Kashmir | News & Discussions.

[rameez ahmed]

InshaALLAH Indian soldiers will get their due now for their atrocity over innocent Kashmiris... InShaALLAH they will be destroyed ........

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistanis seem to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the policemen firing are locals themselves.

What is there to acknowledge?

The British ran security forces comprised mainly of local residents in oppressing the people in the colony of British India ...

Does the use of locals by the colonizers and occupiers delegitemize the validity of the cause of protesting occupation and a denial of the promised right of self-determination?

 

[notsuperstitious]

Easy Fateh, no reason to lose your cool.

So where are you guys move this Yatra thing?

No matey, not losing cool as not moving the Yatra anywhere else. Only the bigoted protesters

 

[muse]

Yes, yes, "WERE" -- And what are now Hindus were just caste members and before that they were something else - don't trot out that rubbish and expect it to be persuasive.

Don't want to move it? then, don't - easy. eh? Why does the Secular Indian government seems to end up killing Muslims, even when the protests are anti-US? Or is it Anti-India and anti-US are the same thing? I think they might be in the minds of most captive Kashmiri.

 

[ps80]

InshaALLAH Indian soldiers will get their due now for their atrocity over innocent Kashmiris... InShaALLAH they will be destroyed ........

Violence begets more violence....love enables love!

Allah se 'aman/shanti' ki duaa karo, friend!

 

[EjazR]

Not accurate comparison AM because

1. British never allowed Indians to be elected to positions of power and Indians did not vote to the BRitish parliament. Kashmiris can vote people to the Indian parliament and Kashmirs have been PMs of India and even now three ethnic Kashmiris hold central ministerial posts. Something impossible in colonial Britain

2. After the acession being singed, Kashmiris voted the first parliament decades before a similar exercise would be done in Pakistan, which became the constituent assembly. Following which the elected parliament ratified the ascession to India and passed land reforms becoming one of the first states in India to do so. Something like this was impossible in colonial British that actually worked hand in hand with the landlords, one of the reason why these landlords still hold so much sway in Pakistan.

3. The British had no cultural or linguistic ties with India, while Kashmir has extensive religious, cultural and linguistic ties with India.

and most importantly
4. Colonisation was for the economic exploitation of India and India's share to the worldGDP came down from 25% during the Mughal era to under 2% by 1947. J&K state on the other hand has always recived net economic benefit from bothe center govt and also intra state from Jammu province that contributes 70% to state revenues.

Maybe other points could be listed but some just obvious ones are here.

 

[EjazR]

Yes, yes, "WERE" -- And what are now Hindus were just caste members and before that they were something else - don't trot out that rubbish and expect it to be persuasive.

Don't want to move it? then, don't - easy. eh? Why does the Secular Indian government seems to end up killing Muslims, even when the protests are anti-US? Or is it Anti-India and anti-US are the same thing? I think they might be in the minds of most captive Kashmiri.

Sorry I don't understand, when even the sepratists and pro-Pakistani elements like Geelani are not against the Yatra, they why should GoI move it. Besides the location of the shrine is in the Kashmir valley. How can that be moved? Its the physical location that is sacred.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Yes, yes, "WERE" -- And what are now Hindus were just caste members and before that they were something else - don't trot out that rubbish and expect it to be persuasive.

Don't want to move it? then, don't - easy. eh? Why does the Secular Indian government seems to end up killing Muslims, even when the protests are anti-US? Or is it Anti-India and anti-US are the same thing? I think they might be in the minds of most captive Kashmiri.

Violent protesters get the same response in India, infact the Kashmiri kinds have been given too much leeway, so much so that the Kashmiri Pundits can not return home and the Amarnath yatra has become a headache.

The secular govt must make sure these Hindu Kashmiri pundits are able to returm home, and anyone who opposes is dealt with in the severest of manner.

 

[muse]

Kashmir has extensive religious, cultural and linguistic ties with India.

Which the Indian acknowledge by shooting the captive kashmiri to death?

No, I'm not making light of a serious issue, I was hoping to point out that tripe about "extensive ties" -- we may be related to, have "extensive ties" with a criminal, so what does that supposed to mean??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not accurate comparison AM because

1. British never allowed Indians to be elected to positions of power and Indians did not vote to the BRitish parliament. Kashmiris can vote people to the Indian parliament and Kashmirs have been PMs of India and even now three ethnic Kashmiris hold prime ministerial posts. Something impossible in colonial Britain

No comparison can be completely identical, but in both cases, regardless of the attempts by the Indian State to cover up its forced annexation of the territory and people of Kashmir, the fact is that the people and territory are forcibly occupied.

2. After the acession being singed, Kashmiris voted the first parliament decades before a similar exercise would be done in Pakistan, which became the constituent assembly. Following which the elected parliament ratified the ascession to India and passed land reforms becoming one of the first states in India to do so. Something like this was impossible in colonial British that actually worked hand in hand with the landlords, one of the reason why these landlords still hold so much sway in Pakistan.

Again, does not change the fact that the people and territory are occupied and denied the promised right to self-determination. Occupiers can implement any number of policies to legitemize their occupation and win over the occupied, the fact that the people are occupied however does not change, and it is patently obvious that in Kashmir the people refuse to accept Indian occupation.

3. The British had no cultural or linguistic ties with India, while Kashmir has extensive religious, cultural and linguistic ties with India.

So does Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, or for that matter Afghanistan - that does not justify the occupation and annexation of Afghan/Pakistani/Sri lankan/Bangladeshi/Nepali territory by India.

 

[muse]

when even the sepratists and pro-Pakistani elements like Geelani are not against the Yatra, they why should GoI move it

Well, obviously there is a need for greater education, to enhance their "sensitivity".

Its the physical location that is sacred.

Well, that has to be decided after greater sensitivity is achieved.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

the indian occupational forces (AKA the sissies) at it again......


RIP to the victims of this -and other - attacks.







انّا للہ و انّا الیه راجعون

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

3. The British had no cultural or linguistic ties with India, while Kashmir has extensive religious, cultural and linguistic ties with India.

Indians should really stop using this canard to justify the occupation of Kashmir, because in reality it is code for claiming all of South Asia, since the argument can be extended to any nation in South Asia, as I pointed out above.

 

[Bas_tum_Pak]

 

[notsuperstitious]

Indians should really stop using this canard to justify the occupation of Kashmir, because in reality it is code for claiming all of South Asia, since the argument can be extended to any nation in South Asia, as I pointed out above.

Taken out of context, its a canard. In reality the reverse logic can be applied to any of the parts of any of the countries you mentioned. By the same logic parts of Pakistan are indeed occupied territories too. Why do not Pakistanis use the same moral principles there, but instead resort to technical ones there?

Self interest, nothing else.