2143hrs:
It gets tougher by the day but it also gets easier if you can break the pain barriers that change as well as intensify by the day.
......
On a personal level I owe a lot to the following gentleman, who is a recurring theme on this blog. Please watch this video:
Our True Hero #BabaJan @NadeemKashmiri_@iamsardarsohaib@sahaafi@KandayRashid@AmmarRashidT @ComradeAzhar@MohsinAbdali4@PSCollective_ pic.twitter.com/C7zfExy1ti— HumanOfGB #FreeBabaJan&ItsAllies (@Humansofgb) April 21, 2020
..........
(Update: 12/06/20 at 1757hrs):
I only got to read this a few days ago but felt compelled to respond to it for its poisonous or misleading intent:
Here's my response:
Thank you for your well placed arguments in favour of Pakistan. Indeed, the rigour involved in your writing is surprising and dare I say uncustomary coming from a person originating from AJK.
However, your article only suggests (or even proves) that India was more inflexible in agreeing to terms of plebiscite than Pakistan apparently was. It does not in any manner prove your conclusion viz. "Therefore, holding Pakistan responsible for forestalling the plebiscite, or asking Pakistan Army to vacate first or equalizing Pakistan and India is a gross example of intellectual dishonesty and distortion of facts as Pakistan was and is always ready to fulfill her obligations to give the people of J&K their right of self-determination."
The word synchronisation is A G Noorani's term (as you've quoted him) and not the UN's. In any case, the words synchronisation and simultaneous are not the same. Indeed, synchronisation can still mean one after the other (in sequence).
As Pakistan invaded (clearly breaking the standstill agreement and trying to do a Junagadh like India did) thus, it was always likely that it would be required to vacate first under any agreement of demilitarisation. If it didn't invade, there would have been no grounds for India to enter the State (unless it itself invaded of course). With the non Muslims of the territory being in a minority and already hounded out of AJK, there would have always been a reason for India to retain some troops in the territory compared to Pakistan and the UN discourse reflects that.
If Pakistan was so confident of the popular vote in its favour it would not have invaded. Therefore, your conclusion is false.
Every apparent flexibility of the Pakistani government was mere posturing because it was always getting something out of nothing, as has emerged over 73 years. It didn't need India to disband the Azad Kashmir army, the Pakistanis did that themselves unilaterally. The way Pakistan has bought its sympathisers in AJK from the very outset in 1947 (by providing them a monthly wage and hitherto provided them money, arms and logistics to wage war against the Maharajah) and how it confines the public narrative in AJK to reward those who wish to accede to Pakistan and punish those who don't; doesn't exactly make Pakistan an honest, open and flexible stakeholder as you have tried hard to suggest. All Pakistan has done is make expert hypocrites out of all of us.
Within the framework of the UN, if Pakistan was indeed sincere with the people of J & K it would have unilaterally withdrawn and created a real dilemma for Indian presence in the territory. Not least by nullifying all India's arguments. However, everything Pakistan has done since 1947 has been to the mutual benefit of India and Pakistan, just as the British had planned and envisaged.
Which brings me to the actual point which we - as the actual stakeholders of J & K and not India, Pakistan or anyone else - need to understand. Taking the matter to the UN was indeed a British idea and the main purpose of it was to deflect any attention or responsibility away from the British who had in fact facilitated the entry of Indian and Pakistani troops into J & K, whereas the Maharajah wanted to remain independent. The British not only facilitated their entry but they also stabilised both sets of troops in the territory. The UN was intended to give us - the actual stakeholders - an impression that our national question had been referred to the highest global forum and would be imminently resolved.
We must break out of this British trap of conducting politics on the basis of religious identity and make them accountable via our diaspora in the UK.
Creating pressure on India via Pakistan has only emboldened India while profiting Pakistan.
The winners: India, Pakistan, China, Britain and America
The losers: The people of Jammu Kashmir & Allied
.......
I only got to read this a few days ago but felt compelled to respond to it for its poisonous or misleading intent:
I have responded to this well crafted but very misleading article: https://t.co/rmEjVznezE https://t.co/NbYqUK7hMr— Tanveer Ahmed (@sahaafi) June 12, 2020
Thank you for your well placed arguments in favour of Pakistan. Indeed, the rigour involved in your writing is surprising and dare I say uncustomary coming from a person originating from AJK.
However, your article only suggests (or even proves) that India was more inflexible in agreeing to terms of plebiscite than Pakistan apparently was. It does not in any manner prove your conclusion viz. "Therefore, holding Pakistan responsible for forestalling the plebiscite, or asking Pakistan Army to vacate first or equalizing Pakistan and India is a gross example of intellectual dishonesty and distortion of facts as Pakistan was and is always ready to fulfill her obligations to give the people of J&K their right of self-determination."
The word synchronisation is A G Noorani's term (as you've quoted him) and not the UN's. In any case, the words synchronisation and simultaneous are not the same. Indeed, synchronisation can still mean one after the other (in sequence).
As Pakistan invaded (clearly breaking the standstill agreement and trying to do a Junagadh like India did) thus, it was always likely that it would be required to vacate first under any agreement of demilitarisation. If it didn't invade, there would have been no grounds for India to enter the State (unless it itself invaded of course). With the non Muslims of the territory being in a minority and already hounded out of AJK, there would have always been a reason for India to retain some troops in the territory compared to Pakistan and the UN discourse reflects that.
If Pakistan was so confident of the popular vote in its favour it would not have invaded. Therefore, your conclusion is false.
Every apparent flexibility of the Pakistani government was mere posturing because it was always getting something out of nothing, as has emerged over 73 years. It didn't need India to disband the Azad Kashmir army, the Pakistanis did that themselves unilaterally. The way Pakistan has bought its sympathisers in AJK from the very outset in 1947 (by providing them a monthly wage and hitherto provided them money, arms and logistics to wage war against the Maharajah) and how it confines the public narrative in AJK to reward those who wish to accede to Pakistan and punish those who don't; doesn't exactly make Pakistan an honest, open and flexible stakeholder as you have tried hard to suggest. All Pakistan has done is make expert hypocrites out of all of us.
Within the framework of the UN, if Pakistan was indeed sincere with the people of J & K it would have unilaterally withdrawn and created a real dilemma for Indian presence in the territory. Not least by nullifying all India's arguments. However, everything Pakistan has done since 1947 has been to the mutual benefit of India and Pakistan, just as the British had planned and envisaged.
Which brings me to the actual point which we - as the actual stakeholders of J & K and not India, Pakistan or anyone else - need to understand. Taking the matter to the UN was indeed a British idea and the main purpose of it was to deflect any attention or responsibility away from the British who had in fact facilitated the entry of Indian and Pakistani troops into J & K, whereas the Maharajah wanted to remain independent. The British not only facilitated their entry but they also stabilised both sets of troops in the territory. The UN was intended to give us - the actual stakeholders - an impression that our national question had been referred to the highest global forum and would be imminently resolved.
We must break out of this British trap of conducting politics on the basis of religious identity and make them accountable via our diaspora in the UK.
Creating pressure on India via Pakistan has only emboldened India while profiting Pakistan.
The winners: India, Pakistan, China, Britain and America
The losers: The people of Jammu Kashmir & Allied
.......
No comments:
Post a Comment