Should J&K be split into 3 states?

[Tendu_10]

Sparsely populated. Population, after 70 years of jihadi army, also very docile. (talking about G-B here. )

 

Regardless, Its a crime against mother nature that a green flag has been allowed to be flown for so long in such a beautiful piece of real estate. 

 

POK will be a graveyard for our soldiers. Im in UK since last few years and ive met many "Azad Kashmiris" and they are all Pak lovers. POK really isnt worth this hassle.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

 

[surajmal]

2 hours ago, Tendu_10 said:

 

POK will be a graveyard for our soldiers. Im in UK since last few years and ive met many "Azad Kashmiris" and they are all Pak lovers. POK really isnt worth this hassle.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

 

Fish in a barrel once bakistan is jannat-e-stan and they have no support of an army. Regardless, I want Gilgit-Baltistan. 

[Tibarn]

Who cares if Kashmiris would not want to leave, as if their opinion matters.

 

Also lol at the UN comment No one cares about that impotent club of useless diplomats. The sooner people start treating it as a relic of European hegemony the better. 

[Singh bling]

On 7/18/2017 at 1:49 AM, Tibarn said:

There is no peaceful, nonviolent solution to Kashmir, in my opinion.  Any ideas otherwise are wishful thinking. Considering that the population transfer only involves J&K, the number of security personnel in the valley should be increased during the process to minimize any chaos. This is different than the partition of India, where the British just set an arbitrary deadline to leave and left India in chaos and with a shortage of manpower to even control riots, looting etc. 

 

The Kashmir issue is entirely a bilateral issue since the Shimla Agreement, no matter how much certain people want to make it an international issue. That's the one good thing Indira did. That leaves only 3 possible outcomes/solutions to me:

 

1) Status quo: The Kashmir issue will continue bleed both countries, especially Pakistan, but we also waste lives and resources throwing money at a problem that certain sections of the country aren't even willing to acknowledge is a religious issue.  

 

2) A decisive war where the remaining territory of Kashmir comes to us. This is not going to happen for a long time. The padosis are crazy enough to launch a nuke when pushed into a corner, we are not. 

 

3) Exchange the population. The padosis's only claim over Kashmir is that it was a Muslim majority kingdom when partition happened. If they want the population so much, they can have them. I would happily take all the Hindus and Sikhs in exchange. I don't see a reason why the padosis would refuse to take the population.

 

If the padosis truly want peace in the region, then they will accept taking the population. They keep repeating that Kashmir is the unfinished agenda of partition. If they refuse, we can easily call out their bluff that they don't want to settle the issue as peacefully as possible, and would rather attempt to and fail to gain territory, than solve the issue. It would at minimum expose the padosis as having imperialist delusions.

 

Their civilian population thinks of Kashmir as a religious issue from my experience. Their military leadership knows they are actually more interested in the water resource access through Kashmir. We can at least put them in a difficult political spot by asking them to peacefully take the population and resettle them there. 

 

 

I don't think Pak will accept population transfer without land. Giving away your oppressed weak minorities while taking aggressive population of neighbour nation is not good politics.and even if Pak accept that wiill the population of kashmir be willingly migrate. history is very clear unless riotious mobs comes to threat your life , property and women no person moves out from place where he /she is living.In that case what will India do/ unleash its army on civilian population? Pak and China will use this to put economic sanctions on India, moreover around 50 islamic nations will consider India as their enemy

[Tibarn]

1 hour ago, Singh bling said:

I don't think Pak will accept population transfer without land.

If they don't accept we can't do it. The hope is that their population would put pressure on their government to accept such a deal. Either way, I doubt their army would accept this, as their army knows they really want Kashmir for the Indus Waters. 

 

The thing is, the padosis are looking to repopulate Balochistan, so why not move all the Kashmiris there. 

1 hour ago, Singh bling said:

history is very clear unless riotious mobs comes to threat your life , property and women no person moves out from place where he /she is living.

We only need to cite the example of what the North and East Europeans did after WW2 when they transferred all their German populations out of their countries back into Germany or the Turkey-Greece example when the Armenian Christian and Greek Muslim populations were exchanged. 

1 hour ago, Singh bling said:

what will India do/ unleash its army on civilian population?

We would have to try the Turkish-Greek method

http://aei.pitt.edu/7043/1/Migration_between_Greece_and_TurkeyV3a.pdf

 

Anything we do will be messy to some degree. The Turkish-Greek exchange was much less messy than our Partition.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Singh bling said:

Pak and China will use this to put economic sanctions on India

We have more economic leverage on both Pak and China. We have the Indus Water Treaty and MFN status over Pakistan, and the trade imbalance between India-China is in favor of India. If they try their nautanki, we can permanently cripple Pakistan and take a large chunk of flesh out of China without firing a bullet. 

 

The UN is growing more and more irrelevant as our economy grows larger and larger. The last time we got sanctions on us was under Vajpayee after the nuclear tests. We were an infinitely smaller economy back than, with much less importance. Now we are one of the largest economies. It's much harder to bully us now.

 

If the UNSC tries anything, we only need a veto from 1 of Putin, Trump, Marcon or May. Chances are Putin or Trump wouldn't care about something like this.

 

If the UN actually agrees to puts sanctions, we can withdraw all the contributions we give to the UN. We are one of the largest contributors of money to the UN. We are also one of the largest contributors of soldiers to UN peacekeeping missions. Those are both pieces of leverage we have over the UN. We contribute all this without even having a permanent seat on the UN Security council. Let them lose all the Indian money and soldiers if they think they can do their nautanki. 

 

The truth is, the UN is toothless against any large country. China and Saudi Arabia do far worse things, without any sanctions by the UN. In this scenario, a mutual agreement between India-Pakistan is much more mild than anything those others would do. 

 

1 hour ago, Singh bling said:

moreover around 50 islamic nations will consider India as their enemy

All the Islamic countries already consider Israel an enemy. They can't do anything but bark. The only countries that matter to India are Saudi and Iran for oil and the countries with the Indian workers in them like Qatar.     

 

The more the world moves away from oil as a primary fuel source, the less important Middle Eastern countries get. We can also diversify our oil trade by dealing with South American countries like Venezuela, other oil producers like Russia, or countries that are being shale gas powers like the US. It may take some time for middle eastern oil to become irrelevant, but it is going to happen. 

 

 

[zen]

On 7/18/2017 at 10:43 AM, Tibarn said:

Also lol at the UN comment No one cares about that impotent club of useless diplomats. The sooner people start treating it as a relic of European hegemony the better. 

I agree. It is dumb to be always making plans based on how foreigners would perceive India. May be the effects of colonial hangover or as if there is an invisible master that needs to be pleased 

 

Such comments should not be made when Bharat''s interests are concerned:

• We will look good internationally if we do that 
• What will international community think about Ind

 

India should be able to stand up for its own interests 

 

[sandeep]

Re-drawing of administrative internal borders is inevitable.  But will not happen until the "dispute" is settled first.  

[FischerTal]

no, this  gives more power to the fanatics to control Kashmir . in the short term, it will be a victory for those wanting BJP governments in Jammu and Ladakh, but in the long term, it will allow jihadis to get state support for their activities, even more than the current situation