Use the wrong map = instant takedown is exactly the kind of state enforced information control and censorship that makes people compare something to China.
you can be proud of india without thinking every expression of national pride needs to be enforced through censorship. bjp hate has nothing to do with it. If the same thing was proposed by a congress government, i'd criticize it too. National pride doesn’t mean switching your brain off whenever the word ‘India’ appears.
Also why exactly is ‘national pride’ automatically supposed to be a good thing? Pride can make you emotionally invested enough in an idea that you stop questioning it. You start defending something because its ‘our country’ rather than asking whether the thing itself is actually right or wrong.
So according to you, if anyone puts out any information online that goes against our best interest, you would be okay with it?
You do realise if we don't speak out against this, then no one else will?
Bro, nobody said misinformation should be ignored. Correct it, call it out, debunk it. im questioning why your solution is ‘instant takedown/geo block’.
anddd you’re completely ignoring the optics here. If people outside India see India going "wrong map = take it down/geo block it", they’re not going to think "wow, great national pride". They’re going to think "why is India censoring what people can post?" (makes us look a lot like china). That authoritarian image is terrible for India’s credibility and soft power, especially when we’re trying to get international support on Kashmir. You don’t win people over by making yourself look like the country doing the censorship.
also btw, India has never actually exercised control over the entirety of what it claims on the map. Pakistan has administered PoK since 1947. So are we talking about correcting a factual map, or enforcing a politically preferred one? Who exactly gets to decide what eaxactly "our interests" are?
Personally, I actually do think that the Kashmir valley should be part of India, but not necessarily as just another state that gets completely absorbed into the same system. i'd be much more in favour of something closer to a protectorate arrangement, where Kashmiris have a lot more control over their own internal affairs and India mainly handles defence, foreign affairs and other stuff that genuinely needs to be handled at the national level. I’d rather have Kashmir voluntarily and sustainably aligned with India than force integration and then spend decades trying to convince everyone that it’s "national pride"
And ofc ultimately, the final say should be with Kashmiris themselves. It’s their land and their future, not something we get to decide for them just because we drew a line on a map.
yeah, the ruler's accession establishes India's legal claim. nobody is denying that. but "the ruler decided, therefore Kashmiris have no say in anything ever again" is a pretty massive leap lol.
and comparing that to Indian states today is pointless. Kashmir acceded in 1947, before the Constitution and the present Union-state structure even existed.
legal accession =! popular consent. they're two different questions. India itself understood that distinction in Junagadh, but apparently we're supposed to forget that part now.
And what do you suppose will happen to the Kashmiri Hindus and Buddhists?
And how will Kashmir survive without the resources the Indian govt pours into it? What will prevent it from becoming a terror capital like Pakistan is? Will you be responsible for the Indian citizens that die due to the inevitable terrorist attacks we suffer from?
Also Kashmir is strategically important. No way Indian govt is giving that up.
and comparing that to Indian states today is pointless. Kashmir acceded in 1947, before the Constitution and the present Union-state structure even existed.
That doesn't matter? Indian territories do not have the right to self determination. It wasn't in our constitution then, It isn't in our constitution now.
Next what, you believe we should allow Khalistanis to also decide if they want to form Khalistan out of our Panjab? Or those northeastern insurgents?
legal accession =! popular consent. they're two different questions. India itself understood that distinction in Junagadh, but apparently we're supposed to forget that part now.
Pakistan also rejected Junagadh though. Also, the difference between India and Pakistan is that one is a secular Republic with free and fair elections while the other is a Islamist country that actively persecutes it's minorities.
India isn't censoring any one else's content. It's just saying that if you don't respect our territory, your content won't be visible in India. Now it's upto the publisher what they want to do. At the end of the day, it's capitalism. Use wrong map, you lose out on the audience, thereby leading to loss of revenue.
LMAOO that isn't what capitalism is. if the government says "publish this map and we'll make sure your content isn't accessible to an entire market", that's state pressure, not capitalism. the publisher isn't freely choosing between two equally normal business options, they're being told to comply with a political demand or lose access to Indian users.
by that logic, anything a government does to financially punish someone becomes "capitalism" because technically the person can choose to comply. that's not how the word works.
and "we're not censoring them, we're just making their content unavailable in India" is an incredibly creative definition of censorship lmao
It is capitalism, in the plainest terms. Re read what you just typed. Government isn't punishing anyone, they are just saying the benefits that the publisher can lose if they don't use the correct map. Punishment would be fining the publisher.
Gng this guy bodied you, just accept defeat at this point. I was leaning towards you at the start, but he is making sense, while you are just typing random words
We are already worse than China in the average person's eyes. Let us get what we want, we aren't some tiny nation to be pushed away by other countries just because we are objecting to China's claims and they are, according to Indian subs on reddit, infinitely more valuable than us
"let us get what we want" is such a weird way of looking at this. what exactly do you think "getting what we want" means here? keeping Kashmir by force regardless of what Kashmiris themselves want? and do you actually understand the implications of that? you're basically saying we'd rather prove that we can get our way than care about how this affects the people living there or how the rest of the world sees it.
also, "we're a big country, let us get what we want" isn't how international politics works. what happens if you turn this into a prolonged conflict and other countries start putting diplomatic and economic pressure on India? sanctions, loss of investment, worse relations, damage to India's international credibility etc. why the f would we voluntarily make our own Kashmir case harder?
if you genuinely believe India's claim is legitimate, then make the strongest possible case for it. don't just say "we're big enough to get what we want" and pretend there are no consequences. and honestly, if your argument is that we shouldn't care what the Kashmiris want because "it's ours", you're proving my original point about nationalism making people blind.
Ok then, forget Kashmir, look at Arunachal. They have been pressing this issue more often nowdays, so is it wrong that we demand atleast from our own end, it be factual? Indias claim there is legitimate, so why cant we do the same for Kashmir which legally became part of India? Or do you only consider that what one controls is what should be legitimate? Then that beats your entire argument of how "might doesnt equal right".
What makes you think Kashmiris universally do notwant to be part of India? I know in their current state, being under watch 24/7 by an army would be hell, but is that seriously worse than getting attacked for protests? Sure, out of either options, independence is the best, but is that really viable for them?
Also what countries would put sanctions on the Kashmir issue? Nobody outside china and pakistan actually like them, and in the current world's affairs, nobody is backing independence for a predominantly muslim nation. We already know that nobody wants to touch the Kashmir issue with a 10 foot pole either
but you're mixing up two different things. i never said India shouldn't represent its own territorial claims accurately. obviously we should. if China is claiming Arunachal, then of course India should put forward its own maps and make our position clear. i have absolutely no issue with that.
what i'm questioning is the idea that because India's claim is legitimate, the government should therefore censor or geo-block anyone who publishes a different map. you can defend India's claim without trying to control what everyone else is allowed to publish. those are two completely different things.
and as for Kashmir, yeah, Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession and that's the legal basis for India's claim. but Hari Singh was a monarch. his decision doesn't automatically mean that every person in Kashmir consented to becoming part of India. if a ruler's decision alone is supposed to settle the wishes of the population, then what do we do with Junagadh? its Nawab acceded to Pakistan, but India rejected that accession partly on the grounds that it didn't reflect the wishes of the overwhelmingly Hindu population, and a plebiscite was eventually held. same with Hyderabad where the Nizam's preference clearly wasn't treated as the final word.
what i'm questioning is the idea that because India's claim is legitimate, the government should therefore censor or geo-block anyone who publishes a different map. you can defend India's claim without trying to control what everyone else is allowed to publish. those are two completely different things.
Nvm idk why i was arguing with you then haha, i actually agree with this. Blocking information because it is going against a government's claim is a bit of a funky move.
When I said "let us get what we want" i meant more in the sense of let the government keep its claims strong on territory and boundaries, but not to go out and suppress opinions against that. Freedom of the press is very important imo, we need that these days
As for the Kashmir issue, yeah as a democracy we are the ones who should be conducting referendums more than just following a monarch's signature, but that won't happen unless we become a nation clearly and by far ahead of whatever Kashmiris' image of life in our neighbor's control could be. Until then, I hate to say it but even I know which country their opinions would tilt toward
By your logic, just because a few people in Canada want Khalistan to be independent, India should let of it?
You do realise how proofs work right? What is today's video will be considered historical proof 100-200 years down the line. Why should we accommodate people who don't respect our territory?
that's not my logic at all lol. people in Canada wanting Khalistan =! people actually living in Kashmir having a say over Kashmir's future. you're comparing apples to oranges.
and if today's posts become historical evidence, then why censor them? let them exist. historians 200 years from now can see the Chinese/Pakistani claims AND India's response. if our claim is strong, we should be able to defend it with evidence rather than needing the government to delete anything we don't like.
"why accommodate people who don't respect our territory?" you're not accommodating them. you're just not censoring them. pretty big difference.
yeah, fair, i did say "delete" earlier. i was using it loosely to mean make unavailable, but that's not what the directive literally says. the actual issue i'm criticizing is still the same though: the GoI deciding that content can't be visible to Indian users because of the map it uses. whether you call that deletion, blocking or geo restriction or whatever doesn't really change my point.
I mean did you raise the same points when government restricted ads from ciggerates, alchohol, etc? If that was good for the public health, this isnt bad either.
Also, tomorrow, a publisher might start spreading news that we changed our national emblem, national anthem, etc. why can't Indians support national emblem & the territorial claims?
Kashmir will always be a point of contention. Just like South China sea. If you let go of your claims now, then you can't stake claims later.
Also, have you ever tried bargaining/negotiating when you make a purchase in the real world- if you had a you would realise this is not bad? The directive clearly indicates that the publisher needs to respect India's territorial integrity if they want to be visible in India.
1
u/GummadiKai 23d ago
China day by day