Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
It depends who's perspective you look at it from......
If you want to talk about "forced".....I dont think an insurgency and unrest for the last 20 years was what the Kashmiri's wanted.....But militancy was forced upon the Kashmiri's by Pakistan....ever think of that??
I mean had there been no attack on Kashmir in '47 and the ascension to India had gone without interference from Pakistan.....maybe the Kashmiri's would have been blessed with better lives......maybe they wouldnt have to live under military rule....
Why was Kashmir not heavily militarized before the 80's??
Dont just blame us for the plight of the Kashmiri's....you sow the bad seeds and expect us to take blame for it.....and now when we try to uproot this same weed....you call it brutality.....Is Hypocrisy offered as a major in Pakistani schools?? Im starting to wonder.....
Let's take this slowly.
Kashmiri population wants to join Pakistan in 1947.
The ruler goes with India against their will.
The people rebel and ask Pakistan for help.
Pakistan obliges.
India sends in thousands of thugs to silence and intimidate the population.
The more India pushes, the more the Kashmiris resist.
India could have tried to win them over with charm instead of force. (Remember honey, vinegar...?)
All the tactics that India is trying in Afghanistan could have been used in Kashmir to win the people's hearts and minds. Instead India stationed a 700,000 strong brutal occupation force that engages in murder, rape and torture on a regular basis. This is not just me talking. Indian and independent human rights groups have verified the brutality of Indian army in Kashmir.
Do you honestly believe that any Pakistani infiltrators (which you claim) would be so welcome in Kashmir if the people were happy with India?