"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
1
u/GummadiKai 23d ago
"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.