Strategic options on kashmir issue

[-=virus=-]

Let us await for that.

you guys on that side are a little more experienced with that sort of thing, but no thanks

kisi high level insaan ka assassination ho gya, then there will be a jung of jungs, and there will be no jung again.. ever.

careful what we wish for.

Revocation of Article 370 has, of course, certain implications; but, by and large, this Article, itself, or its revocation, for that matter, is meaningless, as far as Pakistan is concerned, and has no bearing, whatsoever, on the stance and position of Pakistan, on the right of self determination of the people of Kashmir. There is no new reality, to which Pakistan needs to adjust itself. It is virtually the same, starting with October, 1947.

True.

bloody headache, this nonsense.

make it an international border and end it

 

[uk29]

Start twitter trends ..
lol

 

[Adonis]

Mughal came from Uzbekistan and occupied both present Pakistan and India. How come they became Pakistani or Indian?

Just take a example : during the British raj if any British kids born in India or Pakistan then was they called Indian or Pakistani?

I could agree if these Mughals have been Babar or Humayun.......Shahjahan was 3 gen Indian born rular...he can't be termed outsider just because he has foreign lineage long back.

To you argument, what you will call a Hindu in India whose grandfather migrated from Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in 1971. Indian, Bangladeshi or Pakistani?

 

[Minho]

I could agree if these Mughals have been Babar or Humayun.......Shahjahan was 3 gen Indian born rular...he can't be termed outsider just because he has foreign lineage long back.

To you argument, what you will call a Hindu in India whose grandfather migrated from Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in 1971. Indian, Bangladeshi or Pakistani?

The Mughals were Central Asian invaders who eventually got assimilated into India. As you said, Akbar and Shah Jahan were born in modern Pakistan, while Aurangzeb was born in Gujarat India.

 

[Adonis]

The Mughals were Central Asian invaders who eventually got assimilated into India. As you said, Akbar and Shah Jahan were born in modern Pakistan, while Aurangzeb was born in Gujarat India.

Right for Aurangzeb.....my point was, we can't keep labelling someone as outsider despite him being 2-3 generation down the line of someone who initially migrated to a new country/land.
Example...I am a 3rd Gen NZ, my grandpa was from Pakistani...I can't be identified as a Pakistani but a Kiwi....(though I can be called as person of Pakistani Lineage)

 

[SIPRA]

you guys on that side are a little more experienced with that sort of thing, but no thanks

No. It is for all sides. When a dispute is not resolved and stays, as it is, whether in a cold or hot status; all the parties, to that dispute, remain in a sort of "waiting".

careful what we wish for.

Of course, it is not a wish, not at least mine; but, then, progression of social and political processes and movements is not subject and subservient to our wishes. We are too small.

make it an international border and end it

Of course, this is what India desires, since 1948 ceasefire, and Pakistan doesn't agree to it. That is precisely the dispute.

bloody headache, this nonsense.

Of course, it is a headache for people of Kashmir and Pakistan, arising out of nonsense of India.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

what identity crisis? We are not the ones to be ruled by foeigners

Yet you only spent your entire history doing that.

You talk about alternative history, yet you actually think Porus beat Alexander

Whereas most historians agree he was defeated by Alexander.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_campaign_of_Alexander_the_Great


In fact, alexander attempted to invade the gangetic plains, but was repelled by the ruling Nanda Empire.
The only South Asian Emprire to defeat the Greeks was The Muryan Empire, ruled by a Bihari.

And since you have not been able to counter this map, I will post it again.

I did not mean in battle, I meant to say the man to defeat Alexander as in defeating his ambition to "conquer the world". Its a well known fact that the Battle of Hydaspes and subsequent campaign took such a toll on Alexander and his men that it led to Alexander reinstating Porus as king and retreating back across Persia.

Nice alt-history, Nanda did not fight against Alexander; In typical gangu fashion their only saving grace was that there were endlesss hordes of them that Alexander's troops no longer had the morale to fight.

Mauryans never fought the Greeks either. They fought the local satrap/tribes at the time and didnt even dare to do so until after Alexander died and his empire fractured.

The fact is the Marathas ahd ruled the subcontinent for several centuries before the British arrived, which is why the British had to defeat the Marathas to rule the subcontinent. The Marathas even ruled over large parts of modern Pakistan for as long as the Mughals and Tugluqs ruled parts of India. And even during the Mughal and delhi Sultanate period, most of India was ruled by hindu Empires such as vijayangara, Travancore, Ahoms, etc.(Akbar even aknowledged Vijayangara as the most powerful state in South Asia),while the former two empires were mostly limited to the north. On the other hand, they ruled modern Pakistan for 1000 years.

Wow. I dont know why your IT cell is now feeding you this retarded narrative to try and make the Marathas your new god, but they did not rule for several centuries. They ruled the banks of the Indus after 750 years of Muslim rules for only 2 years before being chased out by Pashtun tribes under Ahmed shah Durrani of Multan.

That map you keep posting only makes you look stupid because it proves three things
1) That Pakistanis were ruled by their own
2) That even at the zenith of Maratha rule they couldnt even penetrate the lands of modern day Pakistan
3) Marathas ruled that much of India, yet not even 100 years later the British were in control of that entire territory; the weakness of the Marathas invited British invasion which was previously stalled by the strength of the Mughals.

 

[Meengla]

In my opinion, Pakistan should calibrate it's Kashmir policy on India based on what India actually does in IoK. Change in demographics or restricting flow of water into Pakistan would be the red-lines, crossing which Pakistan should heat up IoK. Take the gloves off then.
It's a wait and watch game in Pakistan till then.

Also, it's entirely likely that Modi will get displaced in a few years and/or Indian Supreme Court undo his revocation of Article 370.

IMO, there should be a Musharraf-Manmohan like revival of talks for Kashmir resolution. And listening to some Indian leaders (P. Chidambaram, for example), that's where some Indians would like to go back to as starting point.

Those in this thread advocating a more muscular Pakistani involvement in the Middle East on the side of the Arab countries are well-wishing naive friends of Pakistan! And there have been strong counter-arguments to them in this thread. In summary: No nukes are strong enough, no allure of Middle Eastern jobs are enough to justify Pakistan opening a 3rd front against Iran! Whatever the 'benefits' for Pakistan will be far out-weighed by the internal divides and another hot border for Pakistan to deal with. Fools like Saddam and Siad Barre and other forms of militarism as short cuts for national gains, only to see their countries ruined pretty quickly. So stay neutral but provide full protection and comfort to refugees who may enter Pakistan. The

 

[Minho]

By the time the British arrived, all the major Muslim powers in India were paying tribute to the Marathas(Hyderabad, Oudh etc.) And the fact still stands that not a single ruler from modern day Pakistan ruled significant parts of modern-day India for significant lengths of time.

It is also a fact that Alexander got owned, while the Ganges was never invaded by any foreign power for thousands fo years. Can't say the same for modern Pakistan, which was invaded by Indian Mauryans and guptas, Greek Scythians, Chinese Kushans, Central Asian Huns, etc. Almost never was modern Pakistan ruled by indiginious empires.

Yes Seleucus Nikator wasn't a Greek. After Alexander destroyed the "mighty empires of the Indus, his successor got crushed by Indian Hinuds from the Ganges who then ruled the Indus region for centuries(longer then mughal rule over most of India).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucus_I_Nicator

No matter how some Pakistanis try and spin it, the Marathas crushed the Mughals and ruled over the majority of the subcontinent for centuries. In addition, they made "mighty" Muslim rulers like Hyder Allly adn Tipu Sultan practically their servants. And it is a historical FACT that the Marathas ruled the MAJORITY of the subcontinent for several centuries for centuries before the British arrived. Wehreas teh Mughals under Aurangzeb could not even expand past north India for a few decades

And the above map I keep posting is not even the Marathas at their height. That would be this.View attachment 601209 View attachment 601209 Considering the fact that Hyderabad was a tributary state of the Marathas at the time, nearly the entire subcontinent

I guess Pakistanis can't get over the fact that they were ruled by Indian Hindus from the Ganges for almost 1000 years, from the Mauryans to the Guptas to the Marathas.