Kashmir - Think the Unthinkable

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So basically you can't. So lets just stop dreaming and look at realities.

Nepal has zilch in common with Pakistan.

Its an analogy Flint, to point out how flawed India's position on Kashmir is - don't get carried away and actually start to think we will put up arguments to justify such a move.

 

[Flintlock]

Its an analogy Flint, to point out how flawed India's position on Kashmir is - don't get carried away and actually start to think we will put up arguments to justify such a move.

And I"m simply pointing out that your analogy is worthless because Nepal is not a part of Pakistan, was never a part of Pakistan, and has nothing in common with Pakistan.

Kashmir has historically been a part of India, and continues to be a part of India.

 

[roadrunner]

"I asked a young woman whether freedom for Kashmir would not mean less freedom for her, as a woman."

RR:

I don't think you can quantify freedom, as India argues it should be.

"We offer you a secular constitution, a trillion dollar economy, business" etc. etc.

The desire for freedom is so much more complex and intangible - at its heart it is simply the desire to only owe allegiance to that which one wants to, to that which one respects, and it is clear that whatever it is that the Kashmiris want to owe allegiance to (Islam, Pakistan, Kashmiriyat ...), it is not India.

Just as I see red when some Indians say that 'partition took something away from India', because it signifies that they had some control or claim to Pakistan's land and people, similarly do I think that the approach of India claiming 'India's territorial integrity', and calls for demographic change, impose upon Kashmiris India's sovereignty and 'ownership', and therefore inflame sentiment against them.

One needs to ask the Kashmiris. Do they want to be part of India's secular constitution, trillion dollar economy, business etc? A plebiscite would reveal the answer, and it remains the most fair option to Kashmiris for the last 60 years. Anything else is assuming.

i think your examples are correct, if I'm following them correctly. The British adventure in British India assumed (or did not care) about what the south asians wanted. Instead,it forced the south asians to live as a colony, simply because the British incorporated the subcontinent into its constitution. This meant the free India movement was an illegal, terrorist movement. By extension of course Gandhi would have been a terrorist (which is really quite stupid..he was a freedom fighter).

If someone supports the Kashmiri freedom movement, as Arundhati Roy, then she is not hypocritical to also throw her support behind the Indian freedom movement.

I haven't been following the thread closely. I'm still not sure what demographic change they're on about. The number of Muslims in Kashmir as a whole has decreased since 1947, and the number of Hindus have increased. But I'm sure Kashmir still wouldn't join India, if a plebiscite were held.

 

[Flintlock]

Ultimately, these are the things that matter - food, job and family. If you cannot get these things, no freedom can save you.

These guys will win their "freedom" and then become yet another tiny country with no hope and no future. What a brilliant end.

Its much better to be a part of India.
.

Nobody wants yet another tiny country at the mercy of its neighbours, China, Russia and the USA.

 

[Flintlock]

The number of Muslims in Kashmir as a whole has decreased since 1947, and the number of Hindus have increased.

Please, that is just plain wrong.

 

[Pankaj]

Its an analogy Flint, to point out how flawed India's position on Kashmir is - don't get carried away and actually start to think we will put up arguments to justify such a move.

my post was also an analogy to show how unrealistic pakistan's position is but was deleted

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And I"m simply pointing out that your analogy is worthless because Nepal is not a part of Pakistan, was never a part of Pakistan, and has nothing in common with Pakistan.

Kashmir has historically been a part of India, and continues to be a part of India.

It isn't worthless because at its heart that is was India has done - military occupied a territory, integrated it into its constitution and claimed thats it!

Kashmir has also had historical links with Pakistan, perhaps even grater than those with India, so that hardly counts as a reason. That line of thinking could also result in Pakistan annexing certain Pashtun provinces in Afghanistan (since Pakistan had historical relations with them), integrating them into its constitution (without asking the people) and then saying that they are 'constitutionally Pakistani territory" and we respect our constitution. Your argument is a morally bankrupt argument of 'might is right' - though it works in real politik.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

my post was also an analogy to show how unrealistic pakistan's position is but was deleted

Please read the Baluchistan thread for answers to your post, and why it is not a good analogy.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/12882-balochistan.html

 

[roadrunner]

Please, that is just plain wrong.

According to Reuters in 2008, Kashmir population is
POPULATION: 10 million in Indian Kashmir and over three million in Pakistani Kashmir. About 70 percent are Muslims and the rest Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists.
Reuters AlertNet - FACTBOX-The Jammu and Kashmir valley dispute

According to an Indian LSE Kashmir political scientist, in 1947, Kashmir..
Jammu and Kashmir at that time was approximately 77 percent Muslim, 20 percent Hindu and 3 percent other, mainly Sikh.
The Conflict in Kashmir

Do you still disagree that the Muslim population in Kashmir has decreased since 1947. If so, which of these links is incorrect, and can you provide the correct figure?

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

agnostic, why are you wasting your time on these jokers? they have nothing to add, except cheap shots.

You're too merciful on these people, I would have banned them a long time ago. it's become obvious they can't defend their claims legally.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

RR:

The demographic change I am referring to are the calls by some Indians to scrap article 370 and forcefully settle non-Kashmiris in the State to weaken the local sentiment.

 

[Flintlock]

It isn't worthless because at its heart that is was India has done - military occupied a territory, integrated it into its constitution and claimed thats it!

That's how all countries are created. However, the authenticity of the claim is decided by other factors.

Kashmir has also had historical links with Pakistan, perhaps even grater than those with India, so that hardly counts as a reason. That line of thinking could also result in Pakistan annexing certain Pashtun provinces in Afghanistan, integrating them into its constitution (without asking the people) and then saying that they are 'constitutionally Pakistani territory" and we respect our constitution. Your argument is a morally bankrupt argument of 'might is right' - though it works in real politik.

It cannot be called a "might is right" argument. It is based on which option is best for all parties involved.
Clearly, an independent Kashmir is a rather poor option, and being a part of India is far better for the future of kashmiris and the rest of India than being a part of Pakistan.

All these factors, along with the historical links that Kashmir and the rest of India enjoy, make Kashmir a part of India.

BTW, I'd love to see you use the same arguments that you used against India, on both your own country and China. I'll wait patiently for that day to come.

 

[roadrunner]

It isn't worthless because at its heart that is was India has done - military occupied a territory, integrated it into its constitution and claimed thats it!

Kashmir has also had historical links with Pakistan, perhaps even grater than those with India, so that hardly counts as a reason. That line of thinking could also result in Pakistan annexing certain Pashtun provinces in Afghanistan (since Pakistan had historical relations with them), integrating them into its constitution (without asking the people) and then saying that they are 'constitutionally Pakistani territory" and we respect our constitution. Your argument is a morally bankrupt argument of 'might is right' - though it works in real politik.

This is also part of the reason why Pakistan's pre-Islamic history is more important perhaps than even the Islamic history.

The stealing of the name "India" confuses everything. Kashmir had close cultural ties, and even was part of the original Saptha Sindhu, along with Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, Afghanistan etc. So in reality, Kashmir has close cultural ties with Pakistan, and nothing to do with India. Only the very small part of Punjabi India can claim cultural ties to Kashmir, but the whole of Pakistan can claim ties to Kashmir.

Again, it's a manipulation of history to claim Kashmir has any sort of ties to anywhere in India except the extreme Northwest of it.

 

[roadrunner]

RR:

The demographic change I am referring to are the calls by some Indians to scrap article 370 and forcefully settle non-Kashmiris in the State to weaken the local sentiment.

Oh right. Well I think there's been some of this in Jammu. But it would be difficult to do on any big scale in Kashmir Valley.

Non kashmiris should not be allowed to settle in Kashmir, until the conflict is resolved.

 

[Flintlock]

This is also part of the reason why Pakistan's pre-Islamic history is more important perhaps than even the Islamic history.

The stealing of the name "India" confuses everything. Kashmir had close cultural ties, and even was part of the original Saptha Sindhu, along with Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, Afghanistan etc. So in reality, Kashmir has close cultural ties with Pakistan, and nothing to do with India. Only the very small part of Punjabi India can claim cultural ties to Kashmir, but the whole of Pakistan can claim ties to Kashmir.

I'm sure.....apart from the other more glaring lies.....you have conveniently forgotten the period between the Vedic Era and the Islamic Era.

BTW....isn't this post off-topic?