Over the years, I've followed closely what major western media outlets and even certain media outlets based from Asia have been saying about Kashmir. While finger pointing at Pakistan for the so-called finding of insurgent operations in that region is frequently referred to, little or no mention is given to the overwhelming amount of pro-Pak sentiment found in Kashmir. As is evident from recent happenings, that sentiment has an overwhelming presence in Kashmir -- some Kashmiris are even ready to hoist Pakistan's flag on their soil. Yet this gets little or no acknowledgement from the major press outlets. Is it really a design against Pakistan?
.........Our Indian Friends are "AFRED".........of the Domino Affect........
If they Give Up Kashmir............There Goes All of India...........
Back to being Ruled by Muslims...........
It is people living in present day Pakistan that are the real slaves of a religion from a far off place. The Hindus didn't give in so easily to the invaders from Central Asia, like people in Sind and Punjab...
It is people living in present day Pakistan that are the real slaves of a religion from a far off place. The Hindus didn't give in so easily to the invaders from Central Asia, like people in Sind and Punjab...
WoW! 1.5 Billion muslims world wide... what will they say!!!... besides your rebuttal is out of context...
Over the years, I've followed closely what major western media outlets and even certain media outlets based from Asia have been saying about Kashmir. While finger pointing at Pakistan for the so-called finding of insurgent operations in that region is frequently referred to, little or no mention is given to the overwhelming amount of pro-Pak sentiment found in Kashmir. As is evident from recent happenings, that sentiment has an overwhelming presence in Kashmir -- some Kashmiris are even ready to hoist Pakistan's flag on their soil. Yet this gets little or no acknowledgement from the major press outlets. Is it really a design against Pakistan?
Really interesting thought sTaLkEr bro!
Kashmir is pretty complicated issue and media bias is just one of the reasons. Let me try to answer the media issue first and then explore some other reasons too.
First and foremost it is a Kashmir issue. And the behavior of Kashmiris would play a much bigger role in terms of getting international support. It will be a mistake if we turn Kashmir issue to "Pakistan issue" or "Indian issue" only.
Remember the Western media gravitates to the little guy, the down trodden, the minority. So one can expect that kashmiri Muslims being oppressed minority, would immediately get the attention they need from the Western media. But they don't!
To understand this, we have to look at how Western media chooses to side with one of the other group. Melosovich was part of an orthodox christian leadership, and yet it lost support in the eyes of Western media. Why?
Western media further analyzes a group before putting their full weight on their side. The thing that bothers Western media is "culture" of the minority group. If that culture comes across as anti-Western or an oppressor, then the minority group in itself loses a lot of sympathy points.
The second point is how the supporters of the minority group treat Westerners.
In case of Kashmiris, their leadership goofed up big time. They are not "inclusive" and secondly do not come across as pro-West. Why it is so? Well we have to delve a little into Kashmiri history.
Kashmiri leadership started correctly by establishing a party called "National Conference" and that was inclusive in nature. It included Kashmiri Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs. Due to many reasons, National Conference split and Muslim conference came into being.
Modern day Kashmiri struggle is mainly carried out by the decedents of Muslim conference (MC). Unfortunately MC is not inclusive. It doesn't raise the issue of non-Muslim Kashmiris. And that's why Western media is not sympathetic to it.
In some ways MC is using Jinnah's Muslim League (ML) formula. But unfortunately it doesn't have a shrewd pro-Western leader like Jinnah.
Remember Jinnah came across as much more civilized, polished, and pro-Western. And that helped him get a recognition in Western eyes. Even though Western media was much more impressed with Gandhi's "inclusive" politics, Jinnah still scored some points.
In addition to Jinnah, modern day Pakistani regions had two major entities that were pro-Western: Punjab-Frontier dominated army, and Punjab - Sindh dominated land lords.
Thus the charisma and lobbying of three pro-Western entities: Jinnah, army, and land lords resulted in pro-Pakistan (albeit to lesser degree compared to Gandhi and India) forces in the West.
Kashmiris lack all three of the entities, and that's why they do not get support from the West.
This is a very brief view of Kashmiris and their characteristics.
Off course to a lesser degree Pakistan's role has not helped Kashmiris either. Pakistan has not been very good to its minorities. Draconian laws like Hudood have sapped any support that Pakistan may have garnered these days. The West knows that if Kashmiris get their autonomy, they will do the ethnic cleansing just like Melosovich did in Bosnia. And an independent (or Pakistani-controlled) Kashmir will turn out to be yet another hot bed of anti-West militancy and terrorism.
And that my friend scares the wits out of Western media.
Who can touch a prosperous India?It's military might and the good label it has acquired in the international arena over the years give it a shield.
Those who touch our sacred land will be taught a lesson no matter what time,what place,and at what cost it is. The whole world knows tha ,so the world is silent.
Besides ,we are quite diplomatic.We can switch sides at our will for ex:we had honey -moon with Russia ,still we have ,but we just took her out and kept her at another house and have luscicous U.S in bed now
This is a sacred timeless land my dear friends.Noone can touch it..
i think Indian Kashmir can never be part of Pakistan. There is no sympathy for Pakistan in any country to get Kashmir. No country would support Pakistan's stand on Kashmir. Even the support we get from OIC is mere words. Will any country assist Pakistan in invading Kashmir, not even China.
Saying that there is very likely Kashmir can become independent country. But will Pakistan allow it's Kashmit to join independent Kashmir. If Kashmir become independent and Pakistan doesnt allow it's part of Kashmir including Muzaffarabad, Gilgit, Chitral etc to Join Kashmir, there will be big revolt against Pakistan and India will support that.
If Kashmir becomes independent , India will make sure that Pakistani Kashmir is part of that.
I think Pakistan will not have any objection to create independent Kashmir, its only india that doesnt move an inch
So u think Pakistan would readily give K2, Muzaffarabad, Mirpur, Chitral, and Gilgit (AJK and FANA) to this new country. Wil l Pakistan give away 13,297 sq km of land?
For the same reason they don't recognize the pro-independent sentiment of Balochis...
What a factless thing to say. Balochistan is a province of Pakistan. A recognized part of Pakistan. Whereas Kashmir is considered Disputed territory a.k.a Occupied Kashmir (by India).
But slowly and surely Media is starting to recognize the stance of Kashmiri people. I hope they continue to voice their concerns, choices, and desires.
I would like Pakistan to stay clear of this and let Kashmiri people become independent, not an annex of Pakistan.
☼Quod Me Nutrit Me Destruit☼
☼Appear as you are, Be as you appear.☼ (Rumi)
i think Indian Kashmir can never be part of Pakistan. There is no sympathy for Pakistan in any country to get Kashmir. No country would support Pakistan's stand on Kashmir. Even the support we get from OIC is mere words. Will any country assist Pakistan in invading Kashmir, not even China.
Saying that there is very likely Kashmir can become independent country. But will Pakistan allow it's Kashmit to join independent Kashmir. If Kashmir become independent and Pakistan doesnt allow it's part of Kashmir including Muzaffarabad, Gilgit, Chitral etc to Join Kashmir, there will be big revolt against Pakistan and India will support that.
If Kashmir becomes independent , India will make sure that Pakistani Kashmir is part of that.
And how exactly? Azad Kashmir is happy to sympathize with Pakistan. People of Occupied Kashmir are not sympathetic with India. India will have a hard time convincing the world that Azad Kashmir is oppressed, because it is not.
Occupied Kashmir does NOT have to become a part of Pakistan. We all just want its people to have independence. Period.
And how exactly? Azad Kashmir is happy to sympathize with Pakistan. People of Occupied Kashmir are not sympathetic with India. India will have a hard time convincing the world that Azad Kashmir is oppressed, because it is not.
.
This is the crux of the problem ..... as you have said it yourself .... Kashmir is an international dispute .... it means the whole of "princely state of jammu & Kashmir"....as it was in 1947 .... you cannot pick & choose your parts.
If and when a plebisicte is held ...... it will have to follow the conditions set by Security council .... the conditions that are there for India also apply to Pakistan.
^^ Except that we're ready for plebiscites and the Indians are not. We all know which way the Indian-occupied Kashmir vote will go. The Indians do too, thats why there's been no vote till this day.
^^ Except that we're ready for plebiscites and the Indians are not. We all know which way the Indian-occupied Kashmir vote will go. The Indians do too, thats why there's been no vote till this day.
That is a good sign ... so when will pakistan Army and people of pakistan " not ordinarily residents of J & K" vacate POK and northern areas?
And how exactly? Azad Kashmir is happy to sympathize with Pakistan. People of Occupied Kashmir are not sympathetic with India. India will have a hard time convincing the world that Azad Kashmir is oppressed, because it is not.
Occupied Kashmir does NOT have to become a part of Pakistan. We all just want its people to have independence. Period.
poeple of Indian Kahmir have independence.Pls check your statement Teggy Bhai .
There is only one Occupid Kashmir ,that's Pakistan Occupied Kahmir.Return us that,pls.
Let us not go by just the semantics over who is occupying what. If Azad Kashmir is so Azad, why dont you guys withdraw from Azad Kashmir and have a fair referrendum. This will force India to do the same.
Also what about the land gifted to China by Pakistan. Who is going to ask China to hold a referrendum. They would rather put a bullet somewhere !!!
Kashmir is pretty complicated issue and media bias is just one of the reasons. Let me try to answer the media issue first and then explore some other reasons too.
First and foremost it is a Kashmir issue. And the behavior of Kashmiris would play a much bigger role in terms of getting international support. It will be a mistake if we turn Kashmir issue to "Pakistan issue" or "Indian issue" only.
Remember the Western media gravitates to the little guy, the down trodden, the minority. So one can expect that kashmiri Muslims being oppressed minority, would immediately get the attention they need from the Western media. But they don't!
To understand this, we have to look at how Western media chooses to side with one of the other group. Melosovich was part of an orthodox christian leadership, and yet it lost support in the eyes of Western media. Why?
Western media further analyzes a group before putting their full weight on their side. The thing that bothers Western media is "culture" of the minority group. If that culture comes across as anti-Western or an oppressor, then the minority group in itself loses a lot of sympathy points.
The second point is how the supporters of the minority group treat Westerners.
In case of Kashmiris, their leadership goofed up big time. They are not "inclusive" and secondly do not come across as pro-West. Why it is so? Well we have to delve a little into Kashmiri history.
Kashmiri leadership started correctly by establishing a party called "National Conference" and that was inclusive in nature. It included Kashmiri Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs. Due to many reasons, National Conference split and Muslim conference came into being.
Modern day Kashmiri struggle is mainly carried out by the decedents of Muslim conference (MC). Unfortunately MC is not inclusive. It doesn't raise the issue of non-Muslim Kashmiris. And that's why Western media is not sympathetic to it.
In some ways MC is using Jinnah's Muslim League (ML) formula. But unfortunately it doesn't have a shrewd pro-Western leader like Jinnah.
Remember Jinnah came across as much more civilized, polished, and pro-Western. And that helped him get a recognition in Western eyes. Even though Western media was much more impressed with Gandhi's "inclusive" politics, Jinnah still scored some points.
In addition to Jinnah, modern day Pakistani regions had two major entities that were pro-Western: Punjab-Frontier dominated army, and Punjab - Sindh dominated land lords.
Thus the charisma and lobbying of three pro-Western entities: Jinnah, army, and land lords resulted in pro-Pakistan (albeit to lesser degree compared to Gandhi and India) forces in the West.
Kashmiris lack all three of the entities, and that's why they do not get support from the West.
This is a very brief view of Kashmiris and their characteristics.
Off course to a lesser degree Pakistan's role has not helped Kashmiris either. Pakistan has not been very good to its minorities. Draconian laws like Hudood have sapped any support that Pakistan may have garnered these days. The West knows that if Kashmiris get their autonomy, they will do the ethnic cleansing just like Melosovich did in Bosnia. And an independent (or Pakistani-controlled) Kashmir will turn out to be yet another hot bed of anti-West militancy and terrorism.
And that my friend scares the wits out of Western media.
Good to see you agree that the Western media is:
1. Biased.
2. Judgemental
3. Racist
4. Follows the political agenda of their host nation.
As for the topic at hand. Giving up Kashmir will give the 17 other independence movements in India more backing and support than ever before. It would also lead to communal and ethnic strife in the country that is merely simmering at this point.
Additionally it will protray India in a negative light while the western agenda is to give it a big boost so that it functions as a counter to China.
According to the UN resolutions the ones Nehru agreed to, and the ones Nehru quoted state that India needs to vacate its areas first. Once that is done, the land will be handed over to an international force to conduct a plebicite.
In addition to Nehru agreeing to the Resolution and stating for 10 years that he would implement it, nothing has been done in Kashmir held by India illegally. Simply put the onus is on India to implement the resolutions. Not ours.
As for the Pakistani people. We have no problem with the independence of Kashmir or it being part of Pakistan. Just give the people their right to self-determination.
Terror in Mumbai - ISI chief being requested to come to India sounds to me like "Come teach us, we're incompetent. - vigoratus
How Kahmiris will trust Pakistan?It was even ready for a barter trade with China on the land of Kashmir.If the remaining Kahmir also goes to pakistan,who knows,you won't even sell Srinagar to China? No offence............
.........Our Indian Friends are "AFRED".........of the Domino Affect........
