500 potential terrorists arrested in Kashmir

Watch
AngeryPenguin
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08/74934...cations-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/stor...280-2019-08-02

Luckily the terrorism has nearly been defeated

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/70631677.cms
1
reply
username3941996
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
This is basically a invasion
3
reply
XHannahR
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Aren’t India invading Kashmir and killing people..I mean that’s what I’ve heard..
6
reply
username945663
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Is the title being sarcastic
2
reply
username2950448
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
"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?
Last edited by username2950448; 1 year ago
7
reply
WhoDaresWins
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
Liberation?!
You are being delirious.
4
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by AngeryPenguin)
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08/74934...cations-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/stor...280-2019-08-02

Luckily the terrorism has nearly been defeated

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/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
4
reply
username3895014
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(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?
Prsom X100
1
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
Isn’t this India invading the region? I’m not clued on international politics in a big way though
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
Think what China did to Tibet and thats basically whats going on here.
1
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(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?
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
another hindutva apologist
2
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(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
1
reply
Indian_Muslim
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(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
7
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(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
Has anybody bothered asking the actual Kashmiris themselves what they want to do?
2
reply
username2950448
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
India doesn’t want to do that because it’s a majority Muslim region which obviously wants nothing to do with India.
3
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
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.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(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
Superbly well put.
0
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(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
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.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
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.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you experienced financial difficulties as a student due to Covid-19?

Yes, I have really struggled financially (47)
18.01%
I have experienced some financial difficulties (73)
27.97%
I haven't experienced any financial difficulties and things have stayed the same (100)
38.31%
I have had better financial opportunities as a result of the pandemic (32)
12.26%
I've had another experience (let us know in the thread!) (9)
3.45%

Watched Threads

View All