Question about Indian Administered Kashmir

[Hyde]

Vulgar comments

Mr President,
Lay off!
Post reported - no need to reply guyz

 

[BATMAN]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/u-s-fo...es-square-bomber-faisal-shahzad-surfaces.html

please also tell it profit india more than faisal shehzad.

 

[scrumpy]

please also tell it profit india more than faisal shehzad.

OK. If that is what works... The victim mentality ends up helping India more. Happy now?

 

[Ras]

BTW... this is not the only Muslim majority state which was invaded by indina army.
Thousands of Muslims were killed indiscriminately when India invaded Hyderabad and continued the genocide to reduce Muslim population.
In Kashmir Indian army applied same formulae as they applied in Hyderabad but Kashmiri resistance became internationalized as a result of indo-pak wars for obvious reasons of border issues.

Hyderabad was never Muslim majority...the Nizam's territory had more than 80% Hindus.It was just the opposite of Kashmir, a Muslim ruler and majority Hindu subjects like how Kashmir had a Hindu ruler and majority Muslim subjects.

That is why both India and Pakistan are hypocrites..when it suited India the people's voice was treated as greater than the ruler's(ex Hyderabad) and when convenient the ruler's word was treated greater than the people's voice(Kashmir). Similarly Pakistanis wanted to hear the Nizam in Hyderabad but did not want to listen to the Maharaja in Kashmir.In the end India being stronger managed to hold on to both territories.

Morality means nothing in this world and never has.

 

[billi]

Hyderabad was never Muslim majority...the Nizam's territory had more than 80% Hindus.It was just the opposite of Kashmir, a Muslim ruler and majority Hindu subjects like how Kashmir had a Hindu ruler and majority Muslim subjects.

That is why both India and Pakistan are hypocrites..when it suited India the people's voice was treated as greater than the ruler's(ex Hyderabad) and when convenient the ruler's word was treated greater than the people's voice(Kashmir). Similarly Pakistanis wanted to hear the Nizam in Hyderabad but did not want to listen to the Maharaja in Kashmir.In the end India being stronger managed to hold on to both territories.

Morality means nothing in this world and never has.

but it was decided that areas which are surrounded by indian union will become indias. thats why junagadh and hyderabad became indias

 

[somya]

Kashmir is an integral part of India and it represents the secular mindset of India.So dont bring the argument that its a muslim majority hence it should go to Pakistan. Its tough for you people to understand as you are living in a society where everything is decided by Islam, so just leave it.
Before 1990s there was peace in Kashmir, and it will definately return soon as...
... .
Kasmir has elected Goverment.
Kashmiri has their own state police.
Kashmiri are joining Indian Army in hordes(J&K Light Infantry).
Kashmiri want peace and welcomes tourist from other part of India.


The current skirmish is a temporary one and with time it will be over..That is the Power of Indian Democracy ....

Do You have it?

 

[falconfx]

Hyderabad was never Muslim majority...the Nizam's territory had more than 80% Hindus.It was just the opposite of Kashmir, a Muslim ruler and majority Hindu subjects like how Kashmir had a Hindu ruler and majority Muslim subjects.

That is why both India and Pakistan are hypocrites..when it suited India the people's voice was treated as greater than the ruler's(ex Hyderabad) and when convenient the ruler's word was treated greater than the people's voice(Kashmir). Similarly Pakistanis wanted to hear the Nizam in Hyderabad but did not want to listen to the Maharaja in Kashmir.In the end India being stronger managed to hold on to both territories.

Morality means nothing in this world and never has.

India never occupied Hyderabad on the pretext of religion. It was always for strategic reasons. Pakistan brings religion in every occupation. India doesn't. For India, it is always strategic, just like the US didn't let the south secede from the union.

 

[Novice09]

Can you show us some NEUTRAL links to show us that 2 million Kashmiri people have been killed???

2 million? Wow. Can I have some of what you're smoking bro? Please?

I think he is including kashmiri pandits who were killed by the so called freedom fighters aka terrorists in his data.

 

[Bushy]

Hyderabad was never Muslim majority...the Nizam's territory had more than 80% Hindus.It was just the opposite of Kashmir, a Muslim ruler and majority Hindu subjects like how Kashmir had a Hindu ruler and majority Muslim subjects.

That is why both India and Pakistan are hypocrites..when it suited India the people's voice was treated as greater than the ruler's(ex Hyderabad) and when convenient the ruler's word was treated greater than the people's voice(Kashmir). Similarly Pakistanis wanted to hear the Nizam in Hyderabad but did not want to listen to the Maharaja in Kashmir.In the end India being stronger managed to hold on to both territories.

Morality means nothing in this world and never has.

Hahahahaha!!!!

For a moment let us take your version of history as truth. Then what do we see? Hyderabad being touted as cyb3rabad? Come here and please do a survey how many of these people want to get away from India.

Man, it is not about who has the right, it is about who is right and who is wrong! Once you know the difference, you will quit talking about it !

About Kashmir, I have to tell you one thing, it is progressing in India's favor. The liberated zones from early 90's are where npow Rashtriya Rifle's Headquarters stand. I have seen how peoople react there when you tell them about the emplooyment opportunities in India. If you don't believe me4, I can actuallty opost links where so many of the educational class of Kashmiris are demanding for reservation in the IIT and IIM!


Sorru man, ithere's been thuinderstorrms and tornadors aroind and im drunk so I hope uyou can excuse my state of mind. Buit the cruzx stands... what I mean is what i sAID IS true.

 

[Cow(ard)Boy]

Farooq Abdullah...my god what a man!
Just ripped off Musharraf.
"A weak a troubled Pakistan,where no one knows who is ruling them"
Killer line.

 

[Bushy]

I think he is including kashmiri pandits who were killed by the so called freedom fighters aka terrorists in his data.

i CAN ALWAYS ATTEST TO THAT, ESPECIALLUY IF YOU VISIT KASHMIR AND SEE THE DILAPIDATED CONDITION OF ALL THWE TEMPLES AND HOMES OF THE PUNIDSTS TYHERE.

THOSE TEMPLES, MAN THEY AARE NO LESS THAN WORK OF ANCIENT ART... IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU ARE HINDU OR MUSLUM... OR JEW OR CHJRISTIAN... WHEN YOU SEE THE BEAUTY OF THOSE TEMPLES WITH BLACK STONE... AS A CIVILIZED HUMAN, UYOUR HEART IS BOUND TO CRY... I DID, AND I SAW IN MY FATHER'S EYES TOO... SO I DONT NEED ANYONE ELSE TO SAY IT TO BELIEVE IT !

p.s. I AM PRETTY DRUNK RIGHT NOW, BUT IF ANYONE DOES QUESTION THE AUTHENTICITY OF MY WORDS, IS MORE THAN WELCOME TO TAKE THE JOUNREY WITH ME, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RELIGION OR NATIONALITY, I GHUARANTTEEE THE SECURITY (EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REQUIRED - SPARKLINGWAY IS MOST INVITED, AS I LIVE JUST 20 MINUTES AWAY FROM HIM HAHAHAHAHAHA).

 

[Ras]

India never occupied Hyderabad on the pretext of religion. It was always for strategic reasons. Pakistan brings religion in every occupation. India doesn't. For India, it is always strategic, just like the US didn't let the south secede from the union.

Oh..Pakistan and India want Kashmir for the greatest strategic reason of them all...water.

 

[falconfx]

Oh..Pakistan and India want Kashmir for the greatest strategic reason of them all...water.

Yes. The only difference is Pakistan drops in the shadow of religion to do it while India does not. That argument is moot anyway, because their existence is in question because of their actions.

 

[ejaz007]

but it was decided that areas which are surrounded by indian union will become indias. thats why junagadh and hyderabad became indias

That is not the case. Princely states were given the right to decide which country they wished to join. Junagarh decided for Pakistan and was occupied by India using force.

Hyderabad remained independent till September 1948. They even had a representation in the UN. On 13th September 1948 Indian army invaded Hyderabad and occupied it.

 

[Ras]

Yes. The only difference is Pakistan drops in the shadow of religion to do it while India does not. That argument is moot anyway, because their existence is in question because of their actions.

No..India just claims it as an "integral" part of India when the citizens there want no part of India.