Interviews of Kashmir refugees in Azad Kashmir

[Azad-Kashmiri]

Why??????????????????????????

Sorry first get the kashmir from China than talk about Indian Kashmir.... Told you my dear nothing gona change

The two state solution was based on religion. Majority Muslim with Pakistan, so Kashmir belongs to Pakistan.

Also please know that 'Thou shalt hate Islam' is in our Constitution. Check it.

Yes, your country has hatred for Islam. I want all the secularists on here to realise even if Hindu-India gets A.K, they will NOT rest until Pakistan is destroyed. Why? Because we are Muslims!

“Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikoon (Idol worshippers), and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: ‘We are Christians’” [al-Maa’idah 5:82]

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The two state solution was based on religion. Majority Muslim with Pakistan, so Kashmir belongs to Pakistan.



Yes, your country has hatred for Islam. I want all the secularists on here to realise even if Hindu-India gets A.K, they will NOT rest until Pakistan is destroyed. Why? Because we are Muslims!

“Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikoon (Idol worshippers), and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: ‘We are Christians’” [al-Maa’idah 5:82]

Yes. Exactly. You should re read the verses to each Pakistani and prepare for Qisas in perpetuity. It is in your interest to wipe out Hindus off this planet. Faith commands you. Good boy.

 

[Azad-Kashmiri]

Yes. Exactly. You should re read the verses to each Pakistani and prepare for Qisas in perpetuity. It is in your interest to wipe out Hindus off this planet. Faith commands you. Good boy.

Son, if we wanted to wipe out Hindus, we could have done that in 1342 years. The Islamic State; the most powerful State in the history of mankind stood for 1342 years (abolished on 3 March 1924) was capable of doing that.

I'm glad you've owned up the hatred Hindu-India has for Muslims as you've said, it's in your Constitution!

 

[Zibago]

You can't get the difference between an Afghani and a Kashir? Look at this pure Indian @Armstrong. That's how a Kashmiri looks like.

They forge paper and get citizenship

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I'm glad you've owned up the hatred Hindu-India has for Muslims as you've said, it's in your Constitution!

Now teach your people this truth.

 

[Bang Galore]

The two state solution was based on religion. Majority Muslim with Pakistan, so Kashmir belongs to Pakistan.

Did not apply to princely states. Jinnah & Pakistan did their best to get Jodhpur, Junagadh, Hyderabad to join Pakistan, were they Muslim majority states?

 

[krash]

Indian kissseiii bolaaaa ?

@krash - Yaraa kiya ho rahaa hai isss thread par ?

They want you and why wouldn't they? Sadly its not flattering coming from them. This is how they claim Kashmir too, through words. And then they deny the truth the same way as well.

Balochistan - indian Flag Hoisted in Gawadar Balochistan | Facebook

Indian Flag in Pakistan...

Balochistan resolution in US Congress drives Pakistan crazy - The Times of India

Just wanna say ...............troll Threat and keep claiming ......Nothing Gona change............ You will post 2 pic than I will post 2 Pic.

Have you watched the video? You know what that Baloch is doing to the Indian flag? You just shot yourself in the foot there buddy.

You can't get the difference between an Afghani and a Kashir? Look at this pure Indian @Armstrong. That's how a Kashmiri looks like.

You do know that Kashmiris come in all shapes and sizes? Some aren't even gorras. You sure you know what you're talking about?

Did not apply to princely states. Jinnah & Pakistan did their best to get Jodhpur, Junagadh, Hyderabad to join Pakistan, were they Muslim majority states?

The clause of the princely states first stated that it would be applied on those princely states which weren't geographically disjoint from the parent. Do you see Jodhpur, Junagadh, Hyderabad sharing a border with Pakistan? LOL man, before spreading utter nonsense kindly go through your own history. The rulers of the princely states were to align the states with a parent according to the wishes of their people. Its all written there, go read it.

 

[Bang Galore]

The clause of the princely states first stated that it would be applied on those princely states which weren't geographically disjoint from the parent. Do you see Jodhpur, Junagadh, Hyderabad sharing a border with Pakistan? LOL man, before spreading utter nonsense kindly go through your own history.

The real nonsense is to miss the basic premise behind that question (let alone your appalling knowledge of geography & history - where do you think Jodhpur & Jaisalmer were?) The point remains that Pakistan & Jinnah did their very best to get non-Muslim majority states to join Pakistan, a state formed on a religious basis unlike India. Even more stupid to claim kingdoms with no borders to Pakistan. The principle is however clear. Jinnah & Pakistan saw nothing wrong with states that were not Muslim majority to join with a state for Muslims but somehow the argument is attempted when a Muslim majority kingdom joined a state that did not have religion as its basis. Doesn't hold.

Jodhpur bordered the emerging Muslim homeland of Pakistan, and its founder, Jinnah, had asked him to break with India and link his kingdom to the new nation. Unfortunately, the prince and most of his people were Hindu. Jinnah offered extraordinarily favourable terms: the maharaja could use Karachi as a free port, purchase whatever weapons he wanted, control the railway line to Sindh and receive free grain for famine relief. It sounded like a good deal. He agreed to sign up for Pakistan. Then, as he was about to touch his fountain pen to the paper, he learned that none of his fellow Rajput princes had yet thrown in their lot with the Pakistanis and he got cold feet. He told Jinnah he would go home and think about it

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/books/excerpt-india-by-patrick-french.html?_r=0

 

[Shan-e-ibrahim]

They look more like Pathans

 

[krash]

The real nonsense is to miss the basic premise behind that question (let alone your appalling knowledge of geography & history - where do you think Jodhpur & Jaisalmer were?) The point remains that Pakistan & Jinnah did their very best to get non-Muslim majority states to join Pakistan, a state formed on a religious basis unlike India. Even more stupid to claim kingdoms with no borders to Pakistan. The principle is however clear. Jinnah & Pakistan saw nothing wrong with states that were not Muslim majority to join with a state for Muslims but somehow the argument is attempted when a Muslim majority kingdom joined a state that did not have religion as its basis. Doesn't hold.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/books/excerpt-india-by-patrick-french.html?_r=0

Another example of how you only read and understand what you want to, chronic disability on your side of the border. You should realize that I've also mentioned the 2nd clause "The rulers of the princely states were to align the states with a parent according to the wishes of their people", which you in true Indian fashion decided to leave out in the quote of my post. Also it states the "wishes" and not the "religion" of the people of the state which is how Jodhpur went. Was it the same case with Kashmir? Pakistan does not claim Kashmir on the bases of the populace being Muslim but on the bases that that Muslim population wanted to side with Pakistan and wasn't allowed. Like I said, read a little. Talk about missing the basic premise...

 

[Bang Galore]

Another example of how you only read and understand what you want to, chronic disability on your side of the border. You should realize that I've also mentioned the 2nd clause "The rulers of the princely states were to align the states with a parent according to the wishes of their people", which you in true Indian fashion decided to leave out in the quote of my post. Also it states the "wishes" and not the "religion" of the people of the state which is how Jodhpur went. Was it the same case with Kashmir? Pakistan does not claim Kashmir on the bases of the populace being Muslim but on the bases that that Muslim population wanted to side with Pakistan and wasn't allowed. Like I said, read a little. Talk about missing the basic premise...

Kindly link to the clause you speak about.

The joke here is that you seem incapable of understanding anything. Did Jinnah & Pakistan think that Hindus in Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Junagadh & Hyderabad wish to join a Muslim state?

 

[Zibago]

They look more like Pathans

Kashmiris do look like that

 

[krash]

Kindly link to the clause you speak about.

It is everywhere out there. The UN's resolution was based on it, Nehru's acceptance of the resolution and public speeches of holding a plebiscite are based on it. Kindly do a little googling.

The joke here is that you seem incapable of understanding anything. Did Jinnah & Pakistan think that Hindus in Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Junagadh & Hyderabad wish to join a Muslim state?

If there is a joke here then it's you my friend. Why wouldn't they given enough incentives? Scratch that, why wouldn't Mr. Jinnah try given the opportunity? What is your objection to Jinnah trying for it? What was it that was stopping him from doing so? Nothing, except non-existent straws...

Furthermore your foolish use of Junagadh as an example weakens your own stance.

Upon the independence of India, the last Babi dynasty ruler of the state Mohammad Mahabat Khanji III decided to merge it into newly formed Pakistan, but the Hindu citizens who formed the majority of the population did not agree which lead to a plebiscite, resulting in the integration of Junagadh in to India. Pakistan did not object to it and never considered it as a dispute. If only you had read a little...

Hyderabad not being able to join Pakistan, given its location vis-a-vis Pakistan, and not wanting to join India decided to remain independent and then was invaded by the Indian forces against the wishes of the state ruler and its people.

 

[Shan-e-ibrahim]

Kashmiris do look like that

Not at all, kashmiris are little chuby with pointed nose. See hamid mir, Lone, and that mufti.

 

[Bang Galore]

It is everywhere out there. The UN's resolution was based on it, Nehru's acceptance of the resolution and public speeches of holding a plebiscite are based on it. Kindly do a little googling.

Post the clause.

If there is a joke here then it's you my friend. Why wouldn't they given enough incentives? Scratch that, why wouldn't Mr. Jinnah try given the opportunity? What is your objection to Jinnah trying for it? What was it that was stopping him from doing so? Nothing, except non-existent straws...

What objections, it serves merely to demolish the strawmen you wish to erect. Jinnah claimed that Muslims & Hindus were separate nations & he didn't want Muslims to live under a Hindu majority. Yet he saw no problem in seeking to add to his state with kingdoms made of Hindu majority subjects who would be a minority within a Muslim state. Merely pointing the absence of a honest position. Jinnah & Pakistan did whatever it took. They failed with Junagadh, Jodhpur, Jaisalmer & Hyderabad. India succeeded with Kashmir. You can't now use that argument with any moral superiority.

Furthermore your foolish use of Junagadh as an example weakens your own stance.

Upon the independence of India, the last Babi dynasty ruler of the state Mohammad Mahabat Khanji III decided to merge it into newly formed Pakistan, but the Hindu citizens who formed the majority of the population did not agree which lead to a plebiscite, resulting in the integration of Junagadh in to India. Pakistan did not object to it and never considered it as a dispute. If only you had read a little...

I leave all foolishness here to you. Read what happened in Jungadh. The Indian state took control & Pakistan offered an acceptance to a plebiscite if India would withdraw its forces. India did not agree & carried out a plebiscite under its control. The point you didn't notice is that the ruler had picked Pakistan, therefore a plebiscite was preferred. In Kashmir, the ruler picked India. Even by the logic of Junagadh, no plebiscite was required though it was offered by Nehru without any legal necessity. Pakistan is not involved except as someone holding a piece of the state that it has no legal right whatsoever to.

The point here is simple. Pakistan tried & failed in its attempts to get non-Muslim kingdoms to join it. India succeeded in a similar effort.

Hyderabad not being able to join Pakistan, given its location vis-a-vis Pakistan, and not wanting to join India decided to remain independent and then was invaded by the Indian forces against the wishes of the state ruler and its people.

Against the wishes of its people? What have you been smoking?