9 Indian Soldiers killed,16 hurt around Srinagar

Kargil is not in the valley, that is where the troops should be, the LOC does not cross the valley. The only ways of getting into the Kashmir valley are either from Jammu, via Muzafrabad and the Baramullah gate or from Baltistan and then trekking it to the valley. East Pakistan wasnt disputed, as much as you'd like to think that Kashmir is India, the fact remains that it is disputed, India does not control 1/3 of Kashmir.

How far back do you want to go? Afghanistan's association with the Subcontinent is about as strong as Kashmir's...perhaps your RSS militants should start working on occupying that country as well. And why stop there? Back in 200 BC modern-day India and Greece shared a common political history.

I already explained what I meant by "no political or historic basis"...if you want to live in denial and pretend that Kashmir wasn't independent of goings on the in Subcontinent for most of its history over the past 2000 years, then that's your prerogative.

The Dogras were foreign occupiers who bought Kashmir from the British for a few thousand rupees. Even the most fanatically pro-India Pandit won't dispute that. Moreover, the area that is considered "Kashmir" has not changed significantly either. The fact that lazy Indians have taken to colloquially referring to the entire colonial state as "Kashmir" and all of its residents as "Kashmiris" doesn't make it true...even today you'll never hear any Kashmiri referring to Jammu or Ladakh as part of "Kashmir."

Your ignorance of the region becomes increasingly evident with each new post.

The independent state of Kashmir was right along the historic Silk Road, which explains its extensive economic and cultural ties to Central Asia. As for the link to Pakistan, I'm sure even you know that to this day there isn't a single all weather road or railway connecting Kashmir to India. For much of its modern history prior to Indian occupation, Kashmir's economic lifeline was the Srinagar-Rawalpindi road...which meant that its closest outside links were to what is now W. Punjab.

Spare me the colonial condescension. You people have been singing the same tune for 60 years now, and we see how far that's gotten you.

Imperialism can't last forever. The British learned their lesson in India, and India will learn in Kashmir.

Re: 9 Indian Soldiers killed,16 hurt around Srinagar

^ how old r u if u dont mind me asking ? I'm assuming 35+??

oh btw, when you fly to delhi en route to srinagar, do u like eat an Indian or two on the way? xD

too maach aanger yaar, farget thees bakwases, eet is goveeng novvhhere. let aass moove farwaard weeth arr laavs.

Ouch. You're a good ten years off.

Sorry, didn't mean to cause offence.

I guess you're not much older than me then, and all this time I had taken you for an 'aunty'.

Well I will look forward to hear your version of how the central asian’s gave the name to Kashmir or how Srinagar was called Mohamadpur before the Indian occupation.

So where is Rawalpindi? Is it in Central Asia or is it in the subcontinent. I like the way you added W to Punjab, that makes it Pakistani enough to disassociate Kashmir from India. It shows how sad the situation for the people asking for separation is. They suffer the same delusion as their Pakistani supporters, “creating” a history for a region when they themselves know their links to the Indian subcontinent. Just as Pakistan claims it had no connection to India (this happened after 1950’s …… hope you read Iqbal’s speech), their supporters in Kashmir are using the same ploy.

The Dogras bought Kashmir for 75 million rupees and not a few thousand rupees…... a clarification …… So let me ask you once again ……… are you asking for independence for Kashmir valley only on for the whole of Jammu & Kashmir …… if it is for the whole of J&K, then how can you call the Dogras as foreigners????

Hope you listen to your self !!!!!

Kashmir shares same history as india and pakistan? If you go back to the time of Ashoka, then yes, but then you'd also have to say that Iran and Afghanistan share the same history too, as Ashoka ruled from parts of Iran, Afghanistan all the way to Assam.

Kashmirs history is very complex, and is very distinct to that of India proper. Due to the fact that Kashmir was the learning seat for Bhuddism, and that Bhuddism was mainly spread into tibet and central asia, it makes Kashmirs ties to it more closer than those with predominantly Hindu kingdoms of India. The part of history that unites northern india is during the Gupta Empire, which is what made hinduism flourish in northern India, Kashmir was not a part of this empire.

Discussing the history of Kashmir isn't going to solve anything or prove anything.

Jammu doesnt want to be a part of Kashmir anyway, it should go to India lol. An independent Kashmir valley is also fine by me to be honest.

Getting desperate I see?

Like I said, Kashmir's common history with India ends with the Kushans back in 300 AD.

Whatever economic links Kashmir had with the Subcontinent were with what is now Pakistan.

It was actually 75 lacs, genius. Thanks for the deceptive "clarification."

The Kashmiri areas.

If the Paharis, Gojris, Ladakhis, and other people of J&K decide they want to join us, I wouldn't stop them.

Well as i had said you would have to change the definition of the subcontinent to accomodate your view, so now it is connected to Pakistan..... atleast you agreed that it was connected to subcontinent .... otherwise the other guy had started linking Kashmir with Tibet and China!!!!!!

Just for info, budhism in Kashmir was prevelant during the time it was prevelant in India. So this was not something unique to Kashmir. And once buddhism started to vain in India, it did the same in Kashmir. Shankaracharya was responsible for the revivial of hindusim after buddhism had been in vogue for some centuries. Hope you remeber this guy as all kashmiri see the temple on top of " Takht - e - suleiman" as Shankaracharya temple.

Well thanks for agreeing it was not a few thousand rupees but 75 lakhs .....

Janab who were these "original inhabitants" ......

It had economic connections with modern-day Pakistan. That doesn't change the fact that it was independent of South Asia and the "Indian empires" for most of the past 2,000 years.

You're grasping at straws...nothing more.

Ethnic Kashmiris.

Take the history of just last 500 years and see what was happening in Kashmir ......... i can understand you "desire" to have an independent linking to India. It was part of the mughal empire, then the sikh empire and then the british / dogras .......

The Mughals ruled Kashmir for 160 years. In contrast, they ruled modern-day Afghanistan for nearly 240 years...but only managed to hold on to the Deccan & South India for 20-30 years. Clearly this is not basis for defining what is and isn't "India."

Being the biased Indian that you are, you of course gloss over the 70 years under the Afghan Durrani Empire, and immediately jump to the 27 years under Sikh oppression.

Which of course is the entire basis of India's claim over Kashmir...the fact that colonial authorities sold it to an Indian king. Of course it goes without saying that you and your ilk will ignore the preceding 1,300 years of Kashmiri independence.

So was it still independent of " Indian empires" for last 430 years (taking out the "foreign " afghan rule during this period) or was it part of " Indian empire" . We will take it one step at a time. Let us clear the "air" on last 500 years first ..... so simple yes or no ...... was Kashmir part of " Indian Empire" in last 500 years ....

Let's see...101 years were spent under British colonization (through titular Dogra agents). As for the 160 odd years under the Mughals...it amuses me to no end how you people denounce them as foreign imperialists when you're spewing your bile and venom against Muslims, but when its convenient, they magically become "Indians." In any case, for reasons I have repeatedly pointed out, I don't consider Mughal territory an indicator of what constitutes "India."

That leaves the 27 years under Ranjit Singh's brutal and oppressive occupation as the only real association with a truly "Indian empire" prior to the current occupation.

As far as this discussion goes, we are not here to discuss what " you" consider about being " Indian" territory. We are talking about history and you made a statement that Kashmir was independent of " going on" in the sub continent. Which was not true ...... So now you agree that Kashmir was part of " going on" in the sub continent.

As i have mentioned before ...... India in present form consitutes different nationalities and identities which share a common history and geography. The way the mughal empire or british empire was brutal on kashmir, so they were for most of the Indo-pak sub continent. That doesn't give Kashmiri's any special right over other ethnic groups in the sub continent.

Let me go a step further and say: refer to Janab’s posts :hehe:

What I want is for you to explain to me is why Indian occupied Kashmir shuts down on the Indian independence day. You avoided my question. I said why, not where. And also explain to me why these regions do not shut down on the Pakistani independence day?

Elaborate.

?

Please write in proper English. These last statements make no sense.

Checked!

Now where on this link does it say that Pakistan is the root of the Kashmiri problem?

Again, just like your buddy, you avoided my question: WHY does Indian occupied Kashmir shut down on Indian independence day? And why not on Pakistan’s Independence day? I asked why, not where.

The only thing your statement tells me is that you only respond to what you like, and leave aside anything which does not please you. In almost every post of yours, you try to evade away from the discussion-at-hand.

I really did ask this.

Finally you’ve conceded that the tensions exist only the Indian side of Kashmir! Well done!

India's claim over Kashmir? What does that mean? For a region to be part of a country, it takes a lot more than a 'claim'. If sufficient number of people of a region want to split of badly enough, they will. History proves that no amount of military power can prevent that. But for that to occur several factors are necessary, such as a strong enough cause for differentiation of the peoples, emergence of honest leaders and absence of conflicting agenda.

In case of Kashmir, none of these are true. The people are not really different from India whether it be by religions or cultural roots; the 'leaders' of the separatist movement are effectively neutralized by non-separatists and finally, there is no unified agenda! Notwithstanding the lack of cohesive and proactive Indian strategy in bringing this misery of Kashmir to resolution (largely due to the spolier role played by Pakistan), therefore by history, culture, religion or social norms, Kashmir fits into India. Which is why it still remains there, in spite of our imbecility in dealing with Pakistani mischeif appropriately

I explained in my post which you did not bother to read ...... as long militancy is prevlant in the valley ...... it will remain so. Let there be no fear of " gun" , then we can see what stops people from taking part in the celebrations.

People are getting killed for just voicing their opinion. Today if you have a political worker voicing his support for India ..... he can be killed by the militants ... why is it so ? Why is it that the separatist leadership have to "warn" people not to vote in elections. Why are they afraid of people voting? Is it that kashmiri's do not understand why they are voting?