Is Kashmir a part of India ?

[Ammyy]

If you want to know the answer then you should ask the Kashmiris themselves.

Make another thousand or millions thread but it cant change the reality

Kashmir belongs to India

And India belongs to Kashmir

 

[PureAryan]

Listen yaar, whats the deal with one civilization ruling the other? Now that we have established that both the areas were under common rulers and empires, doesnt it show that the areas had a common history for a considerable amount of time? There would have been differences of-course. Say a Taxila would have had some differences in art, culture and music with say a Pataliputra, but at the and of the day they were both Mauryan towns. Similar was the case with Lahore and Delhi in Mughal times. They had their own distinct cultures and identities but they were both Mughal cities.

And we dont see these distinct regional identities as proofs that people were inherently different. By your logic a Tamil kingdom never ruled Delhi. Does that mean Tamils and North Indians are different nations?

I respect your viewpoint but this is exactly what i am trying to tell you. Bharat has never ever remain united even during British times 45 percent of the subcontinent’s land area was not directly administered by the British. Almost half of the subcontinent’s territory was instead covered by a patchwork of 562 kingdoms and principalities of varying sizes and populations that were ruled by Indian potentates
and enjoyed self-administration subject to their rulers’ acceptance
of the ultimate authority—known as “paramountcy”—of
British power.

Pakistan has for most part of 9000 years remained united If during kushans times when indian punjab, haryana and rajhastan were united it was only for few decades while it ruled Pakistan for 300 years. I know there are pakistani people who want themselves to be associated with iranis and afghanis but its not possible same goes for Bharat.
If i accept pakistani and bharti as one which obviously never were it means we pakistani have no identity and all our identity is bharti and no pakistani is ready to accept that. I am sorry if i hurt your feeling but please understand we are different in more than 1 way.

 

[FreekiN]

Make another thousand or millions thread but it cant change the reality

Kashmir belongs to India

And India belongs to Kashmir

O RLY?

 

[Nalwa]

I respect your viewpoint but this is exactly what i am trying to tell you. Bharat has never ever remain united even during British times 45 percent of the subcontinent’s land area was not directly administered by the British. Almost half of the subcontinent’s territory was instead covered by a patchwork of 562 kingdoms and principalities of varying sizes and populations that were ruled by Indian potentates
and enjoyed self-administration subject to their rulers’ acceptance
of the ultimate authority—known as “paramountcy”—of
British power.

Pakistan has for most part of 9000 years remained united If during kushans times when indian punjab, haryana and rajhastan were united it was only for few decades while it ruled Pakistan for 300 years. I know there are pakistani people who want themselves to be associated with iranis and afghanis but its not possible same goes for Bharat.
If i accept pakistani and bharti as one which obviously never were it means we pakistani have no identity and all our identity is bharti and no pakistani is ready to accept that. I am sorry if i hurt your feeling but please understand we are different in more than 1 way.

I hear you. So basically you do agree that present day Pakistan was more or less united with NW India (Punjab, Haryana, Himachal, Rajasthan) for the most part. Its the rest of the country that you dont agree with. Fair enough. I too would give that we Punjabis do have more cultural affinities with Pak Punjabis rather than Tamils or Marathis.

Where we differ is what this means for our respective countries. For me this cultural differentiation (between a Punjabi and a Tamil) is insignificant when it come to talking about our nation. For you its probably what gives you your distinct national identity. So lets agree to disagree on that.

 

[PureAryan]

I hear you. So basically you do agree that present day Pakistan was more or less united with NW India (Punjab, Haryana, Himachal, Rajasthan) for the most part. Its the rest of the country that you dont agree with. Fair enough. I too would give that we Punjabis do have more cultural affinities with Pak Punjabis rather than Tamils or Marathis.

Where we differ is what this means for our respective countries. For me this cultural differentiation (between a Punjabi and a Tamil) is insignificant when it come to talking about our nation. For you its probably what gives you your distinct national identity. So lets agree to disagree on that.

I can only say that indian punjabis are the only ethnicity in india related to pakistanis and no other bordering states even comes close to it. I dont find rajhastani and gujratis having any similarity with sindhis and punjabis,
lets end this topic here.

 

[Nalwa]

I can only say that indian punjabis are the only ethnicity in india related to pakistanis and no other bordering states even comes close to it. I dont find rajhastani and gujratis having any similarity with sindhis and punjabis,
lets end this topic here.

Well there are a few others - namely the Jatts, Rajputs, Gujjars and Kashmiris. I know the latter is debatable.

But yeah, lets agree to disagree.

 

[ganimi kawa]

I wasn’t going to reply because i know you are not going to believe it then i thought lets give a final try.


Source: 'To me Candragupta was a man of the Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila' (Indian Culture, vol. X, p. 34, B. M. Barua).

Source: Invasion of India by Alexander the great, p. 405. Plutarch attests that Androcottos had seen Alexander when he (Androcottos) was a lad and afterwards he used to declare that Alexander might easily have conquered the whole country (India); Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi? Article in Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 32-35

.
Source: Appian (XI, 55). Some historians state that he belonged to Kunar and Swat valleys. See: The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 150-51, Kirpal Singh. This reference also seems to indicate that Chandragupta belonged to north-west rather than East India.


Source Arrian. iv, 30. 4

Source: Invasion of Alexander, 2nd Ed, p 112, Dr J. W. McCrindle; Op cit., p 33, Dr H. R. Gupta; Dr McCrindle further writes that modern Afghanistan was the ancient Kamboja and that the name Afghanistan is evidently derived from the Ashvakas or Assakenois of Arrian See: Megasthenes and Arrian, p 180; Alexander's Invasion of India, p 38; Dr J. C. Vidyalankar identifies Sisicottos as a Kamboja ruler: See Itihaas Parvesh, pp 133-34, Dr J. C. Vidyalankar; Kamboj Itihaas, 1973, p 58-59, H. S. Thind.

Source : Op. cit., pp 32-35, Dr H. C. Gupta; Also: The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 149-154.
Tribune writes: "Most historians are of the view that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to Bihar, and that he called himself Maurya because his mother was the keeper of royal peacocks (mor) at Pataliputra. He came to Punjab and conquered it. Afterwards, with the help of the Punjab army he seized the Nanda empire. However, there are reasons to believe that Chandragupta belonged to the Kshatriya caste of the ruling Ashvaka tribe of the Koh-i-Mor territory. He called himself Maurya after his homeland" (Ref: Article in Sunday Tribune, January 10, 1999 They taught lessons to kings, Gur Rattan Pal Singh; Also cf: Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi?, Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 33, Dr H. R. Gupta)

It is notable that Adiparva of Mahabharata (verses 1/67/13-14) also seem to connect Maurya Ashoka with the Ashvakas
Source: yastvashva iti vikhyAtaH shrImAnAsInmahAsuraH |. Ashoko nAma rAjAsInmahAvIryaparAkramaH. ||14|| tasmAdavarajo yastu rAjannashvapatiH smR^itaH |. daiteyaH so.abhavadrAjA hArdikyo manujarShabhaH ||15.|| ( See English Translation): "That great Asura who was known as Aswa became on earth the monarch Asoka of exceeding energy and invincible in battle."

Source: op cit., (Part II), p.416-17, Dr D. B. Spooner Thus, Dr Spooner's comments also point to the north-western origin of the Mauryas.

It is however interesting to see that the scholars also identify the Ashvakas as a branch of the Kambojas. They were so-called since they were specialised in horse-profession and their services as cavalrymen were frequently requisitioned in ancient wars. V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar writes: "Both the Puranas and the epics agree that the horses of the Sindhu and Kamboja regions were of the finest breed, and that the services of the Kambojas as cavalry troopers were requisitioned in ancient wars
Source: War in Ancient India‎, 1944, p 178, V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar - Military art and science.

All of thees are a copy paste from a Moin Ansari write up ( you should have credited him). For those who are experienced the name Moin Ansari is enough to discard whatever is written under the name. But, since you seem to put much faith in this source, it kinda explains the misconceptions that you have about Indian History!

Most of the "sources" quoted here are irrelevant or interpreted in a dubious manner. I'll quote one example....

It is notable that Adiparva of Mahabharata (verses 1/67/13-14) also seem to connect Maurya Ashoka with the Ashvakas

yastvashva iti vikhyAtaH shrImAnAsInmahAsuraH |. Ashoko nAma rAjAsInmahAvIryaparAkramaH. ||14|| tasmAdavarajo yastu rAjannashvapatiH smR^itaH |. daiteyaH so.abhavadrAjA hArdikyo manujarShabhaH ||15.|| ( See English Translation): "That great Asura who was known as Aswa became on earth the monarch Asoka of exceeding energy and invincible in battle."

Now, this is nothing but sheer foolishness to assume that teh Ashoka mentioned here is the "King Ashoka" from Mauryan dynasty.


Why? Here is the text this source qoutes in full.....

"Vaisampayana said, 'O king of men, I shall first tell thee all about those celestials and Danavas that were born among men--The first of Danavas, who was known by the name of Viprachitti, became that bull among men, noted as Jarasandha. And, O king, that son of Diti, who was known as Hiranyakasipu, was known in this world among men as the powerful Sisupala. He who had been known as Samhlada, the younger brother of Prahlada, became among men the famous Salya, that bull amongst Valhikas. The spirited Anuhlada who had been the youngest became noted in the world as Dhrishtaketu.

And, O king, that son of Diti who had been known as Sivi became on earth the famous monarch Druma. And he who was known as the great Asura Vashkala became on earth the great Bhagadatta. The five great Asuras gifted with great energy, Ayahsira, Aswasira, the spirited Aysanku, Gaganamurdhan, and Vegavat, were all born in the royal line of Kekaya and all became great monarchs.

That other Asura of mighty energy who was known by the name of Ketumat became on earth the monarch Amitaujas of terrible deeds. That great Asura who was known as Swarbhanu became on earth the monarch Ugrasena of fierce deeds.

That great Asura who was known as Aswa became on earth the monarch Asoka of exceeding energy and invincible in battle. And, O king, the younger brother of Aswa who was known as Aswapati, a son of Diti, became on earth the mighty monarch Hardikya.

The great and fortunate Asura who was known as Vrishaparvan became noted on earth as king Dirghaprajna. And, O king, the younger brother of Vrishaparvan who was known by the name of Ajaka became noted on earth as king Salwa. The powerful and mighty Asura who was known as Aswagriva became noted on earth as king Rochamana.

1. As you can clearly see, the "Aswa" indicates the name of the demon who reincarnated as Asoka and not the tribe ashvakas. (Aswapati- younger brother of Aswa)


2. If you know Mahabharat, you will clearly uinderstand that all the names mentioned here (in bold) were the kings of the mahabharata story period.. King Ashoka does not qualify!

3. Your Moin Ansari write up also makes a lot of hue and cry about the Camboj subtribe Ashvaks being the mauryans....

It is however interesting to see that the scholars also identify the Ashvakas as a branch of the Kambojas.

So, ideally, this asoka in the Mahabharata should have been mentioned with respect to Kamboj; Is it so?

NOPE!
Check out what it says...

The foremost, among the sons of Diti known by the name of Chandra and handsome as the lord of the stars himself, became on earth noted as Chandravarman, the king of the Kamvojas.

Now, don't gove me any c**p saying that this is Chandragupta mentionred here, because then he and Ashoka will be contemporaries!


I respect your right to have your own views but when you take a rigid stance; be ready to back it up with some original research!

 

[Boomerang]

^^^This is exactly the same thing all Kashmiris are saying.

Where did Pakistan come from? Not bought land from Turkey or Saudi Arabia.. did u? I guess India...
So it can be rightly said that Pakistan part of India is illiegally occupied by certain group of people calling it a nation.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

Dreams?? Do i need to remind you who controls 2/3rd of kashmir since 1948?? Or you just read in your textbook that you controls whole of kashmir??

Its your time to wakeup from wet dreams and face the reality...

Grow up boy. On our side of Kashmir everything is okay and peaceful.
It is the indian occupied Kashmir that is in state of crisis. So you dont rule there. . you couldnt establish your rule there for 63 yrs and you never will be able to. .

Firstly,You mind your language and don;t talk like this about integral part of my country..! And even if you continue to whin about Ksahmir.! Kashmir,! .! then do it on forums and all like internet warriors,that will not change the reality..!

integral part of your country?? . .

India won't give a Inch of kashmir to pakistan..! If you want some, come and get some..! The most simple line to describe the situation about kashmir from india's prespective..!

ooo yaar, india does'nt have to give anything. . you chill. . . hum khud hi le lein gy. .

And yeah about your reply of Ghazwa- hind and we will do this,,we will do that,,kashmir le kr rahenge..

To wo jab hoga tab dekh lenge.

chaloo, good to know keh yeh tow mantey ho k Kashmir humara hoga. . Thankx yaar. .

 

[GMSS]

Grow up boy. On our side of Kashmir everything is okay and peaceful.
It is the indian occupied Kashmir that is in state of crisis. So you dont rule there. . you couldnt establish your rule there for 63 yrs and you never will be able to. .



integral part of your country?? . .



ooo yaar, india does'nt have to give anything. . you chill. . . hum khud hi le lein gy. .




chaloo, good to know keh yeh tow mantey ho k Kashmir humara hoga. . Thankx yaar. .

for how much time u ppl will take to accept the reality of geography.is it hard to see the maps?.hold watever u have now!!

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

Where did Pakistan come from? Not bought land from Turkey or Saudi Arabia.. did u? I guess India...
So it can be rightly said that Pakistan part of India is illiegally occupied by certain group of people calling it a nation.

dont present your own philosophy. Like that every human in the world is from one father (Adam). In that way China and India are the same nation. . so why dont you open borders from the China side and let the Chinese rule. .

 

[PureAryan]

All of thees are a copy paste from a Moin Ansari write up ( you should have credited him). For those who are experienced the name Moin Ansari is enough to discard whatever is written under the name. But, since you seem to put much faith in this source, it kinda explains the misconceptions that you have about Indian History!

Most of the "sources" quoted here are irrelevant or interpreted in a dubious manner. I'll quote one example....




Now, this is nothing but sheer foolishness to assume that teh Ashoka mentioned here is the "King Ashoka" from Mauryan dynasty.


Why? Here is the text this source qoutes in full.....



1. As you can clearly see, the "Aswa" indicates the name of the demon who reincarnated as Asoka and not the tribe ashvakas. (Aswapati- younger brother of Aswa)


2. If you know Mahabharat, you will clearly uinderstand that all the names mentioned here (in bold) were the kings of the mahabharata story period.. King Ashoka does not qualify!

3. Your Moin Ansari write up also makes a lot of hue and cry about the Camboj subtribe Ashvaks being the mauryans....



So, ideally, this asoka in the Mahabharata should have been mentioned with respect to Kamboj; Is it so?

NOPE!
Check out what it says...




Now, don't gove me any c**p saying that this is Chandragupta mentionred here, because then he and Ashoka will be contemporaries!


I respect your right to have your own views but when you take a rigid stance; be ready to back it up with some original research!

I dont give a damn whether you understand what i have posted or not, As long as i understand and to the person who i was replying to understands is what matters to me.
King Maurya was Pakistani Punjabi which ruled bharati people for few centuries admit it that you have been ruled by pakistanis many times, you are not going to lose your dignity.

By the way who the hell is Moin Ansari

 

[syntax_error]

Wrong title of the thread ...

it should me....

"Kashmir is a Part of India."

 

[KS]

I dont give a damn whether you understand what i have posted or not, As long as i understand and to the person who i was replying to understands is what matters to me.
King Maurya was Pakistani Punjabi which ruled bharati people for few centuries admit it that you have been ruled by pakistanis many times, you are not going to lose your dignity.

I dont give a damn whether you understand what i have posted or not. As long as I belive in the theory of "Aryans are actually Martians who landed on the Earth", your opinion matters nilch.

Admit it that you are indeed a Martian with green blood.

 

[PureAryan]

I dont give a damn whether you understand what i have posted or not. As long as I belive in the theory of "Aryans are actually Martians who landed on the Earth", your opinion matters nilch.

Admit it that you are indeed a Martian with green blood.

Huh, so says a bharti, does it have any effect on me whether you believe me or not, i have confirmed all the sources with my friend they are 100% accurate, If you think they are not accurate and i making this up by myself then i think something is wrong with you.