ganeshran Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 PoK is politically autonomous but it's not as if AJK and Gilgit Baltistan are independent provinces who can go against the writ of the Pakistani state even if they wished to. The Pakistan Army has a huge presence in the region which pretty much ensures compliance by the AJK government. The "Azad" label is more for drumming support for Pakistan's claim to the whole of Kashmir. An independent state in such a sensitive area is a pipe dream
Clarke Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 It's time for Indian govt to remove that portion from map. For many years we had no idea that one third of J&K shown on maps was never under Indian govt at all. LOC should become international border if a free united Kashmir can't come into existence. maybe half. Even in terms of internet bravado, its much easier to talk about waging a war and then controlling Pakistan administered Kashmir than it is wrt the big fierce dragon on the north-east that controls another chunk of our claimed territory i.e. Aksai Chin.
Iconoclast Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 IMHO ... whatever the final solution is doesn't matter ... what is most important is that Pakistan and India just move beyond this issue and stop the animosity towards each other.
Nova Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 We will conquer Lahore very soon' date=' it belongs to India, we will push Pakistani's to Afghanistan.[/quote'] Tere bhi g@nd mein ek lagenga phir... pak ka bamboo. Roney ka nahin baad mein.
Sachin=GOD Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 IMHO ... whatever the final solution is doesn't matter ... what is most important is that Pakistan and India just move beyond this issue and stop the animosity towards each other. Not going to happen anytime soon because any move towards a peaceful settlement ends up up as "One step forward. two steps backward. situation awkward".
ganeshran Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 Not going to happen anytime soon because any move towards a peaceful settlement ends up up as "One step forward. two steps backward. situation awkward". That is pretty much expected when the establishment of Pakistan depends on drumming up an existential threat from India to demand a disproportionate share of the nation's resources and a role in policymaking. Peace with India is absolutely not in their interests. Peace with Pakistan wont be desirable to the Indian army either, but it has been kept out of governance by our government, and can still depend on the Chinese threat to justify its share of the budget
Utalk Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 Independent Kashmir won't survive in the middle of it's neighbours. Thats the line pro Pakistanis sell to people of Azad Kashmir. I am sorry but I find that excuse lame because when Bangladesh was created the same line was sold by Pakistani establishment. They said BD won't survive and Ind will take it over. BD is still there 41 years on. Kashmir can easily become buffer zone between India and Pakistan. That will ease immense burden on both countries and resources can be used for betterment of people in both countries. In modern times we need to move on from ego and self interest policies. Listen to people of Kashmir because they are the ones suffering both sides.
ganeshran Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 Independent Kashmir won't survive in the middle of it's neighbours. Thats the line pro Pakistanis sell to people of Azad Kashmir. I am sorry but I find that excuse lame because when Bangladesh was created the same line was sold by Pakistani establishment. They said BD won't survive and Ind will take it over. BD is still there 41 years on. Kashmir can easily become buffer zone between India and Pakistan. That will ease immense burden on both countries and resources can be used for betterment of people in both countries. In modern times we need to move on from ego and self interest policies. Listen to people of Kashmir because they are the ones suffering both sides. Bangladesh's case is totally different to Kashmir, and even its creation was forced by the excesses of the Pakistan army. Had operation searchlight not happened, Pakistan could have still retained East Pakistan but with a very uneasy relationship and substantial provincial autonomy. Either way, Bangladesh shares most of its borders with India and Burma, with India having actively supported the creation of Bangladesh. India has never posed a territorial threat to Bangbros nor does it have much to gain from fighting a proxy battle through the country. Kashmir couldnt be more different. It would be located in one of the most heavily garissoned regions, surrounded by three nuclear powers two of which have a huge domestic votebank which opposed its creation. It will become a game of cat and mouse between India and Pakistan on who is able to exert more pressure and gain influence on the nation's political decisions.
Iconoclast Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 That is pretty much expected when the establishment of Pakistan depends on drumming up an existential threat from India to demand a disproportionate share of the nation's resources and a role in policymaking. Peace with India is absolutely not in their interests. Peace with Pakistan wont be desirable to the Indian army either, but it has been kept out of governance by our government, and can still depend on the Chinese threat to justify its share of the budget The establishment in Pakistan are mostly land and business owners and not the military ... and IIRC even the military tried to broker a deal with India a few years ago but it was your side that was not interested in talking.
Utalk Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 That's where maturity of Indian and Pakistani people will come into play. Relations as they currently are it will be hard but give it few years things might change. I honestly believe things will improve in Pakistan. There is strong sense of change there. 10/15 years ago there was no way judiciary would have been restored despite strong army opposition of the current chief. It was civil society and media that forced Zardari govt to get rid of puppet judges. Another decade of democratic process will see good leadership emerge. According to polls PTI of Imran is among top 2 and Imran clearly criticises past govts for their support of militancy in Kashmir. That shows ppl are moving on from days of 90s when that kind of statement would be political suicide for any leader.
Texy Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 Saala eis thread mein aaya...socha thoda maa behn chalega, thoda entertainment hoga...what a KLPD
nballa Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 letting them occupy something that we show in our map? there you go. i mean 'showing in our map' means obviously we own that piece of land. they should just give it to us because we 'show it in our maps' just like china did. nevermind that the global maps don't show it as belonging to india or pak.
Clarke Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 IMHO ... whatever the final solution is doesn't matter ... what is most important is that Pakistan and India just move beyond this issue and stop the animosity towards each other. The establishment in Pakistan are mostly land and business owners and not the military ... and IIRC even the military tried to broker a deal with India a few years ago but it was your side that was not interested in talking. Details/link on your side's position ? Are you referring to Siachen ? FYI its been India's view on overall relations to put Kashmir aside and move forward on trade & relations, which isn't really what your side traditionally favored. It probably is a realization post India's economic rise (as opposed to the past, not that we're a supapowa) & military budgets that are bigger than maybe your national budget that the mistakes of 65 & Kargil are no longer viable.
Pioneer Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Saala eis thread mein aaya...socha thoda maa behn chalega' date=' thoda entertainment hoga...what a KLPD[/quote'] Haha, my exact feelings
NameGoesHere Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 We will conquer Lahore very soon' date=' it belongs to India, we will push [b']Pakistani's to Afghanistan. But perhaps before conquering Lahore we will conquer the "c'ract" use of the apostrophe, eh?
Dumbbells Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 Pakistanis believe that If Indian kashmir is liberated, it would somehow join Pak. Hence, the love for Kashmiris. We should never allow this. Why no freedom voice in POK? All the pro Pak voices in Kashmir should be dealt severely.
youngindia Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 In modern times we need to move on from ego and self interest policies. Listen to people of Kashmir because they are the ones suffering both sides. huh?Bangaldesh, which was genuine freedom movement supported by bengalis of all hues. can you tell me how many kashmiri non muslims and shia muslims are involved in terroism and separatism in kashmir? why would any non muslim in his right mind(and right thinking muslims as well) would touch LET with a barge pole? look at his lovely ideology. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/opinion/08french.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 "Mr. SaeedÃÔ hatreds are catholic his bugbears include Hindus, Shiites and women who wear bikinis. He regards democracy as Å Jewish and Christian import from Europe, and considers suicide attacks to be in accordance with Islam. He has a wider strategy: Å¢t this time our contest is Kashmir. LetÃÔ see when the time comes. Our struggle with the Jews is always there. i not only have a deep hatred for this barbatrians and savages of the Let and related jihadi orgs. but have deep contempt for islamism as well.islamism is not a democratic opinion. its a abominable sectarian ideology coming from people conditioned to authoritarian sectarian sysstems. its totally unacceptable ideology to any multi cultural state.we can't be creating enclaves solely because of religion or a "muslim ruler" is required. people's will? yeah right.islamists and jihadis can go to hell.
youngindia Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 Coming to the point of pok, there were several reasons. it is a costly option. The mountainous regions, many over 7000 ft ,makes it a highly costly operation. we saw in kargil how it took a month to clear some mounatainous peaks. apart from that, the limited resources of the country at that time and the disinterest of sheikh abdullah in areas outisde the kashmir valley . kashmir valley was the prized possession and india has it. no real need to change the status quo. apart from that, many parts of the islamic world right now are still friendly to religion based states. democracy and secularism are not too popular atleast among many muslims in asia except among a liberal minority.
yoda Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 annexe Pak. given the shithole that country has become, P@kis will only be too happy. reduce our defense budget and spend the money educating the illiterates from across the border. thank you!
Gunner Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 I don't think it's realistically possible for us to annex POK without India and Pakistan nuking the crap out of each other. If India can somehow find a way to negate the nuclear threat from Pakistan, the Indian military can take control of both AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan with relative ease due to its overwhelming conventional superiority.
Recommended Posts