which country is right on Kashmir Issue India or Pakistan?

Answer 1

If u are not aware then let me tell u a brief history. The following is brief history as to what happened. But In short Pakistan claims that Kashmir should be a part of pakistan bcoz majority population is Muslim (mainly after terrorising and driving out 600,000 Hindus). Although they just want to use kashmir as a base for a larger agenda of destroying and talibanizing India and converting it into a Islamic theocracy. And India's claim is based on the treaty signed by the then king of kashmir (same treaty was signed by other princely states for accession to india) and secularism. The pak army is least interested in solving kashmir basis for their existance and survival. There wont be anyone to spread hate against. And how will they stay in power for eternity without the kashmir issue?
The additional details are given below.

UN Security Council resolutions 38-40, and particularly the resolution of August 13, 1948, said that Pakistan had attacked Kashmir, and ordered Pakistan to withdraw its forces and its tribals (those were disguised as tribals but they were pak army men). Pakistan has yet to obey UN Security Council and withdraw from lands (now called POK, Pak Occupied Kashmir) controlled illegally.
Recently released documents reveal that in 1948, the then US Secretary of State Gen. George C. Marshall told the pro-Pak British that Kashmirs accession with India was legal and final as far as US was concerned.
In 1952, the Kashmir legislature, elected in elections recognized by observers as free and fair, with 100% of the legislators Muslim, voted to ratify Kashmirs accession with India. And the elections after that too were similar. Compare POK with indian kashmir.
Pakistan gave away large part of the POK to China, which now claims those lands as its own.

In April 1993, then CIA director James Woosley at an open Senate hearing said, Pakistan, while not yet on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, but is Aon the brink. (in 1993, now its worse).
In December 1999, the Director of CIA George Tenet and State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism Michael Sheen testified before a Senate subcommittee that US has evidence that Pakistan is a state-sponsor of terrorism against India.
In 2000, State Departments report on terrorism described Pakistans official involvement in terrorism against India, but fell short of adding Pakistan to list of countries sponsoring terrorism because that would have automatically triggered severe sanctions against an old cold-war ally.
In 2000, a bipartisan Congressional commission on terrorism recommended to the State Department that sanctions be imposed on Pakistan for its role in terrorism, but this report was ignored.

The British government in Spring 2001 put several Pakistan-supported organizations openly engaged in terrorism on the official list of terrorist organizations, to be followed later by the US.
Major political parties in Pakistan and Pak media have repeatedly asked Pak governments over the years to break bonds with terrorists and get out of the Kashmir issue, because supporting terrorists has resulted only in increasing Talibanization of Pakistan.
Benazir Bhutto, ex-Pak Prime Minister, has said that ISI (Pakistani governments intelligence service) is a force onto itself, and she had no knowledge of what ISI was doing when she was PM.
On 11-21-01, the Hon. Mr. Robert D. Blackwill, US Ambassador to India, told the press that Pakistan-supported individuals involved in killings in Kashmir are terrorists and that They are not freedom fighters. No country will be permitted to provide sanctuaries to terrorists. He made similar comments again on 2-27-02

Pak Governments direct and obvious involvement in terrorism against India over decades has resulted in 50,000 HINDUS being amongst 70,000 innocent civilians KILLED and 500,000 TO 600,000 HINDUS FLED KASHMIR IN TERROR; world has been silent about this ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir.

Pakistan, which created, nurtured and protected Taliban, has claimed that Taliban is not terrorist.
Pakistan press reported in Dec. 2001 that Pak dictator Musharraf was a Director of Rabita Trust, a terrorist organization masquerading as a charity, and US had to warn him to step down before adding this organization to a terrorist list.
Pak v. US: CBS News quoted numerous workers to the effect that Osama bin Laden had received his kidney dialysis at their Pak military hospital on the eve of 9-11.
Pak v. US: NY Times reported that Pak had to send airplanes to rescue its army fighting US coalition in Afghanistan; when asked, the Pentagon issued only non-denial denials. CNN reported on 1-12-02, that 50 Pak soldiers, arrested at Kandahar, admitted to fighting under Pak officers.

An editor of the Karachi Herald wrote that Sheikh Ahmed Omar Saeed, the alleged mastermind behind the abduction of Mr. Daniel Pearl, indicted in US in 1994, operated in Pakistan freely since his release from an Indian prison in exchange for hostages aboard a hijacked Indian airliner.
NY Times reported on 2-26-02 that a Pak Army/ISI Brigadier had a role in nurturing Jaish‑e‑ Mohammed, the terrorist organization behind the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Pearl, and suggested that investigations in killing of Pearl would reveal a great deal about ties between terrorists and ISI.
Newsweek reported on 3-5-02 that Pearl=s killers might have been agents of Pak governments ISI.
NY Times and the Boston Globe have reported that 4,000 Pak army officers were involved in Pak ISI conducting terrorism against India.

In bangladesh: The world is also silent about harrowing abuse and ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Bangladesh. Amnesty International has publicized horrible atrocities against Hindu women in Bangladesh, such as gang-rapes in front of their fathers and husbands, resulting in floods of Hindu refugees from that country. Bangladeshi government does nothing beyond denying facts.

Demographics
Kashmir Fact Sheet
Developed by US India Relations Group
180 million Moslems live in India and 140 million live in Pakistan.
1947: 40% of Pakistan was Non-Moslem. Today ONLY 3 % are left while the world has looked the other way.
1947: 25% of India was Moslem (60 million). 1991: 95.2 million. Despite migration of millions of Moslems to Pakistan, TODAY 18% (150 million ) of Indians are Moslems. This shows that the Moslem population is reaching pre-partition demographics in India.
Our own American Taliban, John Walker, has admitted to fighting in Kashmir. This could not have happened without the help of ISI, which created and nurtured the Taliban.
Robert Blackwill: US Ambassador to India, Nov. 21, 2001 New Delhi, stated in a press conference for foreign media that “all persons involved in killings in Kashmir were terrorists and that they were no freedom fighters.”

Dec 2001: The “Kunduz Airlift” sent airplanes and helicopters to rescue Pakistanis fighting with the Taliban/El Quaeda against the US coalition.
(Seymour Hirsch New Yorker Feb 2002)
Pakistan calls itself an “Islamic Republic”, and its stated raison d’etre is the “two nation theory” that Moslems cannot and must not be allowed to co-exist with other religions.

One section of Muslims led by Jinnah and his Muslim League Party demanded and agitated for a separate country.
Nearly as many Muslims rejected this, and firmly believed in India’s secular policy. They opposed partitioning India on the basis of religion. They chose to remain in India after India achieved its independence from the British. Today they are full citizens of India.

There were two categories of pre-partitioned India
1) British India that was partitioned based on religion
2) Princely States where the ruler had full autonomy to join India OR Pakistan by signing the Instrument of Accession, in which Kashmir joined with India.
India
When the British left, the 584 princely states, constituting 45% of undivided India became sovereign entities with 2 options:
1) Join Secular India
2) Join Moslem Pakistan
National Conference Party
Was the largest political party of Kashmir with a preponderance of Moslems with Hindus and Buddhists as members under the leadership of a Moslem - Sheikh Abdullah.
This party had consistently since the 1930’s expressed opposition to the two nation theory and in 1947 urged that Kashmir join secular India.

Sheikh Abdullah: 1947
Leader of the opposition to Maharaja Hari Singh.
Jailed by Hari Singh.
BUT: Insisted on joining a secular India so that Kashmir would remain secular and multi-ethnic.
Rejected Pakistan and its Islamic bigotry.
The religious composition of the Princely States was not relevant at the time per British policy.
Pakistan did not ascertain the will of the people of the princely states that acceded to it in 1947.
PAKISTAN Invaded Kashmir
October 22, 1947
Commanded by General Akbar Khan, later promoted to Chief of Pakistan’s army.
“Tribesmen” included many Pakistan Army officers and men, in and out of uniform. C3I and artillery provided by regular Pakistan Army
- Just like the Taliban Army, 2001.
Entire villages e.g. Baramula, Rajouri and Poonch were destroyed by the Pakistani army while committing murder, rape and plunder.

Rather than any negotiated settlement, Pakistan chose the route of brute force in 1947.
Is this out of concern for Kashmiris?
Pakistan attacked Baramula
Kashmir: October 1947
Killing 7,000 in a town of 10,000 people
Especially brutal to Sikhs, whom the Pakistani army labeled as "Ball Walle Kafir", the non-believer with hair.
Destroyed the hospitals, Hindu and Sikh temples and the church of Baramula.
Skardu (POK): Radio message from Pak Commander to Pak HQ: “Skardu liberated. All Sikhs killed. All women raped”.
Ruler of Kashmir appealed to India for help
Why? Because Kashmir’s small state army was no match for the Pakistani army.
Instrument of Accession to India was signed
October 1947: Lord Mountbatten, the Governor General of India accepted the Kashmiri ruler’s request to join the Indian Union
A legal document called the Instrument of Accession was signed between India and the Kashmiri ruler.
This same document was also signed by the other 584 princely states.

Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir - updated reprint 1995
“Sounder than Texas's accession to the USA, Kashmir's accession to India is legal, final, binding and irrevocable”.
Source: A S Anand Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India - p. 96
Kashmir is saved from Pakistani invasion
October 1947: Lord Mountbatten asked India to send its troops to save Kashmir from Pakistani aggression.
Indian Premier Nehru insisted on Sheikh Abdullah being freed from prison as condition for Indian intervention.
Indian troops were sent with the enthusiastic consent of Sheikh Abdullah
Source: Lord Mountbatten’s diaries
Sheikh Abdullah
October 1947: Kashmir's popular Moslem leader Sheikh Abdullah supported Kashmir’s accession to India
Of interest: Earlier Sheikh Abdullah had demonstrated against the Kashmiri ruler for greater democracy & civil rights.

A key point of Sheikh Abdullah’s speech
"We the people of Jammu and Kashmir, have thrown our lot with the Indian people, not in a heat of passion or a moment of despair, but by a deliberate choice.” Sheikh Abdullah: October 1947

Pakistan’s pattern of aggression Initially Pakistan denied having sent troops into Kashmir in October 1947
Subsequently admitted by Pakistani leaders and army officers.
This is a consistent Pakistani pattern in 1947, 1948, 1965, 1971 and recently in 1999 in Kargil.
Same tactic used in Afghanistan, where 40% of the Taliban’s Officer corps and 30% of its troops were Pakistani, until Operation Enduring Freedom began.

United Nations: Jan 1, 1948
India complained to the UN so as to get Pakistan to end Pakistani aggression against India in Jammu and Kashmir.
Noteworthy
Despite military superiority even in 1947 India did not want to use force to vacate the Indian territory in Kashmir occupied by Pakistan.
Instead, India turned to the UN. If India had believed in a military solution on Kashmir, it could have done so in 1965, 1971 and 1999. And today.

UN Resolution: Jan 5, 1949
Called for three actions in this sequential order
(1) FIRST, Pakistan must withdraw all its troops and all non-Kashmiris from Kashmir.
(2) NEXT India should withdraw bulk of its troops RETAINING those required for law and order; all those who had left Kashmir (on both sides) as refugees should be allowed to return.
AND ONLY THEREAFTER ascertain the wishes of the Kashmiri people in both portions of Kashmir under UN supervision.

Pakistan violated the UN Resolution
Pakistan is non-compliant: has not withdrawn its occupied forces thereby violated the first of the 3 actions outlined by the UN resolution.
ON the contrary India has only permitted Kashmiris to own land in India’s Kashmir per Article 170 of the Indian Constitution and per UN resolution.
1) Is Pakistan willing to implement step one even now by withdrawing its military from the portion of Kashmir it has occupied by aggression in 1947?
2) If refugees are allowed to return and claim their lands, would that include the NON-MOSLEM citizens?
These are KASMIRI PANDITS - 500,000 to 600,000 are still LIVING as DISPLACED PERSONS today thanks to pakistan terrorising innocent civilians mostly hindus and infiltrating entire kashmir with moslem fanatics and ISI / terrorists groups agents.

Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) Lacks all democratic institutions. Administered by a Pakistani “minister for Azad Kashmir“ or Military Governor appointed by Islamabad.
Pakistan officially disallows the option of an independent Kashmir. If anyone in POK raises that demand, it is an act of treachery and punishable by death. POK residents must sign Oath of Loyalty to Pakistan to get ration cards.
Residents of the “Northern Areas” of Gilgit/Baltistan are afforded no citizenship rights
Pakistan Attacked India in 1965
Dictator Ayub Khan sent 34,000 Pakistani soldiers into Kashmir and Gujarat in massive land and air attacks against India.
Targets: (1) Jammu-Kashmir, (2) New Delhi
Of 3 Indian soldiers awarded the “Param Vir Chakra” (all posthumous) for heroism, one was Moslem – Havildar Abdul Hamid.
Pakistan was defeated by India and signed the Tashkent agreement with India.

Pakistan Attacked India in 1971
Pak Dictator General Yahya Khan killed 3 million Pakistani citizens in East Bengal after rejecting election results, and launched air-land attacks on India - which led to the birth of Bangladesh.
In all three wars, Kashmiris rose to the defence of India.They joined the Indian army to defeat the Pakistanis.
Birth of Bangla Desh
Buried the two nation theory of dividing nations on the basis of religion.
July 1972: Pakistan signed the “Simla Agreement” with India.
Simla Agreement: Pakistani PM Z.A. Bhutto, who replaced Yahya Khan, agreed to resolve all issues peacefully through bilateral negotiations.

Furthermore
1971: India had captured vast areas of Pakistani territory and 93,000 POWs.
India agreed not to let Bangla Desh try the Pakistani POWs on War Crimes charges.
India returned captured territory in both ’65 and ‘71,even in Jammu-Kashmir - proof that India is: (a) not interested in acquiring foreign territory; (b) willing to settle all disputes through negotiations.

Madrassas of Pakistan: In last 12 years, unemployed youth educated in the religious madrassas of Pakistan are trained by Pakistan’s spy agency ISI to infiltrate into Indian Kashmir and ethnically cleanse the Hindus, Sikhs and secular Moslems, destroy schools, hospitals, and basic infrastructures.
These same “madrassas” are also the breeding ground of terrorists who supported Al Queda and the talibans and were responsible for the 9/11 attacks on US.

Regarding kargil war. When Prime Minister Vajpayee went to Lahore, Pakistan for signing a peace agreement in a BUS-Diplomacy tour, the Pakistani army secretly invaded India and even occupied a portion of Indian territory in Kashmir.
The 1999 Kargil War was a violation of the “Simla Agreement”by illegally taking control of part of Indian portion of Kashmir territory.
Subsequently Clinton & Nawaz Sharif met at Camp David & Clinton asked Nawaz Sharif to withdraw Pakistani army from Kargil, India.
With support of the world community India went to a limited war and had it vacated.


And pakistan has its role established in almost all the terror attacks in the world (and India) killing 1000's. They have masterminded plans in India that have killed 10000's of people and indirectly affected millions, as the family members of the innocent civilians killed are severly afftected. Who do u think is right?

Answer 2

Kashmir should be left alone. Nothing has ever happened with regards to border disputes. India is trying to show it's political power in the South while Pakistan may just be trying to consolidate power and more territory. (China is also in on the conflict too but doesn't seem to be taking a much active part in it). I don't think the Kashmir people are very happy about their territory being torn up and divided into three but I think political greed won't let these powers listen. There has already been three Indo-Pakistan wars and at least one minor border clash because of such a tiny territory and because of what? Kashmir's soil which is allegedly ideal for nuclear testing (owing to its supposed nuclear-absorption capacity)? It's all greed and noone's right. Majority of the people in Kashmir wants to be Indian citizens, yes. But the fact still remains that the two countries may just be fighting over it for the wrong reasons.

Answer 3

The partition of the world into empire owned by different colonial master is the origin of the Kashmir problem of who claim what. We should not forget that Britain withdrawal created a vacunm for struggle between these two independent state to claim Kashmir. Frankily Paskistan enter kashmir through war to own the place based on muslim brother population. But the territory was later acceded to India. To allow peace to reign india should be given the liberty to have complete control, going by the accession.

Answer 4

there is not any longer doubt that Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. Islam is the wide-unfold public faith in Kashmir and Kashmir will terrific in great condition Pakistan's territory. additionally, the human beings of Kashmir prefer to affix Pakistan. we are in a position to needless to say see this by ability of analyzing that greatest anti-India rallies and riots in Indian administered Kashmir. in the process the flexibility of Independence, Junagadh voted to affix Pakistan yet because of the fact it has the Hindu majority, it grew to become area of India. on the different, Kashmir had a Hindu ruler yet a Muslim majority and it rather is disputed. India has been persecuting the kashmiries and is making an attempt to compress them with heavy defense force. The kashmiries could vote on whom they like to connect. what's the vast deal guy!!! whom ever Kashmir prefer to affix, its completely their determination. i'm hundred p.c. advantageous that they're going to vote to pass with their muslim brothers in Pakistan.

Answer 5

both countries seems to have solid reason for claiming it, but i feel it useless ......its something which keep both Pak n India at war , their peoples hate each other, they spend their maximum expences over military assets n think maximaly how to be stronger than the other, so they r least botherd abt their nation n its status. i cant expect somehting comming positive in both countries until they have such conflicts with each other......just for the sake of the public.wish i could place the two countries apart from each other at opposit end of the world.......ahh then i guess public ,ll have some peace.
sorry this is not the answer of ur question...but...

Answer 6

Kashmiries are rite, this not the part of pakistan nor part of India.

Answer 7

That is a regoinal and geopolitical querry best answered by those in power and living there.

Answer 8

.................... IF YOU START KILLING NON MUSLIMS IN KASHMIR ....... AND OR TERRORIZING THEM ................. you will have a majority in time ..................... this is the issue ............. just because they can do it in Kashmir, can they get away with it ................ NO......... they have to be stopped ................... now ............ let this be a test for their unholy way ............... it does not matter who rules ............... what matters is after Kashmir .................. what ................ what place will they go for next ........................ it will not end with Kashmir ..................... believe me ..............

Answer 9

Always The USA.