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
Going by that same principle where does one stop.. balakanization to the level of village where every village swear by an autonomous sovereign state or some district or some state .. where is the end to this nonsense..
I find it patently undesirable and stupito hide behind the free will because by extrapolation total free will is total anarchy.. Yes your basic rights are not being respected then I can see the point.. When you have no say in your own govt formation and in your own pursuit to get elected then I can see the point otherwise this free will is another name of complete anarchy..
Going by that same principle where does one stop.. balakanization to the level of village where every village swear by an autonomous sovereign state or some district or some state .. where is the end to this nonsense..
I find it patently undesirable and stupito hide behind the free will because by extrapolation total free will is total anarchy.. Yes your basic rights are not being respected then I can see the point.. When you have no say in your own govt formation and in your own pursuit to get elected then I can see the point otherwise this free will is another name of complete anarchy..
Lets first clarify the position on the basic principle... because in the application of principle just as there must be a reasonable point at which it is not applicable there is also a point at which it starts to apply , what that point is..., is a different question altogether
^ I think that point was the partition in 1947. Whats done is done. Now there is no question of going back & redoing it saying it was not done correctly.
The LoC should be made the international border & respected as such by both sides.
Reality is nto what was told in history books of Pakistan. I will exhort any serious student of this chapter of history to go through the most credible author from Pakistan on Muhd Ali Jinnah Jinnah-paper.. It is in several volumes. That gentleman spent his whole life researching on Jinnah and is as credible on this as they come.
His findings are after intiial bickering over partition Patel came up with a solution where all those states where hindu were in majority goes to India and vice versa. Jinnah Sahbe was tryiing to be smart he flatly refused it. His poiint was Hyderbad is independent ( hindu majority 85-15)and will remain so and since Nizam was close to him so he was not interested in hyderabad joining pakistan and nor India. JUngarh again hindu majority 95%-5% but quite smartly he made sure that nabab of Junagarh declares Junagadh part of Pakistan well ( india intervened). At the same time he wanted Kashmir because it was muslim majority ( 60-40). Not only that he even started convicnign Naba of Jodhpur to pitch or independence.
In this game Patel saheb outsmarted him and since then we hear crocodile tears.
Itwas Mr. Jinnah who refuised the formulae and now when his plan was not successful you get the usal sob story. Thanks to Nehru you guys have POK otherwsie Patel was in no mood of declaring truse till whole Kashmir got cleand of Afridi tribes fighters and pakistan army fighters.
Anyway bottomline is alot of water has flown udner the bridge and the kind of money India has spent into development of Kashmri it is next to impossible for any kind of border redrawing..
it's going to stay the way it is as long these two countries exist ..
Reality is nto what was told in history books of Pakistan. I will exhort any serious student of this chapter of history to go through the most credible author from Pakistan on Muhd Ali Jinnah Jinnah-paper.. It is in several volumes. That gentleman spent his whole life researching on Jinnah and is as credible on this as they come.
His findings are after intiial bickering over partition Patel came up with a solution where all those states where hindu were in majority goes to India and vice versa. Jinnah Sahbe was tryiing to be smart he flatly refused it. His poiint was Hyderbad is independent ( hindu majority 85-15)and will remain so and since Nizam was close to him so he was not interested in hyderabad joining pakistan and nor India. JUngarh again hindu majority 95%-5% but quite smartly he made sure that nabab of Junagarh declares Junagadh part of Pakistan well ( india intervened). At the same time he wanted Kashmir because it was muslim majority ( 60-40). Not only that he even started convicnign Naba of Jodhpur to pitch or independence.
In this game Patel saheb outsmarted him and since then we hear crocodile tears.
Itwas Mr. Jinnah who refuised the formulae and now when his plan was not successful you get the usal sob story. Thanks to Nehru you guys have POK otherwsie Patel was in no mood of declaring truse till whole Kashmir got cleand of Afridi tribes fighters and pakistan army fighters.
Anyway bottomline is alot of water has flown udner the bridge and the kind of money India has spent into development of Kashmri it is next to impossible for any kind of border redrawing..
it's going to stay the way it is as long these two countries exist ..
The problem is in this attitude perceiving this issue not from a moral,ethical or principled standpoint but as a Zero-sum game. For the sake of argument even if I accept your version of history , how can you justify subjugating a people against their will irrespective of what anyone you claim did that enabled you to come in that position.
Besides , if you analyze your argument you blame Quaid-e-Azam for wanting different formulas to be applied in different regions in favor of Pakistan , but in reality different formulas were applied in different regions in the interest of India
so in your own admission the division of india was biased & unjustly in favor of India , specially in the case of Kashmir.
Geo Political situations never stay the same ..., what seems to be impossible today might become inevitable tomorrow. Unless people in Pakistan & India stop looking this issue as a matter of their ego but as a human problem, Vested interests would continue to exploit this issue & both sides & specially the people of kashmir will continue to suffer.
The problem is in this attitude perceiving this issue not from a moral,ethical or principled standpoint but as a Zero-sum game. For the sake of argument even if I accept your version of history , how can you justify subjugating a people against their will irrespective of what anyone you claim did that enabled you to come in that position.
Besides , if you analyze your argument you blame Quaid-e-Azam for wanting different formulas to be applied in different regions in favor of Pakistan , but in reality different formulas were applied in different regions in the interest of India
so in your own admission the division of india was biased & unjustly in favor of India , specially in the case of Kashmir.
Geo Political situations never stay the same ..., what seems to be impossible today might become inevitable tomorrow. Unless people in Pakistan & India stop looking this issue as a matter of their ego but as a human problem, Vested interests would continue to exploit this issue & both sides & specially the people of kashmir will continue to suffer.
There is no subjugation of anybody those who are not acting against state are doing fine... Can't start entertaning the call for every village as indepedent state..
There is no human problme whatsoever even the army was not there before the neighbours became neighbours enemy in the valley..
There is no subjugation of anybody those who are not acting against state are doing fine... Can't start entertaning the call for every village as indepedent state..
There is no human problme whatsoever even the army was not there before the neighbours became neighbours enemy in the valley..
Thats simply not true...
Your refusing to admit the ground reality. That being that Kashmiris , both those who are actng against the state and thoe who are not all want to be independant of India.
There is evidence of this and it staring you in the face. If you refuse to acknowledge it, its ust a matter of you hivng his head in the sand. Very childish of you.
^ I think that point was the partition in 1947. Whats done is done. Now there is no question of going back & redoing it saying it was not done correctly.
The LoC should be made the international border & respected as such by both sides.
Yeah, but its not done. And it never will be done.
We arent re-doing anything, because nothing was done in Kashmir. It was left an open question. So the sooner its resolved amicably the better.
You of course would rather see the valley bathed in blood, then for the Kashmiris to have their rights respected...
Please do… If you have anything valuable to add then be my guest.. But seeing as how you have no knoweldge of these areas, I doubt your synopsis will hold much water:)
Pls name atleast one Hindu who has ruled over Kashmir since 1947 ??
Ummm, I can name ever Hindu INDIAN Prime Minister in the Hindu dominated govt in Delhi, who pulls all the strings in Occupied Kashmir?!?!?
Basically you have to simply google list of India PMs and ruling parties since partition, and that answers your question... :)
Going by that same principle where does one stop.. balakanization to the level of village where every village swear by an autonomous sovereign state or some district or some state .. where is the end to this nonsense..
I find it patently undesirable and stupito hide behind the free will because by extrapolation total free will is total anarchy.. Yes your basic rights are not being respected then I can see the point.. When you have no say in your own govt formation and in your own pursuit to get elected then I can see the point otherwise this free will is another name of complete anarchy..
Every village within India holds the same framework that you do to be valid. So unless our willing to admit that all of India is on the verge of Balkanization, then your whole argument is refuted, as Indian democaracy then has proven itself worthless, and thus is no framework to gauge the asspirations of the people of Kashmir.
If not, then the question still applies.
Ummm, I can name ever Hindu INDIAN Prime Minister in the Hindu dominated govt in Delhi, who pulls all the strings in Occupied Kashmir?!?!?
Basically you have to simply google list of India PMs and ruling parties since partition, and that answers your question... :)
Indian Prime Minister does not rule Kashmir. Kashmir is given special status by the Indian constitution, unlike any other state in India. Moreover, Kashmir public elects a chief minister who has always been a Muslim.
Indian Prime Minister does not rule Kashmir. Kashmir is given special status by the Indian constitution, unlike any other state in India. Moreover, Kashmir public elects a chief minister who has always been a Muslim.
No actually the ruling party and its prime minister pulls all the strings in Kashmir... The special status is only on paper, its actually as worthless as the Indian constitution itself.
Kashmiris dont elect anyone, they are forced to the ballot box by Indian soldiers and the puppet police. SO Indian soldiers elect Kashmirs leaders.
The Chief Minister in Occupied Kashmir cant take a squat without calling Delhi for permission to take leave...
pakistan is now the epicenter of Jihad-thats the reason they r being kicked-boycotted by the rest of the world-pakis living abroad knows the reputation of there beloved country-its better for them not to interfere in our business otherwise will get the same treatment the one they got in 71.
