What's new

Interviews of Kashmir refugees in Azad Kashmir

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

you should keep your name from fakhre_mirpuri to fake_mirpuri. people like you who differentiate people on the basis of looks region etc are responsible for current degradation of Pakistan. Today MQM is against all those Punjabi looking people, tomorrow IK will do some dharna to give rights to pathan in Lahore.

Come out of this delusion of ancestor , white skin, fair and lovely type of BS looks and region policy. It does not matter who belongs to where, till he is a citizen of Pakistan. Just a Pakistani and nothing else.
 
.
There are also refugees from occupied kashmir in Sialkot and Gujranwala region
 
.
The World is exposing how 'vile' and 'savage' the Indians are!

It doesn't matter... Kashmir burnt because of Pakistani greed who sent the Mujahideen's to Kashmir once USSR vacated Afghanistan!

Every country has its own needs... As of now all major nations are tilted towards India! Hard to make any impact!
 
.
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?

I know; I've got a Khawja friend who's as brown as a baby buffalo's buttock and I tell that to his face all the time ! :oops:

I also refuse to acknowledge that hes a Kashmiri and that he and I belong to the same ethnic group ! :sarcastic:

He says that I am racist ! :(

In turn I usually end up paraphrasing the dialogue from the Irish movie 'the Guard' : I'm a Kashmiri...racism is part of my culture ! :D

But jokes aside; the wheatish complexion that some Pakistanis have is perfect for they neither look like they were taken out of the oven too soon before they were properly baked nor do they look like as if they got left in it for far too long only to be half-burnt ! :agree:

Gosh...that sounded so racist ! :o:

Maybe I am borderline racist ! :cry:

But then again if I were why would I think that Tyra Banks and Alicia Witt are amongst the most beautiful ladies to have ever walked the Earth ? :ashamed:
 
Last edited:
.
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.

As it has been stated by the man himself a bazillion times Pakistan was created because it was amply clear that under the then and proposed future system of governance in a united India the massive Muslim population would have its rights obliterated by the Hindus. Thus Pakistan was created where the Muslims could live without prejudice or threat to their rights and the other religious groups were more than welcome to join in.

I know you know this very well. No one in the world disputes this except your text books and my agenda driven people.

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.

Wait....did you just do it again?

1) The ruler of Junagadh selects Pakistan, the people of Junagadh select India, India invades, holds a plebiscite, results award it to India, Pakistan claims no dispute over it. You claim its perfectly all right.

2) The ruler of Kashmir selects India (under what circumstances is another matter but let's keep it simple), the people of Kashmir select Pakistan and rebel (to this very day), India invades, India takes the matter to the UN, the UN orders a plebiscite, no plebiscite is held. You then explicitly claim that by the logic of example 1 example 2 does not require a plebiscite (let alone the UN resolution that India signed).

Then on top of it all you also have the absolute stupidity of claiming that Pakistan has no legal right in the issue.

You have a habit of shooting yourself in the face mate :lol: You must be the densest loon I've ever known of.


The point here is even simpler; you can't even keep your own arguments coherent, let alone actually present them with any validity.


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

Stop reading the BS that is peddled to you people in your textbooks. Read this Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy: Sugata Bose, Ayesha Jalal: 9780415779432: Amazon.com: Books You can also google the credibility of the authors and the book.

@Armstrong , seriously yar yeh kia ho raha hai is thread aur forum mein?

I know; I've got a Khawja friend who's as brown as a baby buffalo's buttock and I tell that to his face all the time ! :oops:

I also refuse to acknowledge that hes a Kashmiri and that he and I belong to the same ethnic group ! :sarcastic:

He says that I am racist ! :(

In turn I usually end up paraphrasing the dialogue from the Irish movie 'the Guard' : I'm a Kashmiri...racism is part of my culture ! :D

But jokes aside; the wheatish complexion that some Pakistanis have is perfect for they neither look like they were taken out of the oven too soon before they were properly baked nor do they look like as if they got left in it for far too long only to be half-burnt ! :agree:

Gosh...that sounded so racist ! :o:

Maybe I am borderline racist ! :cry:

But then again if I were why would I think that Tyra Banks and Alicia Witt are amongst the most beautiful ladies to have ever walked the Earth ? :ashamed:

Hahaha you racist man :lol:. But tbh this racism thing has gotten out of hand, apparently everything is racist these days. We don't get it since we haven't differentiated between ourselves on colour since we converted, religious and sectarian divides are another matter though.

Have you seen Tyra in the Fresh Prince of Bellair? I recently watched it and couldn't believe my eyes.

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

:what: What are you talking about? You clearly have no clue about us...

you should keep your name from fakhre_mirpuri to fake_mirpuri. people like you who differentiate people on the basis of looks region etc are responsible for current degradation of Pakistan. Today MQM is against all those Punjabi looking people, tomorrow IK will do some dharna to give rights to pathan in Lahore.

Come out of this delusion of ancestor , white skin, fair and lovely type of BS looks and region policy. It does not matter who belongs to where, till he is a citizen of Pakistan. Just a Pakistani and nothing else.

If there are any people who are completely clean of ethnic differentiation then it's us Kashmiris. Today we marry, adopt cultures, languages, food, everything of the people we live amongst, free of ethnic and sectarian divides. The rest of our people can learn this from us.
 
Last edited:
.
@Armstrong , seriously yar yeh kia ho raha hai is thread aur forum mein?

Pataa nahin ! :(

Indians ! :tsk:

Hahaha you racist man :lol:. But tbh this racism thing has gotten out of hand, apparently everything is racist these days. We don't get it since we haven't differentiated between ourselves on colour since we converted, religious and sectarian divides are another matter though.

Have you seen Tyra in the Fresh Prince of Bellair? I recently watched it and couldn't believe my eyes.

Are you calling me a racist too ? :o:

I was only kidding about the racism thing ! :(

I love people in all shapes and colors ! :kiss3:

But not in all nationalities ! :whistle:

Besides we're better than other nations out there; we've never discriminated against Blacks and have always looked down upon anyone who ever has ! :smokin:

Though religious and sectarian divide is indeed another matter and a very troubling one at that; unfortunately, recently and not since the beginning, we seem to have made up for all our lack of racial discrimination by evening the scales when it comes to religious and sectarian prejudices ! :hitwall:

Aur Tyra ka kiya matlab ? :angry:

Tyra Bhabi bolooo ! :wub:

If there are any people who are completely clean of ethnic differentiation then it's us Kashmiris. Today we marry, adopt cultures, languages, food, everything of the people we live amongst, free of ethnic and sectarian divides. The rest of our people can learn this from us.

As I used to tell my Grandfather quite often, much to his chagrin : Whatever else we maybe one thing is certain - We Kashmiris are spineless cowards ! :whistle:
 
.
As it has been stated by the man himself a bazillion times Pakistan was created because it was amply clear that under the then and proposed future system of governance in a united India the massive Muslim population would have its rights obliterated by the Hindus. Thus Pakistan was created where the Muslims could live without prejudice or threat to their rights and the other religious groups were more than welcome to join in.

I know you know this very well. No one in the world disputes this except your text books and my agenda driven people.

That is irrelevant to the point that Jinnah & Pakistan tried to get Hindu kingdoms to join Pakistan, a state formed for Muslims where by your own logic the people of those kingdoms would have had their rights "obliterated".

The point is that Jinnah's actions to get Hindu populated kingdoms to join Pakistan gives the lie to the claim that Pakistan has an automatic right to Kashmir because it has a Muslim majority.



1) The ruler of Junagadh selects Pakistan, the people of Junagadh select India, India invades, holds a plebiscite, results award it to India, Pakistan claims no dispute over it. You claim its perfectly all right.

The point being that Junagadh was a Hindu population which Pakistan claimed, on the basis that the ruler wanted to join Pakistan.Ditto(in the opposite direction) with Kashmir. Pakistan neither had nor was given a choice over India's actions including the plebiscite. Not like Pakistan was offering that at any time when it wanted Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Hyderabad to join it.

2) The ruler of Kashmir selects India (under what circumstances is another matter but let's keep it simple), the people of Kashmir select Pakistan and rebel (to this very day), India invades, India takes the matter to the UN, the UN orders a plebiscite, no plebiscite is held. You then explicitly claim that by the logic of example 1 example 2 does not require a plebiscite (let alone the UN resolution that India signed).

:lol: You wish that was the sequence of events. the ruler of Kashmir signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan which Pakistan violated by sending in raiders. The ruler then acceded to India and India sent troops in. Plebiscite was not a legal requirement for any princely state joining, otherwise Jinnah(***) wouldn't have been trying to lure the rulers of Jodhpur & Jaisalmer to join Pakistan. Do you think there was a hope in hell that the people there would have agreed to join a state made for Muslims?

Example1 = State in control, not the same as the ruler's choice. Plebiscite carried out.
Example2 = State in control the same as the ruler's preference. Plebiscite not legally required, though offered.
(***)

Pakistan, by your own accounts tried to do a Junagadh in Kashmir & failed. However having claimed Junagadh, Pakistan could not argue that India had no claim to Kashmir on account of it being a Muslim majority state for then why did Pakistan seek to get accession of Hindu majority states?.

Liaquat Ali Khan was informally offered Kashmir (by Sardar Patel) in return to accepting Hyderabad's accession to India. He refused and got neither Hyderabad or Kashmir. (*)


This is not about the moral question, both sides played cold games based on real politic. Pakistan played it poorly and lost. India played it well & won.


Then on top of it all you also have the absolute stupidity of claiming that Pakistan has no legal right in the issue.

Pakistan is still the only country in possession of a part of Kashmir which it has zero legal sanctity over. Even the UN resolution you keep referring to requires Pakistan to vacate it & hand it over to Indian control before any plebiscite is held, why do you think that is?


Stop reading the BS that is peddled to you people in your textbooks. Read this Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy: Sugata Bose, Ayesha Jalal: 9780415779432: Amazon.com: Books You can also google the credibility of the authors and the book..

The people of the state of Hyderabad were overwhelmingly Hindu, do you seriously believe that they would have gone with the ruler or with Pakistan? :lol:


* An excerpt from The Nation That Lost Its Soul by Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan

‘When Mountbatten arrived in Lahore when fighting broke out in Kashmir, he addressed an important dinner meeting which was attended by the Pakistani Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan, the Governor of the Punjab, and four Ministers from the Punjab, where he delivered a message from Patel. In his message, Patel suggested that India and Pakistan should abide by the principles that had been agreed upon between the Congress and the Muslim League with regard to the political future of the princely states, according to which the states would accede to India or Pakistan depending on the religion of the majority of their inhabitants as well as their contiguity to either of the two countries. Accordingly, Patel suggested that Pakistan should take Kashmir and renounce its claims to Hyderabad Deccan, which had a Hindu majority and which had no land or sea border with Pakistan. After delivering this message, Mountbatten retired to the Government House to rest.’Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan further relates:‘I was in-charge of Pakistan’s operations in Kashmir. I went to see Liaqat Ali Khan, and pointed out that Indian forces had entered Kashmir and that Pakistan could not succeed in driving them out using the tribal raiders to ensure that Kashmir became part of Pakistan. I even said that it seemed unlikely that the Pakistani Army could succeed in doing so. Hence, I insisted, we must not reject Patel’s offer. But Liaqat Ali Khan turned to me and said, “Sardar Sahib! Have I gone mad that I should leave the state of Hyderabad Deccan, which is even larger than the Punjab, in exchange for the mountains and peaks of Kashmir?” I was stunned at Liaqat Ali Khan’s reaction, shocked that our Prime Minister was so ignorant of geography, and at his preferring Hyderabad Deccan over Kashmir. This was nothing but living in a fool’s paradise. To acquire Hyderabad was clearly impossible, and we were rejecting an opportunity that would have given us Kashmir. Yet, Liaqat was totally unaware of the importance of Kashmir for Pakistan. That is why I resigned in protest as in-charge of Kashmir operations.’




**
The Kashmir documents reveal that Mountbatten gave Jinnah this remarkable proposal at Lahore on November 1: "The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that, where the ruler of a State does not belong to the community to which the majority of his subjects belong, and where the State has not acceded to that Dominion whose majority community is the same as the State's, the question of whether the State should finally accede to one or the other of the Dominions should in all cases be decided by an impartial reference to the will of the people."

Mountbatten recorded his host's response in his Note of the discussion: "Mr. Jinnah then went on to say that he could not accept a formula if it was so drafted as to include Hyderabad, since he pointed out that Hyderabad did not wish to accede to either Dominion and he could not be a party to coercing them to accession." Thus was the last chance for a Kashmir accord wrecked on the vain hopes of an independent Hyderabad.

*** Jinnah sinned against the light and repeatedly so as his statements on the princely states in Burke's volume bear out. Twice, on January 17 and July 30, 1947, he asserted the State's right to independence and their rulers' right to decide.
 
Last edited:
. .
Its a shame that many bloody pussy indians are making fun out of Kashmiris' problems. what a pathetic shame. I spit on these shameless indians. I spit on Indian flag. I spit on the face of dickhead Modi. india my foot
 
.
Its a shame that many bloody pussy indians are making fun out of Kashmiris' problems. what a pathetic shame. I spit on these shameless indians. I spit on Indian flag. I spit on the face of dickhead Modi. india my foot
Standard Indian behavior
 
.
Its a shame that many bloody pussy indians are making fun out of Kashmiris' problems. what a pathetic shame. I spit on these shameless indians. I spit on Indian flag. I spit on the face of dickhead Modi. india my foot
instead of blabbering online, do what a true mujahid would do... join the jihad in Kashmir and fight these guys.
2q8sgef.jpg

Know-about-Ghat33443.jpg
 
.
instead of blabbering online, do what a true mujahid would do... join the jihad in Kashmir and fight these guys.
2q8sgef.jpg

Know-about-Ghat33443.jpg
I will do Insha'Allah, and bring a curse on you filthy indians, prepare ur coffins
 
. . .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom