You're not understanding correctly. I said he was in jail/exile/house arrest for most of that twenty year period...which no one will deny. This is really just getting pathetic.
Original quote of urs did not have the most in it.
I repeat...does the fact that virtually no Muslims supported the Congress Party make them any less of a "nationalist" party?
I am talking about the 1937 election when the separate nation idea based on religion did not come up. The fact that congress did well then and later lost is because of the muslim leagues, hindu phobia driven political campaign. The fact also that Congress contested against a muslim party in segregated electoral system is an intent that it stood for nationalism than religious bigotry.
Can the kashmiri separatist movement get even 1% Kashmiri pandits vote to be independent.
As for the other 1/2 which fell under the authority of various princely states...most princes had the decency to make their decision based on the demographics of their state and popular opinion. In the few cases where the princes openly flouted the will of their subjects, and their subjects wanted to join India [Junagadh, Hyderabad]...your government was more than happy to invade, and promptly hold a plebiscite so the people could be heard. It's only Kashmir that we see the India's total hypocrisy.
I come from a erstwhile princely state. So factually my forefather did not make a choice. The rest depends on circumstances.
Indian culture. Again an abstract thing. Its people. There are different people from different origin. So how do u define this vast nation.
PS...I though you people pride yourself on the strength of your "Indian" identity. You take so much joy in denouncing the two-nation theory, and yet here you are complaining about how your secular utopia has no binding national identity.
Really!!!. I am proud of my country. I am also proud of my state. I keep my state identity and culture and this way contribute to the national identity of India. Indian identity is a sum of all contribution from different state culture, language and morals. No state is inferior or superior to the other.
What you try to conserve is ur islamic identity not kashmiriyat that u proudly portray here. U would still be able to do that under Indian union, but of course you wouldn't be able to implement islamic laws to the non-islamic people. U are also afraid that u will be overwhelmed by the weight of people from other states coming to ur valley.
This utopia that u create of a secular Kashmir is long gone as soon as the terrorist started their work in the valley.
The only roads out of Kashmir that are usable year round go to Rawalpindi and Sialkot in Pakistan.
So was their ancient ties. I would like to hear them.
If the Pathans hadn't gotten so caught up in raping and looting, I doubt they would have encountered much resistance from the people of Kashmir either. Outside Sheikh Abdullah's power base in urban Srinagar, most of the population was probably in favor of joining Pakistan anyways.
That did not happen and Indian forces were able to drive away the pathans. So what was ur kashmiri people doing for freedom. At that point of time, joining Pakistan was ur priority, now independence. This is why I ask you to make up your mind.