India claims to have killed 41 "militants" in Kashmir.

[namefield_empty]

The ascension was illegal in our opinion. The people did not want it but the ruler forced it and went to the extent of ethnical cleansing to do it.

It was Pakistan to violate the Standstill Agreement and only after the repeated request of the sovereign authority to his Pakistani counterparts did he reluctantly agree to sign the IoA with India.

And we believe he signed it so as to gain the military protection.

You are correct on this one, the Maharaja had little choices left after the plunder and rape of the Kashmiris(Baramulla massacre for example) by the tribesmen and informal militias sent by Pakistan.

Furthermore, Gandhi and Nehru, both in India and in UN promised Kashmir the right to self determination as CHOSEN representatives of the new Indian state.

This only goes to show the 'magnanimity' of Jawaharlal Nehru that he decided to approach the United Nations although he was under no compulsion to do so being backed-up by legal handover of external security of Kashmir.

So far as the UN mandated self determination of Kashmiris is concerned, the conditions laid down by it have not been met by Pakistan which had further gone on to gift a chunk of Kashmiri territory to China thereby bringing another party to the dispute. Lot of water have flown under the bridge since 1948 and anyone who believes that the status quo would change is being misled.

 

[Pubg1]

Waited so desperately to beat the target of 40
And hasn't mentioned number of coward soldiers u have lost during operations ..

Haha cowards ? What do you call the 93000 Pakistanis who surrendered in 13 days and lost half their country.?

 

[Muslim Warrior]

Haha cowards ? What do you call the 93000 Pakistanis who surrendered in 13 days and lost half their country.?

I would still call them soldiers though they were defeated ... But not like yours that can only opress and kill innocent Kashmiri men , women and children .

 

[Chhatrapati]

I don't speak for anyone in Kashmir but I am speaking on the basis of evidence. Be it funeral processions, accounts by Indian tourists, videos like at the site of Mil crash, be it interviews, or even surveys. These are all evidences, and they exist, or will you wand them off as fake because they don't fit the false narrative indoctrinated in mainland India?

Like I said, it's simply your perception. If there was a larger dissent to India, why Kashmiris at large do not revolt? There are a millions of Kashmiris in the region. You tried twice to instigate a revolt in 65 and 99. Both failed miserably. Why is that? It was your best chance, if Kashmiris revolted at the scale you wished they do, would end our control in the region. But Kashmiris are largely cooperative with Army, and they have their reservations of course. We address them from time to time.

There are also evidences where Kashmiris live and work in other parts of India, in the army, studies in our collages, take part in our elections. Yeah, they are boring, only the stone throwing ones fit your narrative.

 

[Ghazwa-e-Hind]

It is too late for India to solve the Kashmir issue. The time for introspection has passed.

India is now trying to repair the bucket by making more holes onto it, which is bound to fail.

This is the beginning of civil war in India as we speak. Their leadership will not be able to control it. After seeing Kashmiri freedom fighters, the other freedom movements will also surge.

To control the civil war, India will play Pakistan card to divert the attention and will do another Surgical Strike Lie.