Kashmir conflict-India should act now?

[shreyas]

it does't belong to them,who said to you
when pakistan invaded independent kashmir under hari singh,he asked indian help and signed to join with india but when india sent army after this annexation ,pakist has occupied till srinagar and we started to regain territory slowly and till kargil but our nehru went to un and stopped the war and loc came into use(line of actual control) nehru is one of the main reason for this whole problem as our army might have recovered whole kashmir,to avoid conflict it is de facto border not agreed one

Your perception about Nehru is wrong. He approached the UN with a view that it would force Pakistan to return the occupied land.
But at the time USA and its Allies had a view that India a potential threat and and enemy status remained with USA. SO they favored Pakistan and brought in a cease fire and drew an official temporary line of control and put and end to Indian army's progression. If it wasn't for Nehru's quick actions, India wouldn't have even got a single piece of land in Kashmir.

 

[KS]

Your perception about Nehru is wrong. He approached the UN with a view that it would force Pakistan to return the occupied land.
But at the time USA and its Allies had a view that India a potential threat and and enemy status remained with USA. SO they favored Pakistan and brought in a cease fire and drew an official temporary line of control and put and end to Indian army's progression. If it wasn't for Nehru's quick actions, India wouldn't have even got a single piece of land in Kashmir.

Nehru never had any clear/decisive idea on how to act on Kashmir....if not for Sardar Patel we would not be having even what we have now.

And if Nehru had chosen to prolong the war Pakistan had no choice to fall back because it was a newly established country with virtually no industry/resources/finance to fall back on while India had the luxury of being relatively more resourceful due to the concentration of industries/railways/arms depots in our territory by the British Raj

 

[Son of Govinda]

The only solution that comes to mind is the complete liberation of Kashmir. India and Pakistan should both turn Kashmir into an independent state with a secular and democratically appointed government that can truly represent the interests of Kashmiris.

Of course I could always see Pakistan or India corrupting the parliament or using propaganda to bring up old hatred again... hopefully we'll find peace someday...

 

[Yusuf]

The only solution that comes to mind is the complete liberation of Kashmir. India and Pakistan should both turn Kashmir into an independent state with a secular and democratically appointed government that can truly represent the interests of Kashmiris.

Of course I could always see Pakistan or India corrupting the parliament or using propaganda to bring up old hatred again... hopefully we'll find peace someday...

Are you for real?

 

[Son of Govinda]

Are you for real?

I have family members that once belonged to a Kashmiri hindu community., I honestly would not mind being able to go back to living there in peace. Since India will always be the Hindu state, and Pakistan will always be the Islamic state, Kashmir should be a buffer zone of democracy and secularism. As much as I love India, I cannot escape the fact that the intentions of both India and Pakistan are imperial and don't represent the interest of any Kashmiri. Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims lived in complete harmony in Kashmir for centuries until 400 years of Islamic rule, then Sikh Rule, then British rule.

India cannot annex Kashmir without making it look like a Hindu takeover, and Pakistan cannot annex it without making it itself look like another colonial Islamicist nation. There is no path to peace besides liberating it.

 

[Yusuf]

With article 370 you think there is a hindu takeover? Come on

 

[Son of Govinda]

With article 370 you think there is a hindu takeover? Come on

Oh no there definitely is not a Hindu takeover anywhere in the world. However, India annexing all of Kashmir would make it easy for Pakistan and the Islamic world to turn it into hateful propaganda and invent some fantasy about Hindus threatening Pakistan and Islam. I can only see it making the instability worse.

 

[Yusuf]

Oh no there definitely is not a Hindu takeover anywhere in the world. However, India annexing all of Kashmir would make it easy for Pakistan and the Islamic world to turn it into hateful propaganda and invent some fantasy about Hindus threatening Pakistan and Islam. I can only see it making the instability worse.

Read the news son. A vast majority of people in PoK want to come back to Indian control. Kashmir is not equal to valley alone. Gilgit Baltistan are part of the erstwhile princely state. There is a movement on there to free themselves from the clutches of the PakJabis.

 

[Mad Indian]

Oh no there definitely is not a Hindu takeover anywhere in the world. However, India annexing all of Kashmir would make it easy for Pakistan and the Islamic world to turn it into hateful propaganda and invent some fantasy about Hindus threatening Pakistan and Islam. I can only see it making the instability worse.

Dude get real. They are ok with USA supporting their worst enemy Israel for the money they provide. So AArabs can be kept happy as long as we are rich.

Lets nuke Pukis and annex whole of Kashmir. Then Lets liberate the Balochs and Sindhis:bounce:

 

[Dovah]

Since India will always be the Hindu state

What the hell are you smoking?

India cannot annex Kashmir without making it look like a Hindu takeover, and Pakistan cannot annex it without making it itself look like another colonial Islamicist nation. There is no path to peace besides liberating it.

Welcome to the forum Arundhati Roy.

 

[agentperry]

kashmir first of all wasnt thought of an entity which will go to pakistan. because much of the focus was given to bengal and punjab at the time of partition kashmir was ignored and congress and Indians thought of it as an obvious fact that kashmir will one day be part of independent India. the greed of jinnah to have all of bengal, all of punjab and not to forget kashmir resulted in systematic increase in violence and war afterwards.
what pakistan thought- pakistan should have kashmir.
what India thought- kashmir is ours.
what kashmir thought- it have no solid standing, it just get lured to party who offers or comforts more

 

[Son of Govinda]

What the hell are you smoking?



Welcome to the forum Arundhati Roy.

Just because India has a parliament and democracy doesn't mean it's not a Hindu state. The Hindu lobby in India still controls the most power and has the most influence which makes it a Hindu state. The secularism of the west(which I actually grew up in) is not flourishing in India as some of you would like to think.

 

[The Messiah]

Anyone who believes India will let go of kashmir is highly deluded. It will never happen.

That's right we are not like the west we are more secular than them. There secularism is only on face ie shallow while in India there is true secularism.

 

[Dovah]

The secularism of the west(which I actually grew up in) is not flourishing in India as some of you would like to think.

The Secularism of the west, is merely separation of the Church and the State. And yet we see governors in the US scrambling to prove they are Christian and the British PM declaring that Britain is a Christian country.

The Hindu lobby in India still controls the most power and has the most influence which makes it a Hindu state.

Umm... No, there is no Hindu "lobby". And even so, a Hindu lobby would not make India less secular.

 

[Blackwater]

its too late now, lots of players in ground

 

[Mad Indian]

The Secularism of the west, is merely separation of the Church and the State. And yet we see governors in the US scrambling to prove they are Christian and the British PM declaring that Britain is a Christian country.

India is not truly secular if we go strictly by your definition. Atleast the west and its constitution and the Govt are CLEAR about the seperation of Church and State and no favouritism of the Christians or any other group for that matter. But here you have deliberate minority appeasements and benefits for a particular religion. It is much more faggy type of Secularism.

Also, the British rulers are Religious is no means a way to say that British are not secular. If some one is a christian and is proud to be so, will that make himj unfit to be a ruler of a secular country or will it by any chance mean that the country has become a Non Secular country? Of course not.

Umm... No, there is no Hindu "lobby". And even so, a Hindu lobby would not make India less secular.

Exactly why West is also not less secular just because there is a lobby

 

[rahulrds1]

self delete

 

[Dovah]

India is not truly secular if we go strictly by your definition. Atleast the west and its constitution and the Govt are CLEAR about the seperation of Church and State and no favouritism of the Christians or any other group for that matter. But here you have deliberate minority appeasements and benefits for a particular religion. It is much more faggy type of Secularism.

Also, the British rulers are Religious is no means a way to say that British are not secular. If some one is a christian and is proud to be so, will that make himj unfit to be a ruler of a secular country or will it by any chance mean that the country has become a Non Secular country? Of course not.

Read the comment again, its not my definition of secularism.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Read the comment again, its not my definition of secularism.

But then that isn't secularism, that's something else, probably tolerance. 'Secularism' itself is a European term

 

[Dovah]

But then that isn't secularism, that's something else, probably tolerance. 'Secularism' itself is a European term

Hmm, that's true, but in modern context Secularism has to be broader merely exclusivity won't suffice.