Let's not be too certain about things! And just to prove oneself as liberal and the middle choice holder, its not necessary to put whole blame on Pakistan.

India invaded Hyderabad, Junagadh, Bilaspur and travencore, and they softly took Sikkim, and let's not forget about the military Operation Vijay of Goa, would you blame Pakistan and its Mujahidden for them as well? And after knowing about all these invasions of states, do you still think Indian would have NO INTENTION of invading Kashmir at all, had we not started the issue?

Not even a single Kashmiri want to stay with either Pakistan or India, so its better to declare it a free state and to end up the Indo Pak rivalry.

Yes! we should not put whole blame on Pakistan about other states but with Kashmir this is the case.
India invaded Hyderabad on 13 September 1948. Junagarh was occupied by India on 9 Nov 1947. Pakistan attacked Kashmir on 4th October, 1947 and Indian army landed on 27th Oct, 1947. Pakistan might have anticipated Indian intentions but do you know how it has divided Kashmiri families? The problem with us is that we always analyze Kashmir in either Pakistan's context or India's. If you ever get an opportunity to go and stand at the bank of river Neelum on Titwal crossing point and see how many mothers have become blind on the one side of river without having glimpses of their children who were divided by LOC.

__________________
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness

those mothers who were blinded for their children are no more now. the generation has changed now. its better to leave the matter and let the Kashmiris decide of their own future.

But some grandmas are still alive and they comes on the other side and feel she can see their children, I've witnessed it and experienced as well being a grandson of one of those. Leaving matter in hands of Kashmiris demands high degree of political and moral capacity which India and Pakistan lack.

__________________
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness

I am not a student of law, but I have a strong feeling that there was no legal requirement of referendum for accession of any princely state!

It is often said that the decision of Maharaja was made to pacify majority of his Muslim subjects for the time being. Pakistan did not invade it over night, the circumstances at Junagadh (when it signed an instrument of accession with Pakistan in September, 1947) That was become a part of Pakistan but hue & cry /strong opposition by India against it compelled Pakistan to take some action, though it is also said that neither Quaid-e-Azam was in faovur of such a war nor Pakistan had enough resources to launch any war, because her defense and economical resources were stopped/captured by India right after independence because she wanted Pakistan to succumb at very initial years... And initially that was a war of liberation lead by ex-Kashmiri Muslim soldiers from Northern Areas (Col Hassan Khan etc) which caught attention of Muslims living in Kashmir and Muslims of tribal areas to help their brethren and that was early October and India was watching the scene cautiously and asked the Maharajja to sign instrument of accession and such a request was made by Mahajja on October 26, 1947 and it was readily accepted by Governor General Indian and already dressed up Indian army near Kashmir border started offense on very next day i.e. October 27, 1947.

Further, the Hyderabad state also wanted to remain independent but was opposed and crushed by India....

Yes there was a choice for states to remain independent but by 1949 all such states were galloped except Sikkim, which was also later on annexed by shinning India.

Yes it was 7.5 million.

Yes, it was cause of Kashmir, it is said that during 1962 Sino-Indian War, some Chinese diplomat proposed Pakistan to get Kashmir as India had taken Junagadh , Munawadh and Hyderabad etc. But Pakistan did not do and later on there were a couple of operations in August 1965 which lead to a full scale war in 1965.

Yes neither India nor Pakistan agreed to take out forces out of Kashmir due to obvious reasons that if Pakistan to withdraw first India will capture it and in case India will withdraw first, Pakistan will capture it.. Further, India knew that in case of any plebiscite she will not have chance of winning it otherwise she would certainly had done such a plebiscite at Kashmir as she did at Junagadh.

It is not basis of my requirement rather it is as per the norms/legality and aspirations of Kashmiri people at that time which made a strong case for accession of Kashmir to Pakistan. At this point of time, ground realities have tremendously been changed but at per Kashmir of 1947, the majority was willing to be part of Pakistan.

We can just have a general idea of some of major conflict states; as per that independence formula, a princely state is having three options i) to remain independent ii) to accede to India iii) to accede to Pakistan. For exercising second or third option, the country had to take into consideration its communal factor and contiguity/geographical linkages.

Junagadh; accedes to Pakistan because its leader was Muslim, and it can take link to Pakistan through sea. Pakistan accepts the request and it is now part of Pakistan. India attacks it and says its majority of population is not Muslim so it should be part of India. After some months, India also holds a plebiscite to make its action justified. Request of Pakistan to UN against such attack never been taken further. [events started in September (16 or 17 Sept) 1947 and completed on 9 November, 1947]

Hyderabad: A big and economically viable state with around 46-48 % Muslim population, and its Nawab says it want to remain independent, but invaded by India on the plea that its majority is non-Muslim and its geographically intact by India. [events range from August 1947 to September 1948]

Kashmir: 77% population is Muslim, geographically attached by Pakistan, linked with India through Gurdaspur by verdict of Boundary Commission of Redcliffe. Its leader, having fear of mutiny by its subjects, says he want to keep independent status of the state. Later mutiny is started and he make a formal request on October 26 and very next day India attacks and battle is started). India went to UN and UN decides for a plebiscite but the action was delayed etc. If India had been serious of plebiscite she could had simply asked the UN observers to do it, but India had a fear that it might result in a failure for her, she did not carry with any such thing and constitutionally made her part.

On the other hand, Pakistan has neither made Kashmir nor Gilgit Baltistan as its constitutional part and gave greater autonomy in shape of Interim Constitution to AJ&K whereby its own legislative assembly works and it has its own administrative structure of policy and district administration etc etc.

Only 38-40 total Kashmir of that time is held by Pakistan while remaining is with India, mean one part is with Pakistan and two parts are with India.

One can see the reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Commission that what freedom and liberty is enjoyed by people in Indian side of the Kashmir.!

The conditions at AJ&K and GB are not too good in comparison to other provinces of the country and especially people of GB had been to Supreme Court for getting much for them as could be enjoyed as a formal part of Pakistan. There may be development in Indian side possibly because of the reason that it is a state of India and get proper budgeting and administrative structure etc.

Moreover, there is a good number of missing persons in Indian Kashmir, which have reportedly been shot dead by Indian Army.

As stated above, Pakistan's military involvement in Kashmir might had been something linked with the events at Junagadh which had formally been annexed with Pakistan on perhaps September 16/17 1947, quite before then any trouble started at Kashmir! There were a much greater number of mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers killed by ruthless Sikhs and Hindus during partition. Perhaps as per Human Rights Commission there are thousands of Kashmiris killed by Indians during last 20 years only..

You are right, Indians are not too naive. They had captured many states and they have lot of ingress in Nepal as well and they have passed a law whereby they can capture /arrest any person even from inside the territory of Nepal on suspecting of terrorism/spying etc.

Dear this is not only the water game, it links upto Central Asia as well as often linked with the part of a game to contain fast developing China.

__________________
'Thee woh ik shakhs kay tasawar saay - abb woh ranayee khayal kahaan'

Just a couple of clarifications:
My meaning of 2 parts was on the bases of legal and political status of parts of Kashmir i.e Indian Occupied Kashmir, AJK and GB(controlled by Pak).
Reports of amnesty International are credible and I don not put a question mark on these, this is a fact which we know and accept but I want to remove the intentional, systematic and mysterious dust from the other side of picture as well. I simply ask about social, political and economic condition of AJK and GB. In AJK you can not contest Election for local assembly if you do not accept the term of accession to Pakistan , KH Khursheed's elected government was overturned by Ayoub Khan as he called for recognition of AJK government as a ‘revolutionary provisional successor government’ of deposed Dogra ruler of Jammu and Kashmir with a freehand to take the freedom movement to its logical end.
Afterwards, he had to face imprisonment in infamous Palandari and Dalai jails as well. Situation in GB is not different, for 60 years they were treated like Bermuda Triangle.
I have the opportunity to be in all three parts of Kashmir and I can bet on the difference of development.
History can not be written only on the bases of assumptions and comparisons but lets move forward.... My basic question is whosoever started the issue whatsoever have been the relations and legalities in the past, why has Kashmir issue now become just an old book in the shelf? You may not see a war between India and Pakistan as they have attained some degree of Deterrence. They have other fish to fry. They might have lost the interest in Kashmir as they have learned to sustain without their jugular vein. But why do we forget there is a nation that needs identity, be it Indian, Pakistan or Kashmiri they want to get rid of this stained tag of Disputed territory. They need recognition no matter if it is just a province or a sovereign state. Kashmiris ask a question who are they? If neither of the India or Pakistan is able to satisfy them with answer it should be left to them.

__________________
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness

1. Then there was another political region Ladakh as well, mean 2+2 . Anyways..

2. British journalist James Buchan "In the years since 1990, the Kashmiri Muslims and the Indian government have conspired to abolish the complexities of Kashmiri civilization. The world it inhabited has vanished: the state government and the political class, the rule of law, almost all the Hindu inhabitants of the valley, alcohol, cinemas, cricket matches, picnics by moonlight in the saffron fields, schools, universities, an independent press, tourists and banks. In this reduction of civilian reality, the sights of Kashmir are redefined: not the lakes and Mogul gardens, or the storied triumphs of Kashmiri agriculture, handicrafts and cookery, but two entities that confront each other without intermediary: the mosque and the army camp. ”

This may be the one reason of development by India on Indian side of Kashmir. The second reason is of course a state /province status by India for Kashmir and lot of development funds etc.

3. Dear parliamentary democracy was started in AJ&K in 1970s, and an Interim Constitution of 1974 was promulgated for Legislative Assembly in Kashmir, whose preamble states ''................. WHEREAS the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is yet to be determined in accordance with the freely expressed will of the people of the State through the democratic method of free and fair plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations as envisaged in the UNCIP Resolutions adopted from time to time; AND WHEREAS a part of the territories of the State of Jammu and Kashmir already liberated by the people are known for the time being as Azad Jammu and Kashmir;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to provide for the better Government and
administration of Azad Jammu and Kashmir until such time as the status of Jammu and Kashmir is determined as aforesaid and for that purpose to repeal and re-enact the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government Act, 1970, with certain modifications;
AND WHEREAS in the discharge of its responsibilities under the UNCIP
Resolutions, the Government of Pakistan has approved of the proposed repeal and reenactment of the said Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government Act, 1970, and authorized the president of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to introduce the present Bill in the Legislative Assembly of Azad Jammu and Kashmir for consideration and passage..'

4. Brother, unlike India, Pakistan has not grabbed the Kashmir and has left it to be decided by the wishes of its people. Though under control of Pakistan - as also necessitated under UN Resolutions - AJK is a self-governing state and is not constitutionally part of Pakistan. It has parliamentary democracy having its own chosen legislature, P.M, President, its own High Court, anthem, flag, judiciary and its AJK Council controls its financial matters including taxes and budgets, so the political Government of AJ&K is responsible for all development works as well.... Nevertheless, there are development issues in provinces of Pakistan and they are quite drastic because of lack of interest by the political leadership, who are more interested in filling their own pockets instead of thinking for the masses.

5. Dear, do not be too hypothetical to term any thing like Bermuda ... GB has not been made a part of proper Pakistan through constitution and there are serious issues at various levels... And it has not been made a part due to the cause of Kashmir, Pakistan wants to give it autonomy/decisions to be taken by the will of its people . Hope you be able to see official statements at various bureaucratic levels at various Ministries including stance at Ministry of Foreign Affairs.. .............And as stated above, development problems are everywhere in Pakistan, one can find issues even at the capital of the country, that is more linked to the will of administrators...

6. These are not mere assumptions dear, have a look at the BBC one article linked in its South Asia section and linked to historical issues of Kashmir issue;

"Exactly when Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession has been hotly debated for over 50 years. Official Indian accounts state that in the early hours of the morning of 26 October, Hari Singh fled from Srinagar, arriving in Jammu later in the day, where he was met by V P Menon, representative of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and signed the Instrument of Accession.

On the morning of 27 October, Indian troops were airlifted into Srinagar.

Recent research, from British sources, has indicated that Hari Singh did not reach Jammu until the evening of 26 October and that, due to poor flying conditions, V P Menon was unable to get to Jammu until the morning of 27 October , by which time Indian troops were already arriving in Srinagar.

In order to support the thesis that the Maharaja acceded before Indian troops landed, Indian sources have now suggested that Hari Singh signed an Instrument of Accession before he left Srinagar but that it was not made public until later.

This was because Hari Singh had not yet agreed to include the Kashmiri leader, Sheikh Abdullah, in his future government. To date no authentic original document has been made available.

Pakistan immediately contested the accession, suggesting that it was fraudulent, that the Maharaja acted under duress and that he had no right to sign an agreement with India when the standstill agreement with Pakistan was still in force.

Pakistanis also argued that because Hari Singh fled from the valley of Kashmir , he was not in control of his state and therefore not in a position to take a decision on behalf of his people.""

7. Further, as stated earlier, during partition plan of Punjab, havoc was wrecked during distribution of Distt Gurdaspur and its only one Tehsil Shakargarh (51 % Muslim) was given to Pakistan while other two Muslim majority Tehsils Batalla and Gurdaspur (51 & 53 % Muslim majority) were given to India just to make a link of Kashmir to India, they had already in mind to grab the Kashmir at the middle of 1947. The events which followed in other states are clear to proof that it was India which severed the Kashmir... ....

8. I can understand your feelings as of a scion of displaced Kashmiri family................. Kashmiris are Kashmiris dear, they have their own identity and culture, which cannot be crushed by anybody and hope for good that Pakistan is not going to do any thing against them. .. As regards conversion of political status of Kashmir from being a disputed territory to a part of any country or having independence, the matter is with the United Nations, which cannot make any firm decision due to global power involvements...

__________________
'Thee woh ik shakhs kay tasawar saay - abb woh ranayee khayal kahaan'

I thnk we should give independence to Kashmir .all Pakistanis are wishing but on the other hand we are unable to handle our Baluchistan and Karachi

__________________
The Race Is Not Over Because I have Not Won yet

in my perception the only solution of Kashmir issue is plebiscite. in this way the will of kashmiris would become clear.