[Ter]

The point is that they could eventually do it if they really wanted to once they consolidate enough control into Kashmir.

India has no plans to conquer the Pakistani-administered part of Kashmir.
I have no idea where you get those ideas from.

There's way too much stuff for me to get into. We need a whole 'nother thread for this

So nothing bad you can say about India. OK, noted.

I am curious why some people here lament the steps taken by India to integrate Kashmir into the Federation. That part of Kashmir has been administered by India since 1947. Should they be allowed special protected status forever ? To become part of Pakistan must truly be the worst option for them.

edited: the only poster who is directly concerned by the Kashmir issue is @fuser.

[Palmyrene]

India has no plans to conquer the Pakistani-administered part of Kashmir.
I have no idea where you get those ideas from.

Point is that they could try.

Imagine if China took a piece of Alaska under the same rules as Kashmir. Do you think America would tolerate that?

So nothing bad you can say about India. OK, noted.

So presumptuous.

The point is that it's off-topic. You want me to talk about all the shit India does, we do it on another thread.

I am curious why some people here lament the steps taken by India to integrate Kashmir into the Federation. That part of Kashmir has been administered by India since 1947. Should they be allowed special protected status forever ?

They probably will. Kashmir will never be considered a normal province of India.

To become part of Pakistan must truly be the worst option for them.

Not much difference tbh.

[Ter]

Imagine if China took a piece of Alaska under the same rules as Kashmir. Do you think America would tolerate that?

You seem to think that Kashmir rightfully belongs to Pakistan.
It does not. The official rulers of Kashmir chose to join the Indian Federation when the British possession was broken up at independence. India gave special protection status to Kashmir but also to other places like Sikhim.

[Palmyrene]

:?: You seem to think that Kashmir rightfully belongs to Pakistan.

How? When did I say that?

It does not. The official rulers of Kashmir chose to join the Indian Federation when the British possession was broken up at independence.

You mean the Hindu king who massacred his Muslim majority population? I'm sure you'll find him to be a good example of what other countries should do to Muslims.

India gave special protection status to Kashmir but also to other places like Sikhim.

Special protection status means that India doesn't have to operate the same way in Kashmir or Sikhim like it does in it's other provinces. This means that all of India's rights for it's citizens goes out the window.

[Ter]

You mean the Hindu king who massacred his Muslim majority population?

You made that up it seems. I read the history of Kashmir just now and there is no mention of massacre as you said. Citation needed.

I'm sure you'll find him to be a good example of what other countries should do to Muslims.

That is a libellous statement.

[Palmyrene]

You made that up it seems. I read the history of Kashmir just now and there is no mention of massacre as you said. Citation needed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Singh

"Made up"

You didn't read it well enough I suppose.

That is a libellous statement.

It isn't.

[Zionist Nationalist]

I'm sure you'll find him to be a good example of what other countries should do to Muslims.

Yeah too bad he didn't finish the job

No Muslims no problems
Muslims are always making trouble wherever they are they cannot co exist with non Muslims

[Palmyrene]

Yeah too bad he didn't finish the job

No Muslims no problems
Muslims are always making trouble wherever they are they cannot co exist with non Muslims

We all know what you think ZN.

And honestly, no one cares.

[Zionist Nationalist]

We all know what you think ZN.

And honestly, no one cares.

Why do you think somebody care about your opinion you are fake anyway you are clearly American or Canadian

[Palmyrene]

Why do you think somebody care about your opinion

Projecting your feelings onto others won't get you anywhere.

you are fake anyway you are clearly American or Canadian

Are you sure?

[Ter]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Singh

"Made up"

Do quote me from that article where Singh carried out massacres.
On the contrary, he seemed to have been quite a benevolent ruler:

Following the death of his uncle Pratap Singh in 1925, Hari Singh ascended the throne of Jammu and Kashmir. He made primary education compulsory in the state, introduced laws prohibiting child marriage, and opened places of worship to the low castes.[5]

[Palmyrene]

Do quote me from that article where Singh carried out massacres.
On the contrary, he seemed to have been quite a benevolent ruler:

It's not in that article but this one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Jammu_massacres

1947 Jammu massacre was a part of violence during partition of India.[10][11] During October–November 1947 in the Jammu region of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, a large number of Muslims were massacred and others driven away to West Punjab by extremist Hindus and Sikhs, aided and abetted by the forces of Maharaja Hari Singh and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).[2][12] An estimated 20,000–100,000 Muslims were massacred.[6] Subsequently,[13] many non-Muslims, estimated as over 20,000, were massacred by Pakistani tribesmen and soldiers, in the Mirpur region of today's Pakistani administered Kashmir.

[Ter]

1947 Jammu massacre was a part of violence during partition of India.[10][11] During October–November 1947 in the Jammu region of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, a large number of Muslims were massacred and others driven away to West Punjab by extremist Hindus and Sikhs, aided and abetted by the forces of Maharaja Hari Singh and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).[2][12] An estimated 20,000–100,000 Muslims were massacred.[6] Subsequently,[13] many non-Muslims, estimated as over 20,000, were massacred by Pakistani tribesmen and soldiers, in the Mirpur region of today's Pakistani administered Kashmir.

The massacres were carried out by both sides at the time of Partition. Also in the Punjaab and other places. Even the article you cited mentions the massacre of non-Muslims by the Pakistani side. To single out poor King Singh is not very reasonable.

[Palmyrene]

The massacres were carried out by both sides at the time of Partition. Also in the Punjaab and other places. Even the article you cited mentions the massacre of non-Muslims by the Pakistani side. To single out poor King Singh is not very reasonable.

Singh was the one who invited India and by extension Pakistan into Kashmir specifically to commit said massacres.

And making the "both sides" argument doesn't work here. Kashmiris are being murdered regardless.

[Ter]

Singh was the one who invited India and by extension Pakistan into Kashmir specifically to commit said massacres

Singh had no choice. Pakistani troops had already invaded his Kingdom and were marching to seize the whole place. Singh acted out of self-preservation. Thanks to the Indians, half of Kashmir could be saved from Pakistani administration. Otherwise the whole of Kashmir would have been a shithole like Pakistan is today (and has been since Partition)

And making the "both sides" argument doesn't work here. Kashmiris are being murdered regardless.

During the time of Partition, both sides were killing and massacring to their heart's content.
Of course the argument "both sides did it" is valid.

Kashmiris are indeed dying now because they fight the Indian Authorities. Which led to the recent development, integrating Indian-administered Kashmir into the Indian Federation.

[Palmyrene]

Singh had no choice. Pakistani troops had already invaded his Kingdom and were marching to seize the whole place. Singh acted out of self-preservation. Thanks to the Indians, half of Kashmir could be saved from Pakistani administration. Otherwise the whole of Kashmir would have been a shithole like Pakistan is today (and has been since Partition)

That does not line up with the actual events.

For starters, Singh decided to join India but Jammu didn't, they wanted to join Pakistan but Singh didn't let them for whatever reason and asked India for help. What resulted was a massacre.

And Kashmir is more of a "shithole" than Pakistan.

During the time of Partition, both sides were killing and massacring to their heart's content.
Of course the argument "both sides did it" is valid.

It isn't because it's irrelevant to Kashmir. Saying "both sides did it" is not an excuse for the massacres committed against the Kashmiris. In the end, Kashmiris are dead to the actions of Singh.

Kashmiris are indeed dying now because they fight the Indian Authorities. Which led to the recent development, integrating Indian-administered Kashmir into the Indian Federation.

I wonder why they fight Indian and Pakistani authorities. It's almost like they don't want to be a part of India or Pakistan.

[Ter]

That does not line up with the actual events.

So what are you saying?
That the Pakistani troops were not busy invading Kashmir ?
Because that was what was happening.

For starters, Singh decided to join India but Jammu didn't, they wanted to join Pakistan but Singh didn't let them for whatever reason and asked India for help. What resulted was a massacre.

Well, Singh was the King and he was the only Authority to make that decision.
Under the circumstances, with a Muslim Pakistan and a secular-majority Hindu India, and Singh being a Hindu, the decision was easy to make. And let's repeat that there were massacres on both sides.

[Palmyrene]

So what are you saying?
That the Pakistani troops were not busy invading Kashmir ?
Because that was what was happening.

That Singh isn't innocent in all of this.

Well, Singh was the King and he was the only Authority to make that decision.

No he wasn't. He could've held a referendum or let Jammu join Pakistan if it wanted to.

Realistically he was just afraid of what would happen to himself if Jammu joined Pakistan but he also didn't want to lose power so sacrificed his own people for himself.

Anarchism is self-sacrifice for oneself. Hierarchy is about sacrificing others for yourself.

[skinster]

Looks like there are protests all over the world tomorrow against India's illegal revocation of Article 370.

Also,

You made that up it seems. I read the history of Kashmir just now and there is no mention of massacre as you said.

[Palmyrene]

@Ter @skinster

Omg I just realized I wrote "that Singh is innocent" when I meant "that Singh isn't innocent".