India killed 80,000 Kashmiries or disappeared 10,000.They have mass graves on their side of the border.So being Muslim we should help our brother to get freedom.And Pakistan always wants free election in Kashmir so Kashmiries themselves can choose what is good for them and i think there is no harm in it.

my de3ar fellow.As you all might know that every house has naughty childrens and so has our Balochistan.I being a student of Balochistan dont agree that these are the people of Balochistan creating problems.Rvery thing is in the hand of govt.i am proud to be a Pakistani.2nd thing when sub continent was divided ,Princely state hyderabad was given to Pakistan as its ruler Nizam was a Muslim.But India occupied it by force claiming that it had majority hindu population.So if that is the case Kashmir has majority Muslim population in a sense it should be given to Pakistan.Further more India is not willing the to sit in UN plebsite to which Pakistan agree.And third that if Kashmir is handed over to India we are ruined.The example is the breakdown of treaty of 1960 over water and dams by India.So can any one tell me the financial benefits if Kashmir is given to Pakistan and losses if given to India

__________________
Neither live to eat nor eat to live,
Always be honest, never take and give.

yes we deserve kashmir but at the time the situation is not prferable to deserve or say kashmir is part of pakistan, becuase still we cannaot manage the problems which we are facing in pakistan. and in 71 we lost the east pakistan and now as well balochistan is burning there are alot of problems

__________________
Money won't buy happiness, but it will pay the salaries of a large research staff to study the problem.

No i am not agree with you because if you look back before 1947 and look difficulties of muslim in india then you will get reply.
we know pakistan is not deserving kashmir but it also must for kashmiri nation for independence.
so finally its must for pakistan to do something just for the independence of kashmiri community.

nazaqat hussain

there is no doubt the inner situation of pakistan now a dayz is not appriciateable, but its doesn't mean we are loseing our boundries and all province should claim for independency. but question abut kashmir is still hanging from long period many people have given blood including our armey men at different stages, why UNO is at soft corner for india at human right violation since 1948, other hurdel is our bilatral treaty with India no one can intervine. the main and everlasting solution of Kashmir would be refrendom of kashmiries what they want,india, pakistan or independent.

__________________
imr@n khar

kashmir has cultural and religious ties with pakistan. . .
without resolving kashmir,both countries would remain hostile to each other n poverty would remain in south asia

We know that being Pakistanis we deserve the part of the land i.e. called Kashmir. Having a number of similarities in social, economical, cultural as well religious harmony between the both parts. Majority of Kashmiris desires to join Pakistan keeping in view the atrocious acts have been done by the indians since 1947. (Pakistan's enternal situation should not be compared with Kashmir issue, it is because, Pakistanis are fighting with those terrorists hailed from other countries and made our beloved country safe heaven). However, Pakistan’s stance / policy regarding Kashmir is totally chaste, in which following demands are intimated vitally:-
1) Act upon the UNSC resolutions
2) Kashmiris should be given the rights to live according to their wishes.
3) Liberty to speak, to vote and to avail necessities etc.
Pakistan’s point of view is clear, Kashmiris deserve respectful lives, independence and fearless activities throughout their homeland we only support their agendas being human being.

It is not the question of somebody's wish or thinking, the question is with regard to legal position at the time of partition in 1947.

Kashmir issue is very much linked with the partition plan of British India/Indian subcontinent, whereby the princely states were to be acceded either to India or Pakistan, which was to be determined by geographical contiguity and communal composition of the population.

Notably, as per 1941 census, Jammu & Kashmir State was having 77 % Muslims majority and was also contiguous to Pakistan with main roads linking to Pakistan accept for some road through Gurdaspur District (Tehsil Pathankot perhaps) was naturally required to be acceded to Pakistan. But they wrecked havoc and as per Boundary Commission, Tehsil Pathankot (which was perhaps even having Muslim majority) but it was a physical/geographical connection between Indian and J&K, it was given to India... And then in a haste, the State was acceded to India... A question often comes at CSS Pakistan Affairs or Indo Pak Paper II about the accession plan of princely states where they give comparison of Junagadh, Munawar , Hyderabad and Kashmir. If we accept the contention of India on accession of those three states thn the issue is very simple, Kashmir should had to go to Pakistan. If Kashmir is to go to India thn those princely states should go to Pakistan.. Its easy like any mathematics question of 2+2=4...

All told, Dogra Rajas were not favourable towards their Muslim subjects since their taking control of the rule of J&K by Gulab Singh/Maharajja Gulab Singh, who had purchased J&K for around 85000/- nanak shahi currency...

It was Pakistan which had favoured and taken up the cause of Kashmiri Muslims to save them from persecution. Wars of 1948, 1965, Siachin tussle from 1984, and Kargil 1999 all are linked with the Jammu & Kashmir.

That generation, majority of whom have already gone to take rest underground - to be with their dear and near ones who sacrificed their lives for getting this piece of land- may tell the actual miseries of that time, while it is very easy for lot of we young generations to accuse Pakistan about troubles and miseries and to make questions that we do not deserve Kashmir... It is narrated from Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah that Kashmir is jugular vein for Pakistan... It is not because of only geographical link or rivers etc, it is linked to very ideology of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (whose k is possibly the Kashmir).

Nevertheless, Pakistan has taken a good posture in making the plea with United Nations that it should be at the aspirations of the people of the land to make decision, if they want to live with Pakistan or India i.e. plebiscite. Ground position has tremendously been changed in last 65 years, but the basic issue of legality is the same and it should remain so...

Please dont mind, to be frank in my opinion, making this post is like asking question to parents of a child, whether they deserve to retain their child or not... ! Another thing, to be honest making contention that we have Balochistan issue, health, education etc cannot also not be justified if we compare with India. The conditions of health, education and poverty are not good at India either; there are more poor in India then the whole population of Pakistan is; similarly in India the people who cannot get clean drinking water are in greater number thn the whole population of Pakistan is; there is extremism in India as well just remember current episode of Shah Rukh Khan, also remember what happens with Pakistani sports teams there; there are more insurgency movements in India like Nagaland, Assam, etc etc..

Regards

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

On legal grounds no referendum was held in Kashmir for accession. The only thing that happened was the decision of Maharaja to remain independent. Pakistan invaded Kashmir after that .

States were left to choose whether to join India or Pakistan or to remain INDEPENDENT.


A small correction, it was 75 lac Nanak Shahi.

Are you sure? it was cause of Kashmir... or cause of GHQ's on field failed military exercises? In 1948 India took issue to UNSC but none of the two countries had acted upon it as India was asked to bring its forces to barks and Pakistan was asked to move its forces out of Kashmir.

Quaid had many more aspirations and sayings as well what about those? and is it enough to annex a territory on the bases of your requirement? I think Texas would be much fruitful for Pakistan than Baluchistan.

Pakistan's posture in UN remains legal but with India it has been totally different, Shimla agreement is an obvious example.

Yes, you are right but when talking about Kashmir we can see a clear difference between 3 parts of Kashmir (1 ruled by India and two ruled by Pakistan) Indian held Kashmir is enjoying much better social, political and economic conditions as compared to people of AJK and GB; this is my personal observation backed by facts.
But that does not mean Kashmiris would prefer to join India, yes religious ties are with Pakistan but there is a humanistic side of this picture as well.

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

I have heard that its all water game and nothing else....is that true
As our leaders dont pay a heed to their own "awam" to "kashmiris kis kait ki muli hai"...its my own perception