500 potential terrorists arrested in Kashmir
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08/749349432/tensions-continue-high-over-kashmir-with-500-arrests-and-a-communications-blacko
The terrorist situation is so bad India has had to bring in almost 40,000 new troops, on top of the 500,000 already busy defending Kashmiris.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/28-000-more-troops-deployed-in-kashmir-valley-1576280-2019-08-02
Luckily the terrorism has nearly been defeated
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/confident-that-terrorism-in-kashmir-will-be-finished-amit-shah-on-article-370/videoshow/70631677.cms
The terrorist situation is so bad India has had to bring in almost 40,000 new troops, on top of the 500,000 already busy defending Kashmiris.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/28-000-more-troops-deployed-in-kashmir-valley-1576280-2019-08-02
Luckily the terrorism has nearly been defeated
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/confident-that-terrorism-in-kashmir-will-be-finished-amit-shah-on-article-370/videoshow/70631677.cms
Scroll to see replies
This is basically a invasion
Is the title being sarcastic
"liberation"
Is that what you call a nationalist Hindu government illegally annexing a Muslim-majority occupied section of Kashmir in order to ethnically cleanse it of its Muslim inhabitants?
Is that what you call a nationalist Hindu government illegally annexing a Muslim-majority occupied section of Kashmir in order to ethnically cleanse it of its Muslim inhabitants?
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by AngeryPenguin
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08/749349432/tensions-continue-high-over-kashmir-with-500-arrests-and-a-communications-blacko
The terrorist situation is so bad India has had to bring in almost 40,000 new troops, on top of the 500,000 already busy defending Kashmiris.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/28-000-more-troops-deployed-in-kashmir-valley-1576280-2019-08-02
Luckily the terrorism has nearly been defeated
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/confident-that-terrorism-in-kashmir-will-be-finished-amit-shah-on-article-370/videoshow/70631677.cms
The terrorist situation is so bad India has had to bring in almost 40,000 new troops, on top of the 500,000 already busy defending Kashmiris.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/28-000-more-troops-deployed-in-kashmir-valley-1576280-2019-08-02
Luckily the terrorism has nearly been defeated
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/confident-that-terrorism-in-kashmir-will-be-finished-amit-shah-on-article-370/videoshow/70631677.cms
Please say you're being sarcastic... I mean seriously its either that or an alarming lack of knowledge on whats happening/happened in Kashmir
Original post by Palmyra
"liberation"
Is that what you call a national Hindu government illegally annexing a Muslim-majority occupied section of Kashmir in order to ethnically cleanse it of its Muslim inhabitants?
Is that what you call a national Hindu government illegally annexing a Muslim-majority occupied section of Kashmir in order to ethnically cleanse it of its Muslim inhabitants?
Prsom X100
Isn’t this India invading the region? I’m not clued on international politics in a big way though
Original post by Napp
Think what China did to Tibet and thats basically whats going on here.
I take it the land rightfully belongs to Pakistan in that case?
Original post by AngryRedhead
I take it the land rightfully belongs to Pakistan in that case?
Err not quite, arguably they should be an independent state.
Long and the short of it is that Kashmir is supposed to be an auto lupus region within India (Hong king might be a slightly better example in some ways) but what Mr Modi seems to be trying to incorporate it as a simple region thereby removing its unique style of government and then promptly diluting the Muslim majority with Hindu migrants - hence the chinese Tibet analogy
Original post by AngryRedhead
I take it the land rightfully belongs to Pakistan in that case?
No
When the British gave independence to India and Pakistan in August 1947, the princely states that were not directly controlled by the British were given the option to accede to India, Pakistan or become independent.
The Maharaja of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir chose to remain independent on account of the ruler being Hindu (and therefore naturally pro-India), but the majority population being Muslim (and therefore theoretically pro-Pakistan).
Within weeks of J&K declaring that it would be independent of both India and Pakistan, it was Pakistani tribal militias and army personnel who invaded the independent Jammu and Kashmir and captured 1/3 of the territory - the western portion is today known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and the Northern Areas are known as Gilgit-Baltistan.
This is when the Maharaja of J&K approached India and asked for assistance to defend his State. The condition laid down was that India would assist in return for the Maharaja signing the Instrument of Accession to join India which was signed in October 1947.
Indian forces then stepped in to defend J&K with the result that about 2/3 of J&K is controlled by India
China itself annexed a portion of J&K (now known as Aksai Chin) and Pakistan ceded a small portion of J&K that it controlled (the Shaksgam Valley) to China as part of a deal.
The tragedy is, had Pakistani tribals and army personnel not invaded J&K, it could well have remained an independent country between India and Pakistan. At the time of partition, Indian leaders were not concerned with incorporating J&K into India on account of it being a Muslim majority State. It was only after the Pakistani invasion that the Maharaja was forced to strike a deal to join India. Therefore since the Instrument of Accession was signed with India, India claims the entire region though actually controls 2/3 of it
Original post by Napp
Err not quite, arguably they should be an independent state.
Long and the short of it is that Kashmir is supposed to be an auto lupus region within India (Hong king might be a slightly better example in some ways) but what Mr Modi seems to be trying to incorporate it as a simple region thereby removing its unique style of government and then promptly diluting the Muslim majority with Hindu migrants - hence the chinese Tibet analogy
Long and the short of it is that Kashmir is supposed to be an auto lupus region within India (Hong king might be a slightly better example in some ways) but what Mr Modi seems to be trying to incorporate it as a simple region thereby removing its unique style of government and then promptly diluting the Muslim majority with Hindu migrants - hence the chinese Tibet analogy
Has anybody bothered asking the actual Kashmiris themselves what they want to do?
India doesn’t want to do that because it’s a majority Muslim region which obviously wants nothing to do with India.
Probably join with Pakistan or at least tell Delhi to **** off these days to be honest. As the above poster noted the relations used to be fairly cordial but in the [past few decades Delhis heavy handed approach to KAshmir has alienated much of the goodwill they once held towards India.
Effectively India have shot themselves in the foot in some ways and put themselves in an unpleasant cycle of violence.. they accuse seperatists of violence and crack down which in turn alienates more people who turn to violence and so on ad nauseum.
With that being said there isnt, in ones learned opinion on the matter, the slightest hope in hell India will ever even think of contemplating the notion of giving the Kashmiris a say in this. Not only do they have the large nationalist view that Kashmir is indian to deal with but it will be a cold day in hell when they give such a valuable win to Pakistan.
So with all things considered i very much doubt it will ever get better. The mixture of Pakistani terror and Indian nationalism really is a bad mix for the state.
Effectively India have shot themselves in the foot in some ways and put themselves in an unpleasant cycle of violence.. they accuse seperatists of violence and crack down which in turn alienates more people who turn to violence and so on ad nauseum.
With that being said there isnt, in ones learned opinion on the matter, the slightest hope in hell India will ever even think of contemplating the notion of giving the Kashmiris a say in this. Not only do they have the large nationalist view that Kashmir is indian to deal with but it will be a cold day in hell when they give such a valuable win to Pakistan.
So with all things considered i very much doubt it will ever get better. The mixture of Pakistani terror and Indian nationalism really is a bad mix for the state.
Original post by Indian_Muslim
No
When the British gave independence to India and Pakistan in August 1947, the princely states that were not directly controlled by the British were given the option to accede to India, Pakistan or become independent.
The Maharaja of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir chose to remain independent on account of the ruler being Hindu (and therefore naturally pro-India), but the majority population being Muslim (and therefore theoretically pro-Pakistan).
Within weeks of J&K declaring that it would be independent of both India and Pakistan, it was Pakistani tribal militias and army personnel who invaded the independent Jammu and Kashmir and captured 1/3 of the territory - the western portion is today known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and the Northern Areas are known as Gilgit-Baltistan.
This is when the Maharaja of J&K approached India and asked for assistance to defend his State. The condition laid down was that India would assist in return for the Maharaja signing the Instrument of Accession to join India which was signed in October 1947.
Indian forces then stepped in to defend J&K with the result that about 2/3 of J&K is controlled by India
China itself annexed a portion of J&K (now known as Aksai Chin) and Pakistan ceded a small portion of J&K that it controlled (the Shaksgam Valley) to China as part of a deal.
The tragedy is, had Pakistani tribals and army personnel not invaded J&K, it could well have remained an independent country between India and Pakistan. At the time of partition, Indian leaders were not concerned with incorporating J&K into India on account of it being a Muslim majority State. It was only after the Pakistani invasion that the Maharaja was forced to strike a deal to join India. Therefore since the Instrument of Accession was signed with India, India claims the entire region though actually controls 2/3 of it
When the British gave independence to India and Pakistan in August 1947, the princely states that were not directly controlled by the British were given the option to accede to India, Pakistan or become independent.
The Maharaja of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir chose to remain independent on account of the ruler being Hindu (and therefore naturally pro-India), but the majority population being Muslim (and therefore theoretically pro-Pakistan).
Within weeks of J&K declaring that it would be independent of both India and Pakistan, it was Pakistani tribal militias and army personnel who invaded the independent Jammu and Kashmir and captured 1/3 of the territory - the western portion is today known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and the Northern Areas are known as Gilgit-Baltistan.
This is when the Maharaja of J&K approached India and asked for assistance to defend his State. The condition laid down was that India would assist in return for the Maharaja signing the Instrument of Accession to join India which was signed in October 1947.
Indian forces then stepped in to defend J&K with the result that about 2/3 of J&K is controlled by India
China itself annexed a portion of J&K (now known as Aksai Chin) and Pakistan ceded a small portion of J&K that it controlled (the Shaksgam Valley) to China as part of a deal.
The tragedy is, had Pakistani tribals and army personnel not invaded J&K, it could well have remained an independent country between India and Pakistan. At the time of partition, Indian leaders were not concerned with incorporating J&K into India on account of it being a Muslim majority State. It was only after the Pakistani invasion that the Maharaja was forced to strike a deal to join India. Therefore since the Instrument of Accession was signed with India, India claims the entire region though actually controls 2/3 of it
Superbly well put.
Original post by Indian_Muslim
No
When the British gave independence to India and Pakistan in August 1947, the princely states that were not directly controlled by the British were given the option to accede to India, Pakistan or become independent.
The Maharaja of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir chose to remain independent on account of the ruler being Hindu (and therefore naturally pro-India), but the majority population being Muslim (and therefore theoretically pro-Pakistan).
Within weeks of J&K declaring that it would be independent of both India and Pakistan, it was Pakistani tribal militias and army personnel who invaded the independent Jammu and Kashmir and captured 1/3 of the territory - the western portion is today known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and the Northern Areas are known as Gilgit-Baltistan.
This is when the Maharaja of J&K approached India and asked for assistance to defend his State. The condition laid down was that India would assist in return for the Maharaja signing the Instrument of Accession to join India which was signed in October 1947.
Indian forces then stepped in to defend J&K with the result that about 2/3 of J&K is controlled by India
China itself annexed a portion of J&K (now known as Aksai Chin) and Pakistan ceded a small portion of J&K that it controlled (the Shaksgam Valley) to China as part of a deal.
The tragedy is, had Pakistani tribals and army personnel not invaded J&K, it could well have remained an independent country between India and Pakistan. At the time of partition, Indian leaders were not concerned with incorporating J&K into India on account of it being a Muslim majority State. It was only after the Pakistani invasion that the Maharaja was forced to strike a deal to join India. Therefore since the Instrument of Accession was signed with India, India claims the entire region though actually controls 2/3 of it
When the British gave independence to India and Pakistan in August 1947, the princely states that were not directly controlled by the British were given the option to accede to India, Pakistan or become independent.
The Maharaja of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir chose to remain independent on account of the ruler being Hindu (and therefore naturally pro-India), but the majority population being Muslim (and therefore theoretically pro-Pakistan).
Within weeks of J&K declaring that it would be independent of both India and Pakistan, it was Pakistani tribal militias and army personnel who invaded the independent Jammu and Kashmir and captured 1/3 of the territory - the western portion is today known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and the Northern Areas are known as Gilgit-Baltistan.
This is when the Maharaja of J&K approached India and asked for assistance to defend his State. The condition laid down was that India would assist in return for the Maharaja signing the Instrument of Accession to join India which was signed in October 1947.
Indian forces then stepped in to defend J&K with the result that about 2/3 of J&K is controlled by India
China itself annexed a portion of J&K (now known as Aksai Chin) and Pakistan ceded a small portion of J&K that it controlled (the Shaksgam Valley) to China as part of a deal.
The tragedy is, had Pakistani tribals and army personnel not invaded J&K, it could well have remained an independent country between India and Pakistan. At the time of partition, Indian leaders were not concerned with incorporating J&K into India on account of it being a Muslim majority State. It was only after the Pakistani invasion that the Maharaja was forced to strike a deal to join India. Therefore since the Instrument of Accession was signed with India, India claims the entire region though actually controls 2/3 of it
Thank you, that’s a brilliant explanation, I was wondering where the claim China makes on some areas came into all this to, as mentioned by some recent news articles.
Indeed, i mean that in of itself should technically be an issue as India (if memory serves) is the second largest Muslim state in the world but with Hindu nationalism on the rise they do tend to clash rather badly.
Potentially, i mean the Pakistanis would be thrilled but given what we know of Indias views on the matter it would seem to be pie on the sky.
to be honest it, as you said, is all a dreadful shame. Kashmir is one of the most beautiful areas on earth and used to be a tourist magnet but years of violence and quasi-martial law have done a good job of shoving a tanto into that.
Potentially, i mean the Pakistanis would be thrilled but given what we know of Indias views on the matter it would seem to be pie on the sky.
to be honest it, as you said, is all a dreadful shame. Kashmir is one of the most beautiful areas on earth and used to be a tourist magnet but years of violence and quasi-martial law have done a good job of shoving a tanto into that.
Original post by Napp
Indeed, i mean that in of itself should technically be an issue as India (if memory serves) is the second largest Muslim state in the world but with Hindu nationalism on the rise they do tend to clash rather badly.
Potentially, i mean the Pakistanis would be thrilled but given what we know of Indias views on the matter it would seem to be pie on the sky.
to be honest it, as you said, is all a dreadful shame. Kashmir is one of the most beautiful areas on earth and used to be a tourist magnet but years of violence and quasi-martial law have done a good job of shoving a tanto into that.
Potentially, i mean the Pakistanis would be thrilled but given what we know of Indias views on the matter it would seem to be pie on the sky.
to be honest it, as you said, is all a dreadful shame. Kashmir is one of the most beautiful areas on earth and used to be a tourist magnet but years of violence and quasi-martial law have done a good job of shoving a tanto into that.
Have you visited there personally? I’ve seen some gorgeous pictures of Pakistan, mainly near the Chinese border, absolutely stunning part of the world by the looks of it. Lahore looks quite nice too. I’d imagine Kashmir would be rather the same.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Auditors are a waste of time
- Would an arrest (nfa) and an interview (also nfa) come up on an enhanced DBS check?
- French holocaust denier faces extradition from Scotland
- I'm sure he's a fraud
- Enhanced dbs checks
- Is Israel winning
- Terrorist NHS worker planned to bomb hospital
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- if a guy asks to go out for a drink do they just want sex
- Tattoos at college
- Worried about being under word count.
- Reported a racial harassment to police but now being afraid
- For harrasment does someone get a warning first or no warning
- Strathclyde University Personal Statement Word Limit
- Give feedback on HAT 2020 response?
- Failed Hgv test now I feel worthless
- Does HMRC know about multiple bank accounts?
- Michelle Donelan / Freedom of Speech
- Driving licence Help
- Should I make a Stocks and Shares ISA now?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
