Jump to content


- - -


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Kashmir Issue


230 replies to this topic

#176 md. ammar ali

md. ammar ali

    Member

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,456 posts
  • Religion:twelver shia -isna asheri
  • Interests:histroy
    politics
    travelling
    debates

Posted 15 April 2012 - 12:43 AM

The other ruler to delay the ascension was the Muslim Nizam (ruler) of the state of Hyderabad Deccan. It was a large and extremely wealthy state with overwhelmingly Hindu population. Its geography dictated that it would join India. But the Nizam never signed the Act of Ascension which would have legally ceded his state to India. Indians tolerated the Nizam for 6 or so months before ordering their troops inside the territory of Hyderabad and taking over the state by force.

The Nizam wanted to remain "neutral" aka Independent. India invaded it and struck the merger by force. The other case is the small state of Junagadh in Gujarat. The ruler wanted to remain Independent and for some time wanted to join Pakistan. But since Junagadh didn't have borders with Pakistan and was a Hindu majority state, it was illogical for the Maharaja to want to join Pakistan. End result? India invaded it like it invaded Hyderabad and took over it by force.

So by your standards, if Pakistan lost its claim over Kashmir because it invaded it and tried to effect merger by force, India also lost its claim over independent states of Hyderabad and Junagadh because of the same reason? Yes or No?

Agreed that Pakistanis, at the time of Independence, messed it up in Kashmir. Their policy turned out to be a consummate failure. But it doesn't on the other hand give legitimacy to Indian claim over Kashmir. Besides, no one is defending Pakistan's claim over Kashmir so please don't bring it up again.

what you know about telangana / hyderabad?????

i am a local

jai telangana

the bloody nizam :shaytan: was an incarnation of shaytan

grow up learn something and come

telangana was not took over by force

it was a peoples movement - communists also supported it

even the common man muslims also supported the movement against the nizam and his razakars



so dont make up lies or tell whatever comes to your imagination


i agree the fact that SVP sent military to hyderabad to fight nizam on the invitation of the people

but even before the troops entered the outskirts of telangana - nizam made the announcement


jai telangana

jai hind

#177 Ugly Jinn

Ugly Jinn

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,379 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 12:55 AM

Yes, in practice, the invasion of Kashmir amounted to breaking the agreement on Pakistani part.


That's all I wanted to hear.

Again, I am not defending Pakistani claim over Kashmir and I asked you not to bring it up again. It is about Indian claim on Kashmir which you seem to eager to defend. I am countering your assertion that Kashmir legitimately belongs to India. It doesn't. Let me tell you about another agreement which was not honoured and which you are sure to be unaware of.


I didn't state whether Kashmir should belong to India or not, I'm stating that it is something which India and Kashmir should discuss without the interference of Pakistan. Based on events that took place, India has a valid claim, and so do Kashmiris wanting independence.

Third, ask Indian Muslims if they are castigated by the Hindu majority. Don't take my word. How about that for a modest proposal?


I don't know what proof you'd need to show such issues are non-existent (maybe a rare occurrence). I've never heard of any Muslims being killed or beaten up for such reasons.

So I'll ask the Indian Muslims on Shiachat, there is varun loves ahlubayt, yamolaalimadad (spelling?), and any other Muslims living in India. Do you guys get castigated by Hindus for not leaving for Pakistan? Yes/No?

The same reasons, in various forms and degrees, which make Pakistan a horrid hateful country exist in Indian society as I have elaborated on numerous occasions. So when are you turning your guns against India? :rolleyes:


India is not perfect, but I've already made comparisons numerous times between the 2 countries, and Pakistan's history is far worse. This is my personal opinion, you can disagree. Like I said, India is not perfect either, they have issues also.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 15 April 2012 - 01:01 AM.


#178 Moonshiner

Moonshiner

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 73 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:02 AM

Good job on your post Marbles.I learned a lot from your answers to pathetic, illiterate, lying trolls such as varun and Ugly Jinn. Ugly people have to tell lies, this is why they are ugly.

Edited by Moonshiner, 15 April 2012 - 01:03 AM.


#179 md. ammar ali

md. ammar ali

    Member

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,456 posts
  • Religion:twelver shia -isna asheri
  • Interests:histroy
    politics
    travelling
    debates

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:13 AM

Good job on your post Marbles.I learned a lot from your answers to pathetic, illiterate, lying trolls such as varun and Ugly Jinn. Ugly people have to tell lies, this is why they are ugly.

will you please mind your language or shut ur little hole up there and get lost :mad:

#180 Moonshiner

Moonshiner

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 73 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:15 AM

will you please mind your language or shut ur little hole up there and get lost :mad:


Aww, your feelings are hurt. Like you said, truth is bitter, and you are demonstrating your bitter feelings.

Chalo shabash, go support Israel in helping your Indian troops oppress and rape Muslims in Kashmir.

Edited by Moonshiner, 15 April 2012 - 01:16 AM.


#181 Ugly Jinn

Ugly Jinn

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,379 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:22 AM

@varun loves ahlulbayt

You live in India. You are an ex-Hindu and now a Shia, answer my question in Post #177.

Good job on your post Marbles.I learned a lot from your answers to pathetic, illiterate, lying trolls such as varun and Ugly Jinn. Ugly people have to tell lies, this is why they are ugly.


This is what I mean by hateful Pakistanis' Marbles. ^_^

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 15 April 2012 - 01:24 AM.


#182 Moonshiner

Moonshiner

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 73 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:24 AM

This is what I mean by hateful Marbles. ^_^


LOL ***

Edited by Haji 2003, 15 April 2012 - 04:26 AM.
Rude language about another member. Such activity can get you suspended/banned.


#183 md. ammar ali

md. ammar ali

    Member

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,456 posts
  • Religion:twelver shia -isna asheri
  • Interests:histroy
    politics
    travelling
    debates

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:56 AM

in a dishonest, troll-like fashion. Am I not allowed to comment on his/her/it's dishonest, troll-like behavior?

your wish


you are responsible for your actions

#184 Moonshiner

Moonshiner

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 73 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 02:01 AM

you are responsible for your actions


well obviously. Did I say I was not responsible for my actions?

#185 md. ammar ali

md. ammar ali

    Member

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,456 posts
  • Religion:twelver shia -isna asheri
  • Interests:histroy
    politics
    travelling
    debates

Posted 15 April 2012 - 02:11 AM

well obviously. Did I say I was not responsible for my actions?

you indirectly meant it

you say so because - "it wasnt me - but he started it all - hence i had to reply that way"


okay even if u say otherwise

but what is the need for you to call him/her - it ??????

its too much

please behave in a decent manner - i am not asking you to change your point - you stick with your point till you die - thats up to you


but we could have a meaningfull discussion over here -

you make your point

he makes his point

prove yourself right - by producing sufficient proof in the form of data,figures ..with a source

but please stop this kinda' behaviour


i hope you understand - or else - your wish

go to hell

#186 Haji 2003

Haji 2003

    Shoekeeper

  • Mods
  • 6,815 posts
  • Location:Airstrip One
  • Interests:Apple, Canon, Rohan, Singapore Airlines, LSE

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:28 AM

I've tried to clean up this thread. Next stage is locking it and taking action against individual posters.
  • Ugly Jinn and md. ammar ali like this

#187 Marbles

Marbles

    ناقصاں را پیرِ کامل کاملاں را رہنما

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,787 posts
  • Location:Registan
  • Religion:Mussalman
  • Interests:Allah Hoo

Posted 15 April 2012 - 05:34 AM

That's all I wanted to hear.


Fine. But I didn't get to hear what I asked for. Let me briefly re-state it for you:

The provisional or temporary accession of Kashmir to India on 26th October 1947 was to become permanent and valid only as a result of public referendum following ceasefire and the withdrawal of Indian troops. Nothing of this sort happened, ever. Hence Indian claim on Kashmir is invalid so long as there is no free and fair referendum. Yes or No?

The Nizam of the princely state of Hyderabad Deccan wanted to remain independent just like his colleague, Kashmir's Maharajah. India invaded the state and took it over by force. Is Indian claim on Hyderabad Deccan valid or not?

I didn't state whether Kashmir should belong to India or not, I'm stating that it is something which India and Kashmir should discuss without the interference of Pakistan. Based on events that took place, India has a valid claim, and so do Kashmiris wanting independence.


Based on events that took place, neither country's claim over Kashmir is valid. If Pakistan broke it's agreement by invading Kashmir to get accession by force, India also broke its agreement by denying the ratification of the temporary accession by holding a public referendum as bound by the agreement. The only thing to provide validity to a claim on Kashmir would come out of a free and fair plebiscite. If such a plebiscite was held immediately after the ceasefire, it is not hard to imagine which country the people would have voted to accede to.

However, let us fast forward to the present day reality and leave out what happened in 1947. Because so many agreements (public and secret) and dialogues have taken place since then that it is no longer fruitful to rest either country's case on agreements of 1947.

The fact that Pakistan holds a substantial portion of Kashmir (not to mention the part of Kashmir under China's occupation since Indo-China war of 1962), if there is going to be a political solution to the historical princely state of Jammu & Kashmir, the participation of Pakistan as a party to negotiations on Kashmir is inevitable. India too recognises this fact and there have been numerous rounds of discussions and dialogue throughout the decades to hammer out a solution, the last being Musharraf's and Vajpayee's attempts to demilitarize Kashmiri LoC to ease trade and travel between the two parts of Kashmir.

In the light of the topic of this thread, in the next post I will briefly mention the solution of the conflict as proposed by Stanley Wolpert, one of the leading experts on Subcontinent's history and politics and author of more than a dozen books.

Edited by Marbles, 15 April 2012 - 05:54 AM.


#188 Moonshiner

Moonshiner

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 73 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:35 AM

This is what I mean by hateful Pakistanis' Marbles. ^_^


Telling the truth does not equal hateful. Maybe in your mind it does, but not in the minds of intelligent people. Washing yourself in the Ganges does this.

prove yourself right - by producing sufficient proof in the form of data,figures ..with a source


You don't do this yourself, and you ask me to do it. How delightfully typical of an Indian.

go to hell


Again hate from an Indian is very typical. Like I said, washing yourself in the Ganges does this.

Edited by Moonshiner, 15 April 2012 - 08:49 AM.


#189 md. ammar ali

md. ammar ali

    Member

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,456 posts
  • Religion:twelver shia -isna asheri
  • Interests:histroy
    politics
    travelling
    debates

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:05 AM

Again hate from an Indian is very typical. Like I said, washing yourself in the Ganges does this.

i dont go to ganges to wash myself

#190 Hagop

Hagop

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 70 posts
  • Location:Occidental Exile
  • Religion:Islam (ÔíÚÉ Úáí)
  • Interests:The Prophet & His Ahlulbayt(Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå æÓáã), realisation & actualisation

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:36 AM

Salams,

I just wanted to throw my penny's worth into this discussion. As someone who admires Gandhi, Nehru, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Bacha Khan and the Khudai Khidmatgars, as well as (historical) Nehruvian socialism and the pivotal role played by India in the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement, I have to say that Indian policy in Kashmir has been especially unjust since the rigged state elections of 1987.

The conduct of India's military and para-military forces towards Kashmiri civilians is atrocious and manifestly unjust. The fact that the Pakistani army committed atrocities against the Bengali people in 1971 or violates the rights of Balochis today, is not a reasonable justification for the actions of the Indian state in the part of Kashmir that it controls. Again, just to repeat, I think that partition was a terrible idea and that India is certainly a better working model of a post-colonial state than Pakistan. However, having said all that, I don't have a problem with saying that India's current policy in Kashmir is terribly unjust. Praise for a thing does not preclude criticism of it (and vice versa).

My understanding of the situation is that if a free and fair plebiscite were held in Jammu & Kashmir today, the population of the Valley would most likely opt for incorporation into Pakistan or independence, whilst the people of Jammu would opt for continued union with India.

In view of the fact that the whole issue arose as a direct result of the partition of colonial India, any negotiations on the future of the region must necessarily be tripartite (i.e. Kashmiri separatists, India and Pakistan) in nature. Not including Pakistan would be similar to holding talks on the future of Northern Ireland without including the Irish Republic in any negotiations.

Marbles: some questions for you (if you don't mind). What, in your opinion, made Jinnah go from a secular liberal with a negative opinion on the establishment of a Muslim homeland, to a supporter of the notion, including his use of populist and arguably insincere religious sloganeering to attain this objective? Do you think that there was an element of wanting to be big-fish-in-a-small-pond (i.e. Pakistan) amongst the more secular-minded Indian Muslim elites?

Lastly, what is your opinion of Sher-e-Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah?

PS - I like your blog btw. Have found some great reading material through it (so thank you).

PPS - Propaganda_of_the_Deed: it's interesting how acute social inequality is never a barrier to the establishment of an imperial or superpower state. Look at the Britain for example. It became a more equitable society parallel to the dismantling of its overseas empire from 1945 onwards (although the advent of Thatcherism in the 80s and it's Blairite continuation in the 90s led to the reversal of the welfare state and the social democracy underpinning it). The USA too is becoming far more unequal as it pursues an explicitly imperialist and adventurist foreign policy. It seems almost de rigueur for states with global, imperial ambitions to have social inequality at home. Arguably, the BRIC nations are simply following the path set by 18th and 19th century European nations and indeed by the ancient Romans, Egyptians etc. Perhaps it's necessary to export the pharaonic social pyramid of the homeland to other races and nations, the better to keep one's own masses under control? Just a thought.

Edited by Hagop, 15 April 2012 - 10:06 AM.

  • Marbles and King like this

#191 md. ammar ali

md. ammar ali

    Member

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,456 posts
  • Religion:twelver shia -isna asheri
  • Interests:histroy
    politics
    travelling
    debates

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:44 AM

Posted Image


jai telanganaaa

#192 al-syedia

al-syedia

    ALI TAJDAR

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,106 posts
  • Location:unknown

Posted 15 April 2012 - 12:00 PM

oh hoo
im loving this thread man
so after a long long time im seeing some thing like it

#193 TheHealer

TheHealer

    El doctor esta listo para atenderle.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Interests:A un objectivo paraiso

Posted 15 April 2012 - 02:07 PM

I as a Kashmiri myself ( am from Srinagar) would say that the majority of the people of Kashmir would want an independant nation. People outside Kashmir dont realise certain facts. Kashmir is culturally, geographically ,ethnically totally different from main land India and Pakistan.Kashmir always was an independant nation until if you have read our history , The Mughal emperor Akbar tricked by deciet our last independant ruler Yusuf Shah Chak ( of a Shi;ite dynasty) and annexed Kashmir. After partition when Indian army arrived in our lands, the United Nations orderd a Plebisite, for Kashmiris to decide their own future, but alas half a centurary later that Plebisite is yet to see the day of light. But, overall we Kashmiris would want our own sovern' nation, which had existed for thousands of years..............

Edited by TheHealer, 15 April 2012 - 02:15 PM.

  • King, Propaganda_of_the_Deed and Hagop like this

#194 Ugly Jinn

Ugly Jinn

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,379 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:11 PM

The provisional or temporary accession of Kashmir to India on 26th October 1947 was to become permanent and valid only as a result of public referendum following ceasefire and the withdrawal of Indian troops. Nothing of this sort happened, ever. Hence Indian claim on Kashmir is invalid so long as there is no free and fair referendum. Yes or No?


Hence an ongoing issue.

I just want you to realize that the root of the reason Kashmir has been an issue for decades is because of Pakistan's illegal invasion of it.

In the light of the topic of this thread, in the next post I will briefly mention the solution of the conflict as proposed by Stanley Wolpert, one of the leading experts on Subcontinent's history and politics and author of more than a dozen books.


Best solution is to get the UN involved. India, Pakistan, and Kashmir will never agree on anything, that peaceful opportunity expired long time ago.

I as a Kashmiri myself ( am from Srinagar) would say that the majority of the people of Kashmir would want an independant nation. People outside Kashmir dont realise certain facts. Kashmir is culturally, geographically ,ethnically totally different from main land India and Pakistan.Kashmir always was an independant nation until if you have read our history , The Mughal emperor Akbar tricked by deciet our last independant ruler Yusuf Shah Chak ( of a Shi;ite dynasty) and annexed Kashmir. After partition when Indian army arrived in our lands, the United Nations orderd a Plebisite, for Kashmiris to decide their own future, but alas half a centurary later that Plebisite is yet to see the day of light. But, overall we Kashmiris would want our own sovern' nation, which had existed for thousands of years..............


That's what Kashmir wanted but were invaded by Pakistan and everything went downhill from there. The Indian troops came after the Pakistani invasion. Hari Singh wanted Kashmir to be independent, hence was delaying his decision.

Now it's a mess.

But no offense, the initial Independence Law stated clearly that the princely states should join either India or Pakistan, there was no independence option, hence all the princely states joined either, otherwise there would be hundreds of countries.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 15 April 2012 - 03:22 PM.


#195 King

King

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:17 PM

PPS - Propaganda_of_the_Deed: it's interesting how acute social inequality is never a barrier to the establishment of an imperial or superpower state.


I think it depends on the source of social inequality in society and its correlation with macro-economic statistics. Social inequality today generally reflects economic inequality which generally means a high concentration of authority and subsequent class conflict/domination. The opposite would reflect a generally more democratic society where the populace is able to exert its will and force the state away from its imperial ambitions. There are some exceptions though, prior to the 1970s, the US was economically more equitable, yet the population was less likely to stand up and oppose its nation's imperial ambitions. I.e there was hardly any meaningful civil unrest well into the Vietnam war and through continuous US atrocities in Latin America, far worse than anything in the recent decades. The contemporary inequality in the states is as a result of a vicious class war from the business elite, peoples livelihoods are at stake, and hence the wars are not as popular as the ones before. There are of course moral reasons as well as the people are more civilized in general, but economics always plays a central role. In instances where a strong correlation exists, social inequality can lead to serious social unrest, especially if the wars are contributing to the problem. It generally just depends on how powerful the state/ruling elite are. As aggressive the US imperial ambitions are today, they are nothing compared to the post world war era. A powerful state can hence either sell its imperial ambitions to its people or simply get away with them due to weaker resistance
  • Hagop likes this

#196 Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Propaganda_of_the_Deed

    Purple Haze

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,975 posts
  • Location:Elysium

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:18 PM

^ What he said.

#197 Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Propaganda_of_the_Deed

    Purple Haze

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,975 posts
  • Location:Elysium

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:19 PM

I as a Kashmiri myself ( am from Srinagar) would say that the majority of the people of Kashmir would want an independant nation. People outside Kashmir dont realise certain facts. Kashmir is culturally, geographically ,ethnically totally different from main land India and Pakistan.Kashmir always was an independant nation until if you have read our history , The Mughal emperor Akbar tricked by deciet our last independant ruler Yusuf Shah Chak ( of a Shi;ite dynasty) and annexed Kashmir. After partition when Indian army arrived in our lands, the United Nations orderd a Plebisite, for Kashmiris to decide their own future, but alas half a centurary later that Plebisite is yet to see the day of light. But, overall we Kashmiris would want our own sovern' nation, which had existed for thousands of years..............


Thread officially closed. :shifty:

Kashmir 1 India 0 (well Pakistan 0 too but who's counting)

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed, 15 April 2012 - 03:22 PM.


#198 ShiaBen

ShiaBen

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,431 posts
  • Location:IRAN
  • Religion:The Path of the Dragon
  • Interests:Dragons

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:22 PM

Thread officially closed. :shifty:

Kashmir 1 India 0.


Correction: Kashmir 1 India 0 Pakistan 0

But of course I have no idea what a Hindu Kashmiri or an atheist one would say.

We have only one account from one person above. We'll never know.

#199 King

King

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:24 PM

Correction: Kashmir 1 India 0 Pakistan 0

But of course I have no idea what a Hindu Kashmiri or an atheist one would say.

We have only one account from one person above. We'll never know.


Pakistan is of the opinion that the Kashmiris should decide their own fate, so they are cool with an independent Kashmir. Not that Hindus in Kashmir are irrelevant, but it is a majority muslim state.
  • Propaganda_of_the_Deed likes this

#200 Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Propaganda_of_the_Deed

    Purple Haze

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,975 posts
  • Location:Elysium

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:27 PM

Not that I've done any surveys or conducted mass interviews, but the Indian Kashmiris I know, say that they would want an independent state as a preference, yet if given a choice between the two, they would rather be part of Pakistan than India, but that's just by default. Neither India or Pakistan actually care about Kashmiris as I said before, they just care about the water supply from the Himalayas, as water will increasingly set to be a sought after and fought over commodity,



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users