India and Pakistan - Page 3

Heart girl excellent rebuttal !! 👏 👏 Keep it going !! 😊

Originally posted by: mkzara

Guys i am going to argue using history here so dont jump down my throat. When the british divided up the countries they gave largely muslim areas to Pakistan and largely hindu areas to India and that's great. The british also gave kashmir to Pakistan because of the large muslim population so who was that one raja to decide where he would go because he was hindu.

  Errr I just wanted to set the history point straight.....😳

  After Indian Independence in 1947, the ruler of the princely state of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, refused to accede to either India or Pakistan. The Bristish did not officially make the division, it was the premier of both the countries who sat and decided on the areas to be included in both the countries. At that point many Indian states, like Hyderabad (present day Andhara Pradedh), Junagarh etc had not conceeded to join India. There was a mischievious provision in Lord Mountbatten's award of independence that the princely states could either remain independent or merge with India or Pakistan. Hence few of these states  chose to remain independent. However, the situation became difficult in both junagrh and Hyderabad as there was an internal revolt against the rulers in both the states and they soon conceeded to India's merger.

   Kashmir still remained independent. However, Pakistan invaded Kashmir in the following year, on the demand that they merge with pakistan. The ruler of Kashmir sought help from the Indian government and agreed to place Kashmir under the dominion of India. As a result India sent its troops to Kashmir to help the Maharaja. A UN cease-fire in 1949 saw the end of fighting and created the first Line-of-Control. Kashmir was recognised as a part of India by the world council. Kashmir was integrated with India in 1956 under a new constitution. The area taken over by Pakistan in 1947 still remained under Pakistan.

  Hari Singh had also made the stipulation that Kashmir would be remain a soveriegn territory under the Indian rule- this status is only enjoyed by the state of Kashmir in India, no other state has had this priviledge - and it remains in effect to this day. The provision is called Article 370 of the Indian constitution which clearly states that Kashmir will continue to enjoy the special status under the Indian constitution.

Edited by Minnie - 18 years ago

[QUOTE=mkzara]. About muslim kashmiri's migrating to Pakistan why should they have to give up their homes and land and lives? I mean technically Kashmir was supposed to go to Pakistan and it was supposed to be a part of Pakistan and india has illegal hold over it so why should the KAshmiri's just hand over their homes to India. [/quote]minnie already told u abt how it kashmir is indiaz. so, talking abt migrating, dint sikhs migrate from pak to india in 1947 during partition. also whosoever migrated to india or pakistan, they were given that much land they left behind and thatz a fact.

Originally posted by: mkzara

again historically britain gave kashmir to pakistan and because of one man's idiocy there were too many wars. In the end i believe It doesn't matter what had been decided it should be decided again and ask the kashmiri's this time what they want and about the voting not being right because of rigging election, they could always have UN monitor it or other countries and pakistan and india wud have to stay out of it. i just believe that neither sides politicians care about the kashmiri people but r trying to not make the public mad by trying to resolve the issue because whichever side loses the place there people will be mad. In the end the politicians have to care about the people of kashmir and want to help them and not worry about their own political career.

u noe wat .. UN can decide on that but phir bhi logon ko daarra dhamka kar kuch bhi karwaya ja sakta hai. jab log dar ke votes hi aisi denge to UN ke haath mein kya reh jayega. i think the matter will get more complicated

Originally posted by: Minnie

  Errr I just wanted to set the history point straight.....😳

  After Indian Independence in 1947, the ruler of the princely state of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, refused to accede to either India or Pakistan. The Bristish did not officially make the division, it was the premier of both the countries who sat and decided on the areas to be included in both the countries. At that point many India states, like Hyderabad (present day Andhara Pradedh), Junagarh etc had not conceeded to join India. There was a mischievious provision in Lord Mountbatten's award of independence that the princely states could either remain independent or merge with India or Pakistan. Hence few of these states remain to choose independence. However, the situation became difficult in both junagrh and Hyderabad as there was an internal revolt against the rulers in both the states and they soon conceeded to India's merger.

   Kashmir still remained independent. However, Pakistan invaded Kashmir in the following year, on the demand that they merge with pakistan. The ruler of Kashmir sought help from the Indian government and agreed to place Kashmir under the dominion of India. As a result India sent its troops to Kashmir to help the Maharaja. A UN cease-fire in 1949 saw the end of fighting and created the first Line-of-Control. Kashmir was recognised as a part of India by the world councilKashmir was integrated with India in 1956 under a new constitution. The area taken over by Pakistan in 1947 still remained under Pakistan.

  Hari Singh had also made the stipulation that Kashmir would be remain a soveriegn territory under the Indian rule- this status is only enjoyed by the state of Kashmir in India, no other state has had this priviledge - and it remains in effect to this day. The provision is called Article 370 of the Indian constitution which clearly states that Kashmir will continue to enjoy the special status under the Indian constitution.

👍🏼 very good points minnie and very very well put.

Originally posted by: winnie_pooh

👍🏼 very good points minnie and very very well put.

Here's standing ovation from me !!!!!👏👏

we already have established why pakistan was created and how kashmir became a part of india but i didn't see many arguments about creation of bangladesh.

i don't think it is right to say that the minister of east pakistan back stabbed pakistan in 1971. just like how pakistanis defend the separation of india and pakistan, bangladeshis too defend it but instead of religion it was more based on language. the trouble brewed right from 1947 when pakistan was created. east pakistanis (now bangladesh) were keen on making dhaka the capital of pakistan as they were in majority at that time. but all the major political leaders belonged to west pakistan and karachi was made the capital. all major jobs were taken by west pakistanis. more than muslim brotherhood, west & east were divided on the basis of language. east pakistanis also didn't support pakistan's cause for kashmir war. according to them it was waste of money. at that point bangladeshi unity was their language not religion.

in my opinion india exploited pakistan's predicament to their ease. they gave all the support in creation of bangladesh. they played the same cards which british did in dividing our nation on the basis of religion. india divided pakistan on the basis of language. it is very easy to divide two brothers when trust takes a backseat. british convinced indian muslims that they were going to be treated as second class citizens once india was given freedom and our muslim brothers fell in the trap. same way india played their cards when they saw the trouble brewing in pakistan and liberated east Pakistanis to form bangladesh.

i think it's time to move on. there is no point in living in the past and losing millions of brothers daily in the name of jihad. a piece of land has become a pride to both countries but do you think if kashmir is given independence all the trouble stops there? NO. the problems are deep rooted. political parties of both countries need a burning issue to keep their vote banks and kashmir issue is going to remain the same till we consider us human first and hindu-muslim after that. Edited by bluepink - 18 years ago

Originally posted by: mkzara

Guys i am going to argue using history here so dont jump down my throat. When the british divided up the countries they gave largely muslim areas to Pakistan and largely hindu areas to India and that's great. The british also gave kashmir to Pakistan because of the large muslim population so who was that one raja to decide where he would go because he was hindu. OK, but who r the britishes to divide our country, it was not their country in the first place to decide, so if the kashmiri raja is wrong, so r the britishes. i mean who is this one man to overrule everything that had been previously decided and go against what the people wanted. The british did the dividing so how does one raja overrule the whole system of division they had made when everyone else had to follow it because it was the most ?peaceful? one. About muslim kashmiri's migrating to Pakistan why should they have to give up their homes and land and lives? Many ppl had to move from their land, during the partition and after it as well. then technically it was wrong for hindus to move from pakistan and msulims from india if they did not want to right. but they were forced to. I mean technically Kashmir was supposed to go to Pakistan and it was supposed to be a part of Pakistan and india has illegal hold over it so why should the KAshmiri's just hand over their homes to India. I personally believe that Kashmir should have it independence i mean whats the point of keeping people together if they dont want to be together. India and Pakistan can't be together because of different religions and our people are extremely emotional. I mean I hate to bring this up but because of some hindu fanatics they tore down babari mosque and i know for a fact that is wrong to so blatantly attack someone else cause they r a minority. u r just showing one side of a coin here. was it just hindu fanatics who created all the trouble?? the answer is No. because i know for a fact that muslim fanatics had also torn down the hindu ram mandir which was the root cause of the fights in mumbai is 1990. just becuz they r minority does not mean that they can do anything. they r not that small a minority. india treaqts all its minority populations well. u may not know this but in India 15% of the population is non hindu, if they were not treated properly i am sure the non hindu population would not be that high. we have given our minority groups many priveleges that are not available to the hindus even. if u want to know more abt this u can ask me. whereas i am not sure if u know but the non muslim population in pakistan is just 3%. India erupted because of that incident and it took so long for it to calm down and peope to stop killing each other, then why deal with this? If people r happier separate then let them be separate. but not everyone wants to seperate. there r many hindu pandits living in kashmir who have to live a very harsh life and it is made worse because some ppl want to change things. if what u said above is true then even they shld not be made to leave their land if they don't want to, or have u reserved that right for muslims only. I mean when Bangladesh wanted to separate i believe we shouldn't have fought them because when people dont want to stay together and they have to there is so much hate and anger and why should u cause it by trying to stay together when u r much happier apart. Historically Kashmir was supposed to be part of Pakistan and that was what had been decided one man decided to go against it because of his own beliefs and not because of the people and that caused all these problems. I believe that Kashmir doesn?t belong to india because that?s not what had been decided but if the Kashmiri?s want to be with India then they should be and it should go to India, if they want to be with Pakistan then they should be with Pakistan and if they want to be independent then they should be independent. The Kashmiri?s r important in this not India and Pakistan and what should happen should be the Kashmiri?s choice.

I agree with the red part but do u think it is sooo easy to decide wat the ppl want if the population is mixed with hindus and muslims?

👏 👏 👏
WOW....saba appi, minnie di, aparna di, heartgirl, and all others...you all r carrying out this discussion really well.

we havnt seen something this intense in a loong tyme

Originally posted by: seema_17

I agree with the red part but do u think it is sooo easy to decide wat the ppl want if the population is mixed with hindus and muslims?

it might not be easy but a plebiscite is the way to go because that is the only way. war hasn't helped and talks haven't helped so everyone should just leave the kashmiri's alone and let them make their decision and then accept whatever it is.Edited by mkzara - 18 years ago