Realistically i don’t see a solution of kashmir conflict in the foreseeable future. No country is going to give up any land/territory as a compromise. And this discussion about Kashmir could go on forever simply because the issue was not resolved in 1947, is unresolved today and it will remain unresolved in the foreseeable future.
but you would notice one thing from the tone and views of many hindus on kashmir
They actually believe that hindus have a God-given right to rule over the entire sub-continent. Because the issue of Kashmir was not resolved in 1947, the indian hindus today would claim kashmir as their territory even though it has a muslim majority.
Now Keep in mind if the partition of 1947 had not happened. The hindus would also want to rule over the muslim majority areas of punjab, sindh and NWFP against the will of the local muslim population, hence that is why most hindus were against partition in 1947. Ofcourse the muslims with their larger numbers would not have tolerated this persecution by hindus and it would have led to a very brutal civil war.
And if we go by the arguement that “might is right” or “possession is nine-tenths of the law”, then i don’t see why hindu indians today complain about the british raj. I would say that for the muslim minority today, the hindu-dominated government of india is far worse than the British raj of the past. Infact, if i had a choice as a muslim in india, i would rather live in a sub-continent under British Raj instead of living under a hindu-dominated government
While there are already dozens of threads about Kashmir on gupshup. Realistically i don't see a solution in the foreseeable future. No country is going to give up any land/territory as a compromise. And this discussion about Kashmir could go on forever simply because the issue was not resolved in 1947, is unresolved today and it will remain unresolved in the foreseeable future.
but you would notice one thing from the tone and views of many hindus on kashmir
They actually believe that hindus have a God-given right to rule over the entire sub-continent. Because the issue of Kashmir was not resolved in 1947, the indian hindus today would claim kashmir as their territory even though it has a muslim majority.
Now Keep in mind if the partition of 1947 had not happened. The hindus would also want to rule over the muslim majority areas of punjab, sindh and NWFP against the will of the local muslim population, hence that is why most hindus were against partition in 1947. Ofcourse the muslims with their larger numbers would not have tolerated this persecution by hindus and it would have led to a very brutal civil war.
And if we go by the arguement that "might is right" or "possession is nine-tenths of the law", then i don't see why hindu indians today complain about the british raj. I would say that for the muslim minority today, the hindu-dominated government of india is far worse than the British raj of the past. Infact, if i had a choice as a muslim in india, i would rather live in a sub-continent under British Raj instead of living under a hindu-dominated government
The faith is such that it assumes a role for all those within it and with out it. Here is a faith that believes that there are those who rule, and those who are ruled. Human rights and fair play have very little space within this philosophy.
Realistically i don't see a solution of kashmir conflict in the foreseeable future. No country is going to give up any land/territory as a compromise. And this discussion about Kashmir could go on forever simply because the issue was not resolved in 1947, is unresolved today and it will remain unresolved in the foreseeable future.
but you would notice one thing from the tone and views of many hindus on kashmir
They actually believe that hindus have a God-given right to rule over the entire sub-continent. Because the issue of Kashmir was not resolved in 1947, the indian hindus today would claim kashmir as their territory even though it has a muslim majority.
Now Keep in mind if the partition of 1947 had not happened. The hindus would also want to rule over the muslim majority areas of punjab, sindh and NWFP against the will of the local muslim population, hence that is why most hindus were against partition in 1947. Ofcourse the muslims with their larger numbers would not have tolerated this persecution by hindus and it would have led to a very brutal civil war.
And if we go by the arguement that "might is right" or "possession is nine-tenths of the law", then i don't see why hindu indians today complain about the british raj. I would say that for the muslim minority today, the hindu-dominated government of india is far worse than the British raj of the past. Infact, if i had a choice as a muslim in india, i would rather live in a sub-continent under British Raj instead of living under a hindu-dominated government
friend....do you really want an open discussion or have already come to a conclusion.
I have one question....
why muslim gentry is not at peace any where in the world and especially in islamic states?
First you sort out your ideilogical problem...then come over for an open discussion on any topic...if you have guts!
The most celebrate author on Jinnah in pakistan particularly during and after1947 August days is Mr Z H Zaidi.
Please get hsi book from amazon.com and read the detaisl about what actually ensued during those days.
Fact is Jinnah saheb was not ready to agree on the basis of muslim majority going to pakistani and hindu majority going to India.
His point was Hyderabad will remain independent and there will be no talk on that. Kashmir must come to Pakistan. Not only that he even started enocuraging Raja of Jodhpur a muslim to declare independence.
Much maligned Sardar patel had proposed hindu majority area should come to India and muslim majority area should go to pakistan but Jinnah saheb was ambitious. he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. This is not any India saying but most respected author on Jinnah from Pakistan saying.
Now what ensued in that game if Patel outsmarted Jinnah then it;s not Patel's fault.
Fact is Hydrebad , Kashmir and Kalat enjoyed much greate autonomy under British and were nearly indepepndent states and all three declared so.
This pontification of India being villain and Pakistan victim in this drama is patently disingenuous at best.
indians - hindus muslims sikhs etc. all seem to think kashmir ban chuka hindustan. they all also think pakistan needs to shut down kashmir militancy. i hope that makes it clear, pal.
indians - hindus muslims sikhs etc. all seem to think kashmir ban chuka hindustan. they all also think pakistan needs to shut down kashmir militancy. i hope that makes it clear, pal.
Yeah, but they dont count.. The only opinion that matters ultimately is Kashmir. And they dont wnt you. Thats why everyone considers India an occupier...
BTW. I doubt Muslims will ever say anything to disappoint the Hindu majority, for fear of being killed... So you can take them out of your equation.. :)
**Siwan, May 3: **Police on Saturday arrested one of Bihar’s most wanted criminal and contract killer Sultan Mian and rescued Kanchan Mishra, whom he allegedly abducted and married forcibly, from Siwan town.
here they are openly abducting girls and you are claiming they are scared to even talk..
BTW this criminal got nabbed and poor girl reached her husband’s place thanks to special interset takne by L K Advani’s daughter Pratibha Advani..
Realistically i don't see a solution of kashmir conflict in the foreseeable future. No country is going to give up any land/territory as a compromise. And this discussion about Kashmir could go on forever simply because the issue was not resolved in 1947, is unresolved today and it will remain unresolved in the foreseeable future.
but you would notice one thing from the tone and views of many hindus on kashmir
They actually believe that hindus have a God-given right to rule over the entire sub-continent. Because the issue of Kashmir was not resolved in 1947, the indian hindus today would claim kashmir as their territory even though it has a muslim majority.
Now Keep in mind if the partition of 1947 had not happened. The hindus would also want to rule over the muslim majority areas of punjab, sindh and NWFP against the will of the local muslim population, hence that is why most hindus were against partition in 1947. Ofcourse the muslims with their larger numbers would not have tolerated this persecution by hindus and it would have led to a very brutal civil war.
And if we go by the arguement that "might is right" or "possession is nine-tenths of the law", then i don't see why hindu indians today complain about the british raj. I would say that for the muslim minority today, the hindu-dominated government of india is far worse than the British raj of the past. Infact, if i had a choice as a muslim in india, i would rather live in a sub-continent under British Raj instead of living under a hindu-dominated government
Pls name atleast one Hindu who has ruled over Kashmir since 1947 ??
Pakis forget abot Kashmir- think abot baluchistan-it might skip from pakistan the way Bangladesh in 71- better educate the masses in pakistan who r getting the doses of Islam from radical mullas-right now its only America hitting targets(drones)-if out of controlled the rest of the world will be in doorstep-dont live in the world of denial now majority of people knows the truth abot pakistans involvement in creating terror in the world.
Assume there exists some method that can ascertain the will of the people of Kashmir in the most unambiguous manner & assume they desire to live in independence or want to be part of Pakistan, would you under such circumstances consider it moral to continue the killing of people... for the maintenance of control over a territory.
All other things that have been mentioned are secondary , the fundamental issue is to outline where you stand on the principle of people's free will.
Assume there exists some method that can ascertain the will of the people of Kashmir in the most unambiguous manner & assume they desire to live in independence or want to be part of Pakistan, would you under such circumstances consider it moral to continue the killing of people... for the maintenance of control over a territory.
All other things that have been mentioned are secondary , the fundamental issue is to outline where you stand on the principle of people's free will.
No there is provision for free will to fight for their rights democratically within indian republlic .. that's all no more balkanization nonsense of India over one excuse or another..
If I see your position correctly you want to constrain free will within a certain framework that you hold sacred, but what about people who do not feel any binding to this framework..., do you see it morally & ethically justifiable to en-thrust something which 'You' not 'they' hold sacred... Dont answer this strictly in the context of Kashmir or India , answer this as a matter of principle
. Let me start speaking for the people of SWAT,hindus, Christians of Pakistan.