16,000 Kashmiris Languishing in Indian Jails on Dubious Charges

[vineshvk]

@janab-e-ali

I see. So if you reject the validity of the British Indian elections, you must not believe that Congress won a majority of Hindu votes either. On what basis can you even claim that most of India supported independence from the British at all then?

What are u talking about. Did muslim league win a single seat in a hindu majority area. On the other side, congress could win some percentage of votes. My point is **not all **muslims were supporting the Muslim league even in such segregated electoral system.

@janab-e-ali

1. On what basis can you claim that J&K would have remained independent if the Pathans hadn't invaded? The Nawab of Hyderabad opted for independence...one year later, India invaded and took over.

I said may be. The king did not cede until he was threatened.

@janab-e-ali

2. Remaining under the Dogra Maharaja's rule wasn't an acceptable option either...he was as much a foreign tyrant as Kashmir's current rulers. Indians seem to forget that the Pathans didn't invade Kashmir out of the blue...there was already a pro-Pakistan rebellion underway in the parts of the state that now comprise Azad Kashmir.

Its your opinion. You would have preferred to be under the pathan muslim rule than a hindu dogra king.

@janab-e-ali

3. I will point out again that the Pathans weren't the first foreign invaders to enter Kashmir either. It is well established fact that the state forces of Patiala had entered Kashmir at least a week before the Pathan invasion. By that point, Patiala had already joined India...and if that wasn't enough, its erstwhile ruler was a general in the Indian army. Technically speaking, Patiala's troops were India's troops...if anyone was demonstrating their "evil designs" on Kashmir, it was India.

No thats not true. India had kingdoms and patiala was one kingdom which Dogra had relations with. He might have been called in to quench the revolt. It didnt work so Indian troops were called after he ceded to India.

@janab-e-ali

What are you talking about?

Kashmir and Afghanistan converted to Islam at around the same time (12th-14th century). Afghanistan's Buddhist tradition came to an end at around the same time as Kashmir's Hinduu/Buddhist tradition. And since that time, Afghanistan has been politically associated with India for far longer than Kashmir.

Its not about Islam or Budhism here. Afghanistan didnot have so much of relations with India before budhism or Islam spread there. While Kashmir had even longer relations with India.
You are negating your own argument here.

[janab-e-ali]

@vineshvk

What are u talking about. Did muslim league win a single seat in a hindu majority area. On the other side, congress could win some percentage of votes. My point is **not all **muslims were supporting the Muslim league even in such segregated electoral system.

What are you even trying to prove?

Over 90% of Muslims from all over India supported the Muslim League, and therefore, the creation of Pakistan. Indians can complain and throw tantrums all they want...the fact remains that Pakistan was established democratically as the result of a popular movement. Anyone who claims otherwise is deluded.

@vineshvk

The king did not cede until he was threatened.

Great. And maybe India would have taken over even if he hadn't ceded, just like they did in Hyderabad. As long as we're just speculating, we might as well use India's other actions as a basis...

@vineshvk

Its your opinion. You would have preferred to be under the pathan muslim rule than a hindu dogra king.

It's not my opinion...there was indeed a pro-Pakistan already underway in Mirpur, Poonch, and Gilgit, well before any Pathans invaded. Azad Kashmir had already announced its separation from the Dogra state nearly a month before the war broke out.

The Pathans also didn't establish "Pathan Muslim rule" over the areas that they and the Azad Jammu Kashmir forces managed to keep India out of.

@vineshvk

No thats not true. India had kingdoms and patiala was one kingdom which Dogra had relations with. He might have been called in to quench the revolt. It didnt work so Indian troops were called after he ceded to India.

The Maharaja of Patiala signed his state over to India on August 15, 1947. At that point he ceased to have the right to send around his state forces (now part of the Indian army) at will. Patiala troops started entering Kashmir in October, well after Patiala joined India.

@vineshvk

Its not about Islam or Budhism here. Afghanistan didnot have so much of relations with India before budhism or Islam spread there. While Kashmir had even longer relations with India. You are negating your own argument here.

Before the Mughal occupation under Akbar, the last time Kashmir was part of any Indian empire was during the Kushan period, which ended around 250 AD. The Kushan Empire comprised of modern-day Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan. From that point on, Kashmir was independent till the Mughal occupation, while Afghanistan was frequently associated with a number of South Asian dynasties.

[Moonshiner]

Of course for low class people without self respect as, words are irrlevant.

You are absolutely right. The cowardly Indians on this thread are without a doubt, low class and uneducated people who are without self-respect because they support the rape of Kashmiri women.

[vineshvk]

@janab-e-ali

What are you even trying to prove?

Over 90% of Muslims from all over India supported the Muslim League, and therefore, the creation of Pakistan. Indians can complain and throw tantrums all they want...the fact remains that Pakistan was established democratically as the result of a popular movement. Anyone who claims otherwise is deluded.

The point is Hindus did not want a nation for itself. Even now 100 odd million muslims live in the country. While only a very small number of Hindus are left in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

@janab-e-ali

Great. And maybe India would have taken over even if he hadn't ceded, just like they did in Hyderabad. As long as we're just speculating, we might as well use India's other actions as a basis...

India did not give any promise to nizam that it will not attack. While in Kashmir it took a different strategy. It would have allowed for the independence of Kashmir if it had stayed equidistant from Islamabad and Delhi. India could have easily run over Nepal and bhutan too, why didnt do that.

@janab-e-ali

It's not my opinion...there was indeed a pro-Pakistan already underway in Mirpur, Poonch, and Gilgit, well before any Pathans invaded. Azad Kashmir had already announced its separation from the Dogra state nearly a month before the war broke out.

So be it let them have it. Make LOC the default border then.

@janab-e-ali

The Maharaja of Patiala signed his state over to India on August 15, 1947. At that point he ceased to have the right to send around his state forces (now part of the Indian army) at will. Patiala troops started entering Kashmir in October, well after Patiala joined India.

There was an Indian force which is different from Patiala forces. And at that time it wasnt a part of Indian army. hence technically Indian forces did not enter Kashmir till it had been handed over to India.

@janab-e-ali

Before the Mughal occupation under Akbar, the last time Kashmir was part of any Indian empire was during the Kushan period, which ended around 250 AD. The Kushan Empire comprised of modern-day Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan. From that point on, Kashmir was independent till the Mughal occupation, while Afghanistan was frequently associated with a number of South Asian dynasties.

If India dont claim afghanistan does not mean India cannot claim Kashmir. The situations were different at the time of partition in afghanistan and Kashmir.

[janab-e-ali]

The point is Hindus did not want a nation for itself. Even now 100 odd million muslims live in the country.

They didn't need to...they knew full well that even in an undivided subcontinent, their sheer numbers would ensure that India would be Hindu dominated (as it is today).

While in Kashmir it took a different strategy. It would have allowed for the independence of Kashmir if it had stayed equidistant from Islamabad and Delhi.

Which is why India refused to even sign a standstill agreement with the Maharaja.

There was an Indian force which is different from Patiala forces. And at that time it wasnt a part of Indian army. hence technically Indian forces did not enter Kashmir till it had been handed over to India.

Nothing but semantics. The Maharaja of Patiala had already been appointed a general in Indian army. His state forces might as well have been Indian soldiers.

If India dont claim afghanistan does not mean India cannot claim Kashmir. The situations were different at the time of partition in afghanistan and Kashmir.

I see you've run out of arguments.

You seem to be missing your own initial point...that Kashmir's "great Hindu history" somehow legitimized India's claim over the territory (which means that you yourself believe India to be an essentially "Hindu state" by the way)...I am simply trying to point out the ridiculousness of that logic with the example of Afghanistan.

[vineshvk]

@janab-e-ali

They didn't need to...they knew full well that even in an undivided subcontinent, their sheer numbers would ensure that India would be Hindu dominated (as it is today).

Paranoia then. Muslims ruled over Indian masses for centuries, then Hindus didnt ask for separate kingdoms.

@janab-e-ali

Which is why India refused to even sign a standstill agreement with the Maharaja.

Neither did Pakistan had. In fact jinnah wanted Kashmir to be with Pakistan. Indian was determined not to give kashmir to Pakistan.

@janab-e-ali

Nothing but semantics. The Maharaja of Patiala had already been appointed a general in Indian army. His state forces might as well have been Indian soldiers.

No. Indian forces would have directly done that. Not some Patiala forces. There was an Indian force and Patiala was not part of the indian force ( or at least not termed as an Indian force).

@janab-e-ali

I see you've run out of arguments.

You seem to forget what started this argument. Your pretext that you are central asian and nothing to do with India is not true. You yourself admited to having a glorious Hindu past. Kashmir is similar to the rest of India. Not all the state has a Hindu majority but many time in their past they have been with India.

quote=janab-e-ali
[/quote]

No I dont believe anything like that. I am trying to find out the origin of your people. If it had no Hindu culture then I can believe that Kashmiris have nothing to do with Indias past (which was essentially Hindu).

@janab-e-ali

...I am simply trying to point out the ridiculousness of that logic with the example of Afghanistan.

Well akhand Bharath meant to have afghanistan also. But I dont believe in that. Keep whatever closer to home. And Kashmir is close to home and not any seperatist or Pakistan can take it away from India.

[janab-e-ali]

@vineshvk

Paranoia then. Muslims ruled over Indian masses for centuries, then Hindus didnt ask for separate kingdoms.

What are you babbling about? Those Muslim kingdoms were constantly dealing with uprisings among their mostly Hindu subjects.

@vineshvk

Neither did Pakistan had.

Thank you for demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about this topic.

Pakistan did sign a standstill agreement with the Maharaja. India did not. Go look it up.

@vineshvk

No. Indian forces would have directly done that. Not some Patiala forces. There was an Indian force and Patiala was not part of the indian force ( or at least not termed as an Indian force).

If they're soldiers from an Indian state, commanded by a general in the Indian army, then they might as well be Indian soldiers.

You're just playing word games now.

@vineshvk

You seem to forget what started this argument. Your pretext that you are central asian and nothing to do with India is not true. You yourself admited to having a glorious Hindu past. Kashmir is similar to the rest of India. Not all the state has a Hindu majority but many time in their past they have been with India.

Kashmir as as "Indian" as Afghanistan is. You have yet to disprove that statement.

@vineshvk

And Kashmir is close to home and not any seperatist or Pakistan can take it away from India.

The British said the same about India. The French said the same about Algeria. How ironic that today you Indians demonstrate the same hubris and imperial arrogance that your former colonial masters once showed you.

You people are nothing but colonialists, and if the past century has taught us anything, its that imperialism can never successfully suppress the will of an entire nation.

[vineshvk]

What are you babbling about? Those Muslim kingdoms were constantly dealing with uprisings among their mostly Hindu subjects.

Mind your language janab.
Squabbles may be but the muslims didnt want a seperate state did they. If it was a muslim king who was ruling then then they can suppress their hindu brothers as much as they want and still not a whimper from muslim neighbors. Aka kashmiri pandits and muslim neighbors. Isnt it.

@janab-e-ali

Thank you for demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about this topic.

Pakistan did sign a standstill agreement with the Maharaja. India did not. Go look it up.

If it was I am sorry. But I could have hardly imagined that they would have had entered into standstill agreement and then break it by actively supporting rebellion in the kingdom.

@janab-e-ali

If they're soldiers from an Indian state, commanded by a general in the Indian army, then they might as well be Indian soldiers.

You're just playing word games now.

You are playing with words. India was just created and still all the turmoil of partition and state demarcation wasnt over.

@janab-e-ali

Kashmir as as "Indian" as Afghanistan is. You have yet to disprove that statement.

Ha ha. you say that because you want to compare Afghanistan to Kashmir. Good for you.

@janab-e-ali

The British said the same about India. The French said the same about Algeria. How ironic that today you Indians demonstrate the same hubris and imperial arrogance that your former colonial masters once showed you.

You people are nothing but colonialists, and if the past century has taught us anything, its that imperialism can never successfully suppress the will of an entire nation.

British or french had nothing common with India or Algeria. Present day India was created with kashmir in it. India did not conquer it neither it occupied it by war.
If a state within Indian union rebels for no reason than religion then India has absolute full right to take action on them and to make them see reason. No outside country support such kind of accession demands.

[janab-e-ali]

Mind your language janab. Squabbles may be but the muslims didnt want a seperate state did they. If it was a muslim king who was ruling then then they can suppress their hindu brothers as much as they want and still not a whimper from muslim neighbors. Aka kashmiri pandits and muslim neighbors. Isnt it.

What are you even talking about?

Are you trying to claim that Hindus never rebelled against Muslim rule? Never tried to expel Muslim rulers from India? That the Rajputs and Marathas and Sikhs just had "squabbles" with the Mughals...but never wanted to set up independent states? That hundreds of "wars of independence" weren't fought against Muslim kings? That you people don't idolize kings like Shivaji to this day because they fought to expel the "Muslim invaders"?

If it was I am sorry. But I could have hardly imagined that they would have had entered into standstill agreement and then break it by actively supporting rebellion in the kingdom.

You are playing with words. India was just created and still all the turmoil of partition and state demarcation wasnt over.

What blatant Indian hypocrisy.

When soldiers from an Indian territory, under the command of an Indian general, enter Kashmir you refuse to acknowledge them as Indian soldiers. But when unorganized Pathan tribesmen, hearing news of Dogra & Patiala soldiers and RSS "volunteers" butchering over 200,000 Jammu Muslims, cross the border and join the Azad Kashmir rebels...its all the government of Pakistan's fault.

Of course you rabidly communal Indians see nothing wrong with the Dogra army massacring 40% of Jammu's Muslim population...you people probably would have been happy to see the Maharaja solve the Kashmir problem once and for all by merely wiping out the remaining Muslim population too. Truly pathetic.

Ha ha. you say that because you want to compare Afghanistan to Kashmir. Good for you.

Ha ha ha.

Still can't disprove the statement, so you're stuck making more ridiculous claims.

British or french had nothing common with India or Algeria.

The French didn't even consider Algeria a colony...it was regarded as an integral part of the French state and had largely been acculturated by them. After 200 years of occupation, village women spoke to their children in French rather than Berber or Arabic. Still, they managed to reclaim their national identity and expel the imperialists.

Present day India was created with kashmir in it.

No it wasn't.

The India created on August 15, 1947 had no Kashmir in it. New Delhi didn't even manage to force an unelected, rubber stamp state legislature to approve Kashmir's accession to India till 1954.

India did not conquer it neither it occupied it by war.

It collaborated with a hated, genocidal dictator instead.

If a state within Indian union rebels for no reason than religion then India has absolute full right to take action on them and to make them see reason. No outside country support such kind of accession demands.

Nothing but colonial hubris.

Time will eventually teach you the very same lesson it taught your former British masters.

[vineshvk]

What are you even talking about?

Are you trying to claim that Hindus never rebelled against Muslim rule? Never tried to expel Muslim rulers from India? That the Rajputs and Marathas and Sikhs just had "squabbles" with the Mughals...but never wanted to set up independent states? That hundreds of "wars of independence" weren't fought against Muslim kings? That you people don't idolize kings like Shivaji to this day because they fought to expel the "Muslim invaders"?

Hindus never created a state for hindus only aka pakistan.

@janab-e-ali

What blatant Indian hypocrisy.

When soldiers from an Indian territory, under the command of an Indian general, enter Kashmir you refuse to acknowledge them as Indian soldiers. But when unorganized Pathan tribesmen, hearing news of Dogra & Patiala soldiers and RSS "volunteers" butchering over 200,000 Jammu Muslims, cross the border and join the Azad Kashmir rebels...its all the government of Pakistan's fault.

Of course you rabidly communal Indians see nothing wrong with the Dogra army massacring 40% of Jammu's Muslim population...you people probably would have been happy to see the Maharaja solve the Kashmir problem once and for all by merely wiping out the remaining Muslim population too. Truly pathetic.

What are you, kashmiri propaganda machine. There is no evidence for your numbers. 40%, 200 million etc are big numbers. World would have sat up and noticed such butchering if it had ever happened.

@janab-e-ali

Ha ha ha.

Still can't disprove the statement, so you're stuck making more ridiculous claims.

Ha ha.. you cant disapprove that India can claim Kashmir with its historic past. Invaders and sufies made a lot of changes but still the roots remain. India would not have got itself into kashmir if it was some foreign country.

@janab-e-ali

No it wasn't.

The India created on August 15, 1947 had no Kashmir in it. New Delhi didn't even manage to force an unelected, rubber stamp state legislature to approve Kashmir's accession to India till 1957.

But soon it was handed over to India by the king. There was no one there who could have taken decision except the king.

@janab-e-ali

It collaborated with a hated, genocidal dictator instead.

Its your opinion. Not many would think like that.

@janab-e-ali

Nothing but colonial hubris.

Time will eventually teach you the very same lesson it taught your former British masters.

Not in our generation my dear. 60 years your people had gone from " join pakistan" bus to "Independet kashmir " volvo.

[janab-e-ali]

@vineshvk

Hindus never created a state for hindus only aka pakistan.

And again, that’s only because any democratic nation in India would by default be dominated by Hindus.

@vineshvk

What are you, kashmiri propaganda machine. There is no evidence for your numbers. 40%, 200 million etc are big numbers. World would have sat up and noticed such butchering if it had ever happened.

Pathetically bigoted Indians may not have noticed (or they probably encouraged it, the same way you and your ilk encourage the current genocide), but the rest of the world did:

“…in the remaining Dogra area, 237,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated, unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border, by all the forces of the Dogra State headed by the Maharaja in person and aided by Hindus and Sikhs.”
The Times of London, October 10, 1947 (which, BTW, is 3 weeks before the Pathans came into the picture)
Cambridge History of Islam

“Unlike every part of the state, Hindus and Sikhs slightly outnumbered Muslims, and within a period of about 11 weeks, starting in August, systemic savageries …practically eliminated the Muslim element in the population, amounting to 500,000 people. About 200,000 just disappeared, remaining untraceable, having been butchered of died from epidemic or exposure. The rest fled to West Punjab.”
The Statesman, Calcutta
Kashmir in Conflict

“The mad orgy of Dogra violence against unarmed Muslims should put any self-respecting human being to shame. I saw armed bands of ruffians and soldiers shooting down and hacking to pieces helpless Muslim refugees heading towards Pakistan… I saw en route State officials freely distributing arms and ammunition among the Dogras… From the hotel room where I was detained in Jammu I counted as many as twenty-six villages burning one night and all through the night rattling fire of automatic weapons could be heard from the surrounding refugee camps.”
Kashmir Times, October 28, 1947

@vineshvk

Ha ha.. you cant disapprove that India can claim Kashmir with its historic past. Invaders and sufies made a lot of changes but still the roots remain. India would not have got itself into kashmir if it was some foreign country.

Blah blah blah…you can whine about an ancient Hindu history till you’re red in the face…you have yet to prove how it’s any different from Afghanistan’s pre-Islamic history.

@vineshvk

But soon it was handed over to India by the king. There was no one there who could have taken decision except the king.

In Kashmir, you whine about the king’s right to decide. In Junagadh, you flout the king’s “right to decide” and support the Indian army’s invasion.

You truly are a nation of hypocrites.

@vineshvk

Its your opinion. Not many would think like that.

Every Kashmiri, Muslim or Pandit, would agree with that description of the Dogra king. Only a fool, or someone who knows absolutely **nothing **about Kashmir’s history (I’ll leave it up to you to decide which category you fall into) would claim otherwise.

@vineshvk

Not in our generation my dear.

Your former colonial masters were spouting the same garbage right up until the 1940’s. History humiliated them the same way it will humiliate you.

@vineshvk

60 years your people had gone from " join pakistan" bus to “Independet kashmir”

One thing never has, and God willing, never will change…we are united in our hatred of Indian occupation.

[vineshvk]

@janab-e-ali

And again, that’s only because any democratic nation in India would by default be dominated by Hindus.

Again paranoia of brutal hindus killing muslims. Never ever muslims kill hindus right.

@janab-e-ali

Pathetically bigoted Indians may not have noticed (or they probably encouraged it, the same way you and your ilk encourage the current genocide), but the rest of the world did:

“…in the remaining Dogra area, 237,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated, unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border, by all the forces of the Dogra State headed by the Maharaja in person and aided by Hindus and Sikhs.”
The Times of London, October 10, 1947 (which, BTW, is 3 weeks before the Pathans came into the picture)
Cambridge History of Islam

“Unlike every part of the state, Hindus and Sikhs slightly outnumbered Muslims, and within a period of about 11 weeks, starting in August, systemic savageries …practically eliminated the Muslim element in the population, amounting to 500,000 people. About 200,000 just disappeared, remaining untraceable, having been butchered of died from epidemic or exposure. The rest fled to West Punjab.”
The Statesman, Calcutta
Kashmir in Conflict

“The mad orgy of Dogra violence against unarmed Muslims should put any self-respecting human being to shame. I saw armed bands of ruffians and soldiers shooting down and hacking to pieces helpless Muslim refugees heading towards Pakistan… I saw en route State officials freely distributing arms and ammunition among the Dogras… From the hotel room where I was detained in Jammu I counted as many as twenty-six villages burning one night and all through the night rattling fire of automatic weapons could be heard from the surrounding refugee camps.”
Kashmir Times, October 28, 1947

HA.. Aziz Ahamad a pakistani diplomat in US would right like this. Cambridge History of Islam
Great.. any more of your propaganda.

@janab-e-ali

Blah blah blah…you can whine about an ancient Hindu history till you’re red in the face…you have yet to prove how it’s any different from Afghanistan’s pre-Islamic history.

You can also whine and talk about why Kashmir is different from India all you want, but you still cant disapprove India cannot claim Kashmir. Most of the indian state has different part of their period ruled by indigenous rulers.

@janab-e-ali

In Kashmir, you whine about the king’s right to decide. In Junagadh, you flout the king’s “right to decide” and support the Indian army’s invasion.

You truly are a nation of hypocrites.

I did not whine about kings right to decide. Kashmir is different from Junagarh. It was being threatened by external factors. A nation who have agreed to have a standstill agreement decided to annex it and hence only competent authority at that time was the King to decide whee he should go.

@janab-e-ali

Every Kashmiri, Muslim or Pandit, would agree with that description of the Dogra king. Only a fool, or someone who knows absolutely **nothing **about Kashmir’s history (I’ll leave it up to you to decide which category you fall into) would claim otherwise.

You claimed dogras killed 200, 000 muslims. That is what I dispute.

@janab-e-ali

Your former colonial masters were spouting the same garbage right up until the 1940’s. History humiliated them the same way it will humiliate you.

Not in our lifetime janab. You want a state for muslims, then you will get none. None of the world will allow that.

@janab-e-ali

One thing never has, and God willing, never will change…we are united in our hatred of Indian occupation.

God willing , kashmir will experience peace and prosper in Indian union.

[janab-e-ali]

You’re just plain ignorant.

As I clearly pointed out, The Cambridge History of Islam is quoting from an Times of London article from October, 1947. The same quote can be found in the Indian media:
http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2005/jan05/cover.html

A contemporary article from The Statesman mentions the same 200,000 figure.
*
“Kashmir is different from Junagarh. It was being threatened by external factors.”
*This is just plain pathetic. The only difference is that in Junagadh, your hypocrite nation was the “external factor” that threatened the state and ultimately invaded.

[Get_smart]

Re: 16,000 Kashmiris Languishing in Indian Jails on Dubious Charges

What do you all mean by "god willing" as if god is gong to will only in future? God has already willed

[vineshvk]

@janab-e-ali

You’re just plain ignorant.

As I clearly pointed out, The Cambridge History of Islam is quoting from an Times of London article from October, 1947. The same quote can be found in the Indian media:
http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2005/jan05/cover.html

A contemporary article from The Statesman mentions the same 200,000 figure.
*
“Kashmir is different from Junagarh. It was being threatened by external factors.”
*This is just plain pathetic. The only difference is that in Junagadh, your hypocrite nation was the “external factor” that threatened the state and ultimately invaded.

I dont like it.. but you have a nice propaganda going so let me add mine.
“Till September 1947, Rajouri was a town with a population of 5,000. By early November, this number had swelled to over 40,000, with Hindu and Sikh refugees streaming in from the west. On November 10, the Pakistani raiders accompanied by rebels from Poonch, attacked Rajouri, wiped out the small state force post and subjected the town to the worst kind of slaughter, loot and rapine. After three days of bloody carnage, only a few hundred survived. The Indian Army, in its counter attack, recaptured Rajouri on April 13, 1948. When the forces entered the town, "we found the grotesque sight of dead and dying huddled in dark corners, men in heaps, women … trembling in mute appeal, and the undernourished children. Some of the women had committed suicide by throwing themselves into the wells rather than suffer the ordeal. Cases were reported of young girls who were lucky enough to escape, more dead than alive, who had been assaulted by ten, twenty, thirty or more men. Others, we were told, had been dragged away screaming or unconscious.”
Quote from

Thunder over Kashmir By Maurice Cohen
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=3OQLlocsgbwC&dq=+Thunder+Over+Kashmir,&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=c7ElST7lJI&sig=U83dVB2TcHFxsMqNLGyNXDbFJsI&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA19-IA2,M1

[Get_smart]

Re: 16,000 Kashmiris Languishing in Indian Jails on Dubious Charges

I don't know why you people are fighting a war of useless words. Whether Hindu or Muslim or Christian or whatever, when it comes to wars and borders and territories, might is right.

When Ghazni Mhd invaded or when Babur and company established a dynasty in India or when the Brits made India a colony, it was based on might and weapons, not useless rhetoric about who was what or who did what 500 years ago.

Why, even in recent times, your own Pakistan tried its might to grab land in Kargil - with soldiers and guns, not pretty essays in triplicate.

When Lal Masjid was a hideout, it was bullets and shells that were used, not gazal poetry.

Junagadh and Hyderabad and Kashmir behaved because they knew it is better to be with a stronger country than the weaker one. Bangla Desh is direct proof that going with Pakistan was a huge mistake.

All people of Kashmir should be thanking their stars that their king took the right decision and saved them from Pakistan!

[Moonshiner]

[QUOTE]

All people of Kashmir should be thanking their stars that their king took the right decision and saved them from Pakistan!

[/QUOTE]

Yes, thank God for the Indian soldiers who rape and kill Kashmiri women!!

[Get_smart]

Yes, thank God for the Indian soldiers who rape and kill Kashmiri women!!

Pakistan soldiers do that a 1000 times more rape and murder of innocents than Indians, so don't even start

[Moonshiner]

Pakistan soldiers do that a 1000 times more rape and murder of innocents than Indians, so don't even start

1000 times more! Wow! Pakistan Zindabad!

[Get_smart]

1000 times more! Wow! Pakistan Zindabad!

now who has unresolved issues!