Kashmir - Think the Unthinkable

[dr.umer]

How ? By Pakistani Invaders .. who raped and massacred Poor People ..

Stop raving. Provide link.

LOl .. show me the Link Please .. if that was the reality then most of Area given to Pakistan would not have been with pakistan . See yourself the Area where Population of Hindus were more then 80% before Partition .
Image:Hindu percent 1909.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Partition was forced on a nation .. by a Communal mentality with the help of an imperilistic Power . there was no Concensus or plebiscite for it ..

Regarding Kashmir, in the 1901 Census of the British Indian Empire, Muslims constituted 74.16% of the total population of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, Hindus, 23.72%, and Buddhists, 1.21%. The Hindus were found mainly in Jammu, where they constituted a little less than 80% of the population. In the Kashmir Valley, Muslims constituted 93.6% of the population and Hindus 5.24%. These percentages have remained fairly stable for the last 100 years. Forty years later, in the 1941 Census of British India, Muslims accounted for 93.6% of the population of the Kashmir Valley and the Hindus for 4%. In 2003, the percentage of Muslims in the Kashmir Valley was 95% and those of Hindus 4%; the same year, in Jammu, the percentage of Hindus was 66% and those of Muslims 30%. In the 1901 Census of the British Indian Empire, the population of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu was 2,905,578. Of these 2,154,695 were Muslims (74.16%), 689,073 Hindus (23.72%), 25,828 Sikhs, and 35,047 Buddhists (Link)

Wake up...

 

[dr.umer]

Pakistan and India ????

Yes Pakistan & India.

Pakistan is a not a geographic entity .. its an idea for a group of Muslims who cant live with people with other religion .. Please save me from Pakistani Sense of History ..

No matter how hard the facts are, they are still facts, whether we like them or not. Pakistan is a geographical entity recognized by UN.

How safe minorities feel in india is a well known fact. Babri Mosque, Churches burning, Gujarat Massacre are some of the many issues involved & highlighted by indian press not Pakistani history. So keep record straight.

 

[Logic note]

Yes Pakistan & India.



No matter how hard the facts are, they are still facts, whether we like them or not. Pakistan is a geographical entity recognized by UN.

.

Dear Umer ..
I think you didnt read the context and the thread properly ..
No one is disputing the Present Pakistan ..
We are talking about the History .. wether Pakistan existed before 1947 ..

Please read the thread properly before posting a reply

 

[dr.umer]

Dear Umer ..
I think you didnt read the context and the thread properly ..
No one is disputing the Present Pakistan ..
We are talking about the History .. wether Pakistan existed before 1947 ..

Please read the thread properly before posting a reply

I have read the thread dear in its whole context before replying you. Did Pakistan existed before partition or not, please visit this thread and start discussion there.

 

[Spring Onion]

Dear Umer ..
I think you didnt read the context and the thread properly ..
No one is disputing the Present Pakistan ..
We are talking about the History .. wether Pakistan existed before 1947 ..

Please read the thread properly before posting a reply

India also did not exist before 1947.

Was it ???


India was never there on the face of the history. Thanks to the partition that current India got the life.

 

[Flintlock]

Kashmir is not part of India, that would be the whole point of the 60 year old conflict. These statements are useless since the whole world knows that Kashmir has been disputed from day one since Independence.

The laws of Partition applied to every state, and should also apply to Kashmir. They were promised a referendum, and by the looks of it, they want to join Pakistan. Note, I am talking about the 'Kashmir' part of 'Jammu and Kashmir'. India can keep Jammu if thats what their people want.

Kashmir is part of India according to the constitution of India, and that's what matters. All the takings and givings of partition are now superseded by the Constitution of India.

 

[Spring Onion]

Kashmir is part of India according to the constitution of India, and that's what matters. All the takings and givings of partition are now superseded by the Constitution of India.

a land which was never part of India how can it become part of it under constitution.

Kashmir is an occupied territory where Indian brutal army is killing innocent Kashmiris on their on land.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Kashmir is part of India according to the constitution of India, and that's what matters. All the takings and givings of partition are now superseded by the Constitution of India.

And this goes back to RR's argument of invading states incorporating territories into their constitutions and then proclaiming a self serving 'high and mighty' attitude of 'we believe in our constitution'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan and India ????

Pakistan is a not a geographic entity .. its an idea for a group of Muslims who cant live with people with other religion .. Please save me from Pakistani Sense of History .

I am sorry what are u trying to say .. can you Please explain ..

Neither is India - what you have is South Asia. India and Pakistan gained their independence from the British in 1947.

What I am referring to is the attitude exhibited above by you - religion is just another part of peoples identity matrix, but because it doesn't fit in with your identity, its a negative 'communal thing'. When I refer to India being just as segregationist, I mean that Indians have used their own identity matrix to differentiate themselves and segregate themselves from others - the whole 'Indic Civilization claptrap' as I called it - hence my post:

perhaps you should have stayed with the British Empire then. The fact is that Indians are just as 'segregationist' as any one else, as shown by the whole 'Indic civilization' claptrap and the break away from the British. But when it comes to another set of people viewing themselves as separate on the basis of their own identity matrix, we get to hear these self-righteous platitudes

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No instrument of accession was not conditional to Plebiscite .. it was the ruler who had the right to decide which republic he wants to join ..

Plebiscite cames in only when Pakistani Army invaded Kashmir in 1947

Indeed it was conditional to a plebiscite - Mountbatten's own records indicate that - from Owen Bennet Jones's book:

"Later in October 1947, when India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru was deploying troops in Kashmir. Mountbatten insisted that any decision by the maharajah to accede to India would be only be temporary prior to a referendum, plebiscite, or at the very least representative public meetings. When Mountbatten accepted the maharajah's decision to accede to India he told him:

... my government have decide to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistently with their policy that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government's wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of invaders, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people."

In fact, this is validated by the UN's decision to declare the resolution of Kashmir through a referendum, otherwise the instrument of accession would have given India a clear legal right to the territory, and would have been endorsed as such by the UN.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

LOl .. show me the Link Please .. if that was the reality then most of Area given to Pakistan would not have been with pakistan . See yourself the Area where Population of Hindus were more then 80% before Partition .

Image:Hindu percent 1909.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Partition was forced on a nation .. by a Communal mentality with the help of an imperilistic Power . there was no Concensus or plebiscite for it ..

Oh please - partition was done on the basis of the 1941 census - if any areas were Hindu majority and did not go to India, it is because they were not contiguous. Similar to any Muslim majority districts in India that would not go to Pakistan because of lack of contiguity.

Partition was not forced on anyone, the people of Pakistan chose it. The people in today's India had no right over Pakistan and have no right over Pakistan (or the lands it was formed on) - so the question of 'being forced' or having something taken away from you does not arise - it wasn't yours to begin with.

You call Pakistan's independence communal - I say India's independence is racist then, because you chose to secede from the British, rather than working within a 'global entity' to iron out differences and injustices.

 

[Logic note]

Neither is India - what you have is South Asia. India and Pakistan gained their independence from the British in 1947.

What I am referring to is the attitude exhibited above by you - religion is just another part of peoples identity matrix, but because it doesn't fit in with your identity, its a negative 'communal thing'. When I refer to India being just as segregationist, I mean that Indians have used their own identity matrix to differentiate themselves and segregate themselves from others - the whole 'Indic Civilization claptrap' as I called it - hence my post:

perhaps you should have stayed with the British Empire then. The fact is that Indians are just as 'segregationist' as any one else, as shown by the whole 'Indic civilization' claptrap and the break away from the British. But when it comes to another set of people viewing themselves as separate on the basis of their own identity matrix, we get to hear these self-righteous platitudes

First Pakistan never existed before 1947 ..
India did .. As i have mentioned in my previous post ..

Secondly ..you are assuming that Indians dont accpet religious identity .. We accpet diversity and identity of each individual based on his preference of religion, race , language or any other factor but we belive tht huamnity teaches us to exists peacefully together irrespective of all our diversity ..

however its Pakistan which doesnt accpet the diversity and hence try to breakup the humanity into smaller identities. so as per your logic a Baluchi is equally justified to ask for a seperate state as Jinnah was ..

 

[Logic note]

Oh please - partition was done on the basis of the 1941 census - if any areas were Hindu majority and did not go to India, it is because they were not contiguous. .

You mean to say East and West Pakistan were contiguous ??

Partition was not forced on anyone, the people of Pakistan chose it. The people in today's India had no right over Pakistan and have no right over Pakistan (or the lands it was formed on) - so the question of 'being forced' or having something taken away from you does not arise - it wasn't yours to begin with.

Now you are being ridiculous ..Pakistan is Islam .few Muslims( not all ) couldn't accept the diversity ..and choose to break a nation on their narrow communal identity ..
There are more Muslims in India then in Pakistan and they dint believe in communal segregation .

You call Pakistan's independence communal - I say India's independence is racist then, because you chose to secede from the British, rather than working within a 'global entity' to iron out differences and injustices

As I said you are being ridiculous .. We decided to fight for independence not because we are against the oneness of humanity .. but my dear because we belive in existence of societies with equal respect and dignity English were exploiting India and its people and thriving on our misery ..

what a pathetic argument ..

 

[Spring Onion]

First Pakistan never existed before 1947 ..
India did .. As i have mentioned in my previous post ..

Secondly ..you are assuming that Indians dont accpet religious identity .. We accpet diversity and identity of each individual based on his preference of religion, race , language or any other factor but we belive tht huamnity teaches us to exists peacefully together irrespective of all our diversity ..

however its Pakistan which doesnt accpet the diversity and hence try to breakup the humanity into smaller identities. so as per your logic a Baluchi is equally justified to ask for a seperate state as Jinnah was ..

India never existed before 1947.

And we did not break up anything.

Infact before something called India today there was no unified country.
Rather all these areas were just separate states ruled by some powerful men separatly.

Thanks to Jinnah that you guys had one unified country called India today and that too is not much unified with two dozen insurgencies.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

First Pakistan never existed before 1947 ..
India did .. As i have mentioned in my previous post ..

Secondly ..you are assuming that Indians dont accpet religious identity .. We accpet diversity and identity of each individual based on his preference of religion, race , language or any other factor but we belive tht huamnity teaches us to exists peacefully together irrespective of all our diversity ..

however its Pakistan which doesnt accpet the diversity and hence try to breakup the humanity into smaller identities. so as per your logic a Baluchi is equally justified to ask for a seperate state as Jinnah was ..

No, India as a nation did not exist prior to 1947 - the region of South Asia did (referred to as India) and still does.

I am arguing that everyone has their own identity matrix that prioritizes the various parts of ones identity differently - what you are stating is that only the way you prioritize your identity is valid, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. That is not your decision to make.

This author explains it quite well. http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/13802-invented-countries.html.

"Not accepting diversity' is the same thing India did, by choosing to separate from the British, and I don't see you rushing to merge with the Chinese either.