230 replies to this topic

[md. ammar ali]

off topic -

why does the map say "pakistan administered kashmir " instead of "pakistan occupied kashmir - POK"

??

Edited by Basim Ali, 11 April 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

off topic -

why does the map say "pakistan administered kashmir " instead of "pakistan occupied kashmir - POK"

??

The map also says Indian administered Kashmir. Of course if you are Indian you would see it as Pakistan occupied and vice verca (Pakistanis refer to their part as "Azad Kashmir" or Free Kashmir). Although many say that if given a choice, most Kashmiris would either want an independent state, or rather be part of Pakistan than India, seeing as it is a Muslim majority state that is under oppressive rule, by a mostly Hindu military presence, Also the Chinese occupy a substantial portion of Kashmir, but no one ever mentions this.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed, 07 April 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[ShiaBen]

It should remain part of India. It was originally Indian territory.

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

It should remain part of India. It was originally Indian territory.

As was Pakistan and Bangladesh.

[Aly ReZa]

its a part of india pakis want this also so that they can get more places to hide the wahabis

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

To claim the entire region of Kashmir, including the parts under Pakistan (not to mention Chinese) control is part of India kind of defeats logic, because the British (deliberately) gave both India and Pakistan Kashmir - the point was to give Muslim majority states to Pakistan - and hence many feel that Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan. However, if one is to argue that all of Kashmir belongs to India, because it historically was part of Indian territory... then what do these same people say about Karachi or Sindh or the Pakistani controlled region of Punjab, etc. ?

Personally, I feel that there shouldn't have been a Pakistan to begin with, as it weakened the Muslims politically and socially who remained in India (who at one point formed a larger population than those in Pakistan, and still comprise the single largest religious minority in a country). Just think if India had remained united, how the combined number of Muslims of both Pakistan and Bangladesh would have fared - but of course there was discrimination (still is) and interocommunal fighting before the creation of Pakistan, with many seeing separation as a solution.

[md. ammar ali]

^ so according ti your logic - all muslim majority areas goto pakistan - then what about hyderabad city where i live - should that als0 be a part of pakistan


majority muslims preffered india (what you call a hindu fanatic state) than pakistan after independence


who are the british to give this to india and that to pakistan

it is pok and not pak

it is j&k and not iak

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

^ so according ti your logic - all muslim majority areas goto pakistan - then what about hyderabad city where i live - should that als0 be a part of pakistan

By that logic, then yes.

majority muslims preffered india (what you call a hindu fanatic state) than pakistan after independence

I don't think I referred to India as anything other than India, correct me if I am wrong.

who are the british to give this to india and that to pakistan

They were their colonial masters.

[Wahdat]

As was Pakistan and Bangladesh.

They too should be part of India. India gets to be a whole again and Muslims a sizable and effective community. Everyone wins.

- the point was to give Muslim majority states to Pakistan - and hence many feel that Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan.

wrong. the original promise of a muslim state was one that contained the current state of Pakistan, plus northern parts of India and Bangladesh. Just like the promise to the Arabs were an Arab state from today's Syria to Iraq in the East, Lebanon to the West, and all the way to Yemen in the South and everything inbetween.

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

They too should be part of India. India gets to be a whole again and Muslims a sizable and effective community. Everyone wins.

I said before that there shouldn't have been a Pakistan to begin with, however in the highly unlikely scenario of a reunification - of BOTH Pakistan and Bangladesh - it will be pissing on the graves of those Million + who died during the violent Partition. Not to mention those who fought and died for the creation of a Bangladesh from the ashes of East Pakistan.

[Wahdat]

I said before that there shouldn't have been a Pakistan to begin with, however in the highly unlikely scenario of a reunification - of BOTH Pakistan and Bangladesh - it will be pissing on the graves of those Million + who died during the violent Partition. Not to mention those who fought and died for the creation of a Bangladesh from the ashes of East Pakistan.

Given the current events, yes, it is very unlikely for the countries to re-unite. But never say never. All it takes is for a Pakistani bollywood actor turned politician with his Indian devi to promote the idea. lol. Jokes aside, economics often dictates everything. It was for the sole purpose of British economic reason that these countries were partitioned. Today only West wins from this partition as they now have 3 armies to sell arms to or tweak other geo-political sensitivies (read Afghanistan, Central Asia, Iran or China). But when the regional people wake up and see past this foreign notions of patriotism (divide and conquer), a unification wont seem so distant as it would be in the self interest of not only Pakistanis and Indians but of Iranians, Afghans, Central Asians etc for these countries to join and create a bigger trading zone with free flow of goods and services.

'you may say I am a dreamer...but i am not the only one....'

Edited by Wahdat, 07 April 2012 - 01:25 PM.

[Propaganda_of_the_Deed]

wrong. the original promise of a muslim state was one that contained the current state of Pakistan, plus northern parts of India and Bangladesh. Just like the promise to the Arabs were an Arab state from today's Syria to Iraq in the East, Lebanon to the West, and all the way to Yemen in the South and everything inbetween.

Yes but the justification and reasoning was generally Muslim majority regions, as Jinnah and his crew were all for separation from the majority Hindu community of what is today India. It wouldn't have been feasible for the promise to have been located in Tamil Nadu in the South for example.

[Professor Higgins]

World's highest battlefield ?


Whats the use of fighting at that altitude anyway ? Foolish.

[Mansur]

Kashmir was, is and will always be an integral part of India. Pakistan has no right whatsoever to claim for it. Even the land of Pakistan belongs to India. We gave them 65 crore rupees during partition, due to which they were able to build their homes.

Look at both the countries. Today, India is a super power. Where Pakistan is a shame on Islam. isn't it?

[Marbles]

They too should be part of India. India gets to be a whole again and Muslims a sizable and effective community. Everyone wins.

A peaceful political unification of the Subcontinent on the lines of East/West Germany is never going to happen. If it happens any time in history it would happen amid killings and murder of another set of millions, more horrific than the one which occurred in '47.

Regardless of what some right-wing Indians may tell you, Indian establishment as well as its people, so far as I can see, wouldn't either accept Pakistan and Bangladesh, in this day and age, to become part of United India for the problems it would create for the mainland India.

The real chance for the inhabitants of the Subcontinent is to open up to each other, socially and economically. The two countries borne out of the undivided India should exist and remain independent in their own right, but a cooperation on the lines of European Union or somewhat congenial will do the trick.

Conflict and wars will only add to the miseries of the already impoverished millions, and those exist in all three countries.

Kashmir was, is and will always be an integral part of India. Pakistan has no right whatsoever to claim for it. Even the land of Pakistan belongs to India. We gave them 65 crore rupees during partition, due to which they were able to build their homes.

Look at both the countries. Today, India is a super power. Where Pakistan is a shame on Islam. isn't it?

One of the excuses given by the Pakistan security establishment for its control of the country and it's administration is that India has never truly accepted the existence and Independence of Pakistan, and that they will do anything in their power to destroy the country. I personally don't buy this line. I think it is more of a paranoia on the part of Pakistan security establishment. Looking at history, India has not acted definitively in such a way as to bring down Pakistan. As for comments like your, not only they are based on the fantasies of yore, they tend to provide justification to the hatred of India among Pakistani nationalists. So I suggest you keep your fantasies in check.

Pakistani lands belonged to India; they no longer belong to India. Please learn to live with it. And Kashmir is as much an "integral part" of India as Pakistan and Bangladesh were. If they could gain independence, Kashmiris can get it too, without venturing into history to assert which country the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir should have acceded too.

Edited by Marbles, 10 April 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[Mutah_King]

Oh please, will you dimwits get lost with your bull-[Edited Out] nationalist nonsense. How many Indian troops are present in Kashmir? Somewhere upwards of 800 000? More than the combined American occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan at the height of the conflict. Why is this given how Kashmiri's apparently have as their most desired of ambitions to be one with the great Hindustan? How many Pakistani troops are present in its "occupied" Kashmir? Kashmir doesn't always have to remain part of India, that is for the Kashmiri people to decide, it is about time everyone but the Kashmiri's stopped speaking on their behalf. And no, I wouldn't care much if Pakistani administrated Kashmir parted ways too if it is what they desire. If you want to be a loud mouth patriot on sc, then at least find it within you to stand up to your state where it clearly is in the wrong, i.e Indian oppression in Kashmir. But NOOO, we will post our nationalist nonsense in Pakistani threads instead.

[Marbles]

^ so according ti your logic - all muslim majority areas goto pakistan - then what about hyderabad city where i live - should that als0 be a part of pakistan


majority muslims preffered india (what you call a hindu fanatic state) than pakistan after independence

Incorrect on both counts. That's why I suggest people read books.

According to the Partition plan, all Muslim majority contiguous provinces would group together to form an independent Pakistan. The princely states, which covered one-third of Indian land mass, were given option to join either India or Pakistan. Common sense dictated that the those princely states which were deep inside the territory of India will accede to India despite their Muslim majority population, if any, and those that fell in Pakistan would accede to Pakistan. The state of Hyderabad Deccan ruled by the Nizam was overwhelmingly Hindu anyway. It had to go to India.

The real test came for those princely states which had borders with both India and Pakistan and could swing either way. Kashmir was one. Bahawalpur was another. The former was 80%-90% Muslim and according to the logic of the plan it should have acceded to Pakistan. The former (Bahawalpure) was Muslim majority too. It went with Pakistan despite Nehru's numerous attempts to cajole The Nawab of Bahalwapur into acceding to India.

2/3 of the total population of India went to Pakistan (East and West). 1/3 remained in India. So your argument that majority of Muslims preferred India contradicts facts. Now that today those who bring the argument that India's Muslim population is as much if not more than Pakistan's don't count Bangladeshi millions into the equation. If you count them, you will find that 2/3 of the Muslims of the Subcontinent still fall outside India. Just facts.

[md. ammar ali]

If they could gain independence, Kashmiris can get it too,

so could baluchistan

infact balochistan was never a part of india before independence

pakistan occupied baloch and exploiting its natural resources

but not making any devlopmental activity there nor giving any respect to their culture or language

balochs are being killed in dozens everyday

their leaders like nawab akbhar khan bughti are killed

[Marbles]

so could baluchistan

infact balochistan was never a part of india before independence

pakistan occupied baloch and exploiting its natural resources

but not making any devlopmental activity there nor giving any respect to their culture or language

balochs are being killed in dozens everyday

their leaders like nawab akbhar khan bughti are killed

Akbar Bugti Radi Allah anha??

If Balochistan was never a part of British India than what was it?

Okay let's see if you can stand the test.

If majority of Balochis want to secede from Pakistan I will support them completely. I don't believe in the so called territorial integrity to begin with.

Now let me hear you say the same thing about the beautiful Vale of Kashmir.

[ShiaBen]

People from Kashmir don't want to be part of Pakistan. They just want bloodshed to end between Muslims and Hindus. What's so difficult to understand?

[md. ammar ali]

majority of baloch want separate nation

majority of kashmiris even POK wants to be in india

[md. ammar ali]

Everyone is calling for them to be allowed to exercise their right to self determination

subanAllah

what about balochistan then???????

why are they oppressed and persecuted - killed in the dozens everyday???

[Marbles]

People from Kashmir don't want to be part of Pakistan. They just want bloodshed to end between Muslims and Hindus. What's so difficult to understand?

Since when have you become the sole spokesman for the Kashmiris?

There is no bloodshed between Muslims and Hindus in Kashmir. There is a near-million strong state army occupying and oppression a mass of people that doesn't want to be ruled by India. It's not so hard to understand.

It is funny to see the "defenders of World Muslims" mewing like sated cats whenever there is a case against Indian oppression of Kashmiri Muslims. But you go all gaga whenever some other non-Muslim powers kills a few dozen civilians

majority of baloch want separate nation

majority of kashmiris even POK wants to be in india

LOL

Yeah, that's why there is half-a-million strong Pakistan army oppressing the people of the "POK" and killing them on regular basis isn't it?

Please tell us of your secret sources of great knowledge so that we can also learn a thing or two. Please send me those sources in powder form.

Edited by Marbles, 10 April 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[ShiaBen]

Since when have you become the sole spokesman for the Kashmiris?

There is no bloodshed between Muslims and Hindus in Kashmir. There is a near-million strong state army occupying and oppression a mass of people that doesn't want to be ruled by India. It's not so hard to understand.

It is funny to see the "defenders of World Muslims" mewing like sated cats whenever there is a case against Indian oppression of Kashmiri Muslims. But you go all gaga whenever some other non-Muslim powers kills a few dozen civilians



LOL

Yeah, that's why there is a half-a-million strong Pakistan army oppressing the people of the "POK" and killing them on regular basis isn't it?

Please tell us of your secret sources of great knowledge so that we can also learn a thing or two. Please send me those sources in powder form.

Occupying and oppressing yada yada yada.

It's only occupying and oppressing when there are Indian troops there, but it's not "occupying and oppressing" when there are Pakistani troops there.

Maybe if Pakistani troops stay away from Kashmir, Indian troops would refrain from sending ridiculous numbers, no?

Edited by ShiaBen, 10 April 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[Moonshiner]

Maybe if Pakistani troops stay away from Kashmir, Indian troops would refrain from sending ridiculous numbers, no?

Why should Pakistani troops stay away from Kashmir?

This quote can easily be turned around; if Indian troops would stay away from Kashmir, Pakistan wouldn't have to send them in either. In either case, your post failed on a collosal level to respond to Marbles' points. Please re-read Marbles' point and try again.