My english is bad, but not my maths. Go back and read, u have given duration of his jailing. That doesn't add up to 20.
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.
Did the congress asked for the division of state on religious lines. Congress won 7 out of 11 provinces. With muslim league gaining only around 5% polled votes.
What are you talking about...there were separate electorates for Muslims during the British Raj...and by the 1946 elections, the Muslim league won nearly 90% of the Muslim vote.
I repeat...does the fact that virtually no Muslims supported the Congress Party make them any less of a "nationalist" party?
1.none of our forefathers were given the choice. Mostly, kings decided for us.
In the 1/2 of British India that was under direct British rule, your forefathers were indeed given a choice...they were allowed to express their opinions on the future of their homeland through their democratically elected representatives in the Constituent Assembly.
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.
- What is Indic?
"Of or pertaining to India or its peoples or cultures"
- Yes of course !!!! Those who joined the union and helped in maintaining the union should have lost its identity. Is that so? Great!! Where in India there is homogenization?
India's difficulties in building a national identity aren't our problem.
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.
Sometimes I wonder, you guys get stuck up in the valley and never come out of it.
That goes back to our having no real social, economic, or historic ties to modern-day India. To this day, there isn't even an all-weather road connecting Kashmir to India...once the snow comes down, the only way to get to India from Kashmir is by plane.
The only roads out of Kashmir that are usable year round go to Rawalpindi and Sialkot in Pakistan.
Whatever u think, but thats what happened. Because u were not able to save your self. Were your people able to resist the Pathans. What happened to the great Kashmiri fighting spirit.
The reason why the Pathans were so successful in grabbing 1/3 of J&K is because the local people in what is now Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas actually rebelled against the Maharaja so they could join Pakistan. Indians seem to completely gloss over the fact that well before a single Pathan had crossed over into Kashmir, the people of Poonch, Mirpur, Muzaffarabad, and Kotli had already rebelled in favor of Pakistan.
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.