADIA SHAFIQ;705992]What is legitimate or legal thing: history, UN Security Council resolution, contiguity, demographics, shimla Agreement and Lahore declaration?

I did not overlooked history rather emphasized on it by promoting basic human rights and democracy.


History says that Raja Hari Singh sold that state, but history always ignored Janagrh , Ferooz pur and zeera tehseel ; these provide a gate to enter in this Valley . We had ignored the ‘’polo operation ‘’ in Hyderbad state. No one look over the issue Nizam wanted to accede with Pakistan. We gave our hands deliberately to others and now claimed , ‘’please follow what history says , what UN says , what international community says , what Pakistan`s government says , what Army says ; but we have never said , what Kashmiri People wanted/ what they says ! What is their basic right?


But let me check the history: the UN Security Council says that conflict of Kashmir should be solved according to the will of these people. If they want independence, let them be and if they want to accede then it would be done according to plebiscite and this is what I have said and emphasized on their basic right to become a free nation and get rid from the shackles of slavery. I have told demographics as well which is reported by BBC.


I have given my opinion and you have the right to do so .But doing so we should stay for human rights rather on our interests. Kahsmir will never accede to Pakistan unless there would be a military intervention or the political parties of Kashmir wanted to do so. But Political parties are divided into two factions: one want an independent state, other wanted accession with Pakistan .Military intervention is out of chance. We have always been holding same rigid stance that Kashmir is our jugular vein and integral part.For bearing such stance we had to suffer a lot , now we have other fears like Baluchistan issue , separatism in Balatistan , terrorism in KPK and all of us knew the root causes of sepratism and terrorism . We want conflicts should be solved on tables but how ? It should be through bargain and negotiations . We want balkanization of Pakistan or Kashmir ?[/QUOTE]

Sorry to interrupt but let me tell you something about Kashmir issue: Our stand on Kashmir is about to correct history and Kashmir's status is just like Crimea in Ukraine but, unfortunately, in our case we've got a powerful rival (India) than was the case with Russia. So that's why we're dependent upon UN and International Community (US & EU). Moreover, no matter how you approach the Kashmir problem, the stand of Pakistan would seem plausible and just. Regards

[QUOTE=SADIA SHAFIQ;709241]Its a long debate ..Thanks for your opinion .Just one thing we can not force people to accede but we should encourage independence .
[URL="http://www.risingkashmir.com/mirwaiz-seeks-kosovo-like-solution-for-kashmir/"]http://www.risingkashmir.com/mirwaiz-seeks-kosovo-like-solution-for-kashmir/[/URL]


& go for it

[URL="http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article49862"]http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article49862[/URL]

[CENTER][I]
The movement for independence in the Kashmir Valley gained momentum in the late 1980s when Kashmiris protested against their continuing allegiance to the Indian Union. In the present day, if a regional plebiscite offered independence as an option, it is possible that the majority of Kashmiris would vote in favour of independence.

[URL="news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/6.stm"]news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/6.stm[/URL][/QUOTE]

i) Mirwaiz did not say for an independent Kashmir. He said solution of the problem by UN, as UN solved the other issues. Solution as per the wishes of the people. But you cannot make an opinion by reading some articles at BBC or CNN that many Kashmiris want independent. Its same like we cannot make opinion merely reading New York times reports that Pakistan was fostering OBL.
ii) Sudan problem has nothing to do with the problem of Kashmir except for the fact that UN intervened and solved it. It was not having major players like India and Pakistan.
iii). Please read again for the plebiscite things, its usually having two options say for Crimia, accede with Russia or remain with Ukraine etc...
iv) Kashmir issue is having its own historical background. My point is simple, the issue must be resolved as per aspirations of the people, but not overlooking to the ground realities at the time of issue i.e. 1947 that includes the legal points stemming out of the partition plan. As per ground realities, not a single state got independence though Hyderabad state tried for it and India captured it.
v) You must also read for its geographical context, and binding factors. The region is also not homogenous, its not a single entity, it is having various races, cultures, religions and so on and you cannot make it whole as a one party.
vi). Now, there is another player of the issue as well, the holder of Aksai Chin :) :laugh:
vii). Further, from examination point of view, you cannot bluntly express your opinion like this. You may have an opinion and you may hold it, but you cannot forego the historical context and ground realities. Not a single authentic survey has been done in that part of world which can support your point of view. :con

Regards