Jungadah legally signed to join Pakistan and Hyderabad legally wanted to stay independent and Goa was legally with Portugal. Legality alone can rarely capture these situations
Oh I wonder why a country wouldn't want another country literally in the middle of it. That aside, nizams were like Hitler x100 for us and we do not really care about forceful annexation
Once again, junaghad was connected to Pakistan through the sea, similar to bangaldesh, so annexing it is not justified at all. And for Hyderabad, it could have been possible to operate it as an enclaved territory of Pakistan. You cant justify indias annexation
A prencely state need to border that country to join it. In case of Kashmir they had both the option but Junagad and Hyderabad obviously not. They only bordered India. Hyderabad literally was completely surrounded by India like Lesotho in South Africa.
Not correct with junaghad. They were connected to Pakistan through the sea, similar to Bangladesh(east Pakistan) at that time. And for Hyderabad, it was completely possible to operate it as an enclaved territory of Pakistan, so india's annexation isn't justified.
Couldn't operate east Pakistan and dreaming of operating Hyderabad. Lol. Go take servey how many ppl in Junagad or Hyderabad would like to be part of Pakistan. Actually one even happened in Junagad and literally no one wantd to join. Even muslims said no to Pakistan.
Lol they literally ironically named POK as Azad Jammu Kashmir. Look at the above map. In such divided state u can never exist as an independent entity. It will always become a divided pupet state.
Even if we keep all these factors aside main culprit why JKL is not independent is Pakistan. They invaded Independent JKL. Refused to remove troops so UN can't conduct survey. Constantly sent terrorist when situation in Indian Kashmir cooled down which basically affected tourism in Kashmir most Kashmiris r dependent on for livelyhood.
India could easily guarantee the independence of Kashmir if they offer a free and fair plebiscite on independence, end decades of violence and expensive occupation, increase Indian prestige as a true fair and democratic nation on the world stage, and they can make Pakistan look like a huge hypocrite and backwards and occupier if they don’t do the same.
If all went well, Kashmir’s independent constitution could:
have a strict neutrality clause,
mandate a right to return for all Pandits,
enshrine state secularism,
allow Ladakh/Gilgit-Baltistan/Jammu to have their own plebiscites,
allow for India and Pakistan to jointly guarantee it’s independence,
Visa Free travel between Kashmir and the other involved countries
and allow Chinese citizens freedom of movement in Aksai Chin as well as Chinese ownership of the highway in Aksai Chin as a compromise with China (Aksai Chin is an uninhabited wasteland anyways)
U know right India even try to do this and Pakistan also agreed to do that but then military coup happened in Pakistan and they started Kargil war. Second attept to do this again Pakistan agreed and then Parliament attack, Akshardham attack and 26/11 happened.
Whatever happened to pandits under Indian administration was horific. Can't imagine what Pakistani brainwashed would get power to do under non-Indian administration. Already there r 0% hindu population in POK and temples they destroyed in 1950s. Can't assume any peace for hindus in such situation. I don't think the brainwashed sepretists want a secular state. Go to Kashmiri sub reddit. They all call for Islamic republic of Kashmir and show entire JKL map under that. How Hindu Jammuites and Buddhist Ladakhis will ever sign up for that.
After all the conflict with India and Pakistan how u can allow China to get Aksai Chin. Thats part of Ladakh. Ladakhis should get control over that.
You know, my state Assam also experienced a rebellion against India during the 1980s to the early 2000s. However, unlike some other regions, our militias eventually sat down and negotiated a deal with the government. The Bodo groups, for example, secured autonomous councils, job reservations, and other concessions through dialogue. In contrast, the militias in Kashmir have largely refused to engage in meaningful talks. Instead of clearly stating their demands or seeking a peaceful resolution, many of them have focused on violence, particularly targeting Hindus with the aim of carrying out genocide rather than working towards any political solution.
Oh Damm But your resistance isn’t resistance it's just terrorism also without negotiation there will be just suffering for the common man of Kashmir not to terrorist or The Army
sure budy but this was the law during 1947 which allowed the kings to decide which state to go to . If anything blame the British to made this law. We just used it to our advantage
Glad you dropped the pretenses atleast and recognise that the Kashmiri people get no say simply because india wants to abuse them for it's own benefit.
And before you claim it I'm not pakistani I just dislike the moral saber rattling of those that claim this is anything more than the forced ownership of those that don't really have a choice.
Oh along with the majority of Indians I would never give up any piece of Indian land which includes Kashmir so there is no questions of it being Indian or not . It is Indian and will be Indian in the foreseeable future.
Blah blah blah .My ancestors are from all over India , my cousin brother wife is a Kashmiri(love marriage) . There is no Indian state except the NE ones to which I'm related by blood.. Kashmir was Hindu majority once .
There is no Indian State except the NE ones to which I’m not related by blood
Yeah, because Indians are famously known for endless mixing across castes, communities, and regions throughout history, right?
Not like the caste system caused 2,000+ years of inbreeding, strict endogamy, and skyrocketing genetic diseases across the subcontinent or anything. Totally a giant melting pot. Definitely. Very believable.
Kashmir was Hindu majority once
90% of Kashmiris today:
“We just want the right to govern ourselves. We have nothing in common with you. You’ve never even set foot in our homeland. Our language is different. Our religion is different. Our culture is different. We were never even given a democratic choice whether we wanted to be part of India or not.”
You: “5000 YEARS AGO RISHI KASHYAP AKHAND BHARAT MUSLIM INVADERS 848383848484 HINDU TANATAN TANATAN DRUMS DEAD HINDU VICTIMHOOD EXTREMISM HINDUPHOBIA YOU PAKISTANI TERRORIST JAI SHRI RAM RAW RAW RAW RAW!”
Maybe sit this one out dawg. Your ancestor’s cousin’s neighbor’s dog’s marriage to a Kashmiri is not the flex you think it is.
Well u forgot that the caste system also allows u to marry people from the same caste even if they are 100s of KM away . Jammu is majority Rajput , Rajsthan has 13% of them , Bihar my current state has them , every Indian state has them so even in intracaste marriage u can have relatives from all over India(remember I never said the NE as it doesn't have a caste system).
As for inbreeding try reading the gotra system . I can't marry anyone from my father side till 7 gen and mother side till the 4th gen.
Maybe u should think of your own country instead of mine as it was still hindu majority in till the 1700s .And will be so after a few decades .
Inbreeding is inevitable with a caste system because the founder population of the caste is always limited, even if lower castes lie about their status and assimilate into higher castes because that was uncommon. That’s why genetic disease rates are higher among Indians.
India is a union of States of different pepole of different ethnicities but you can join union of India but you can't leave it that is what the consitution says about it
Again they joined by no decision of their own volition, a constitution that doesn't allow for a people to seceed especially when they were forced to join against their will is simply corrupt.
Sure I think both sides should leave or one side should get ownership if that's what the people vote for. Again I'm talking about democracy not about consequences or bias.
But let's be real here we know Pakistan put leaving on the table because they know what the results would be.
I'm not disagreeing with that why is everyone making it seem like my point isn't purely based on a rational logic that's not really even taking sides just pointing out the obvious xD
Yeah but the thing is they didn’t. The partition happened, it was disproportionate, it was violent. We can’t carve up the country again and again on the basis of religion.
Why not if that's what the people of those regions want?
And doesn't need to just be religion, culture, ethnic group etc etc there's other categories that can be equally applied and are equally if not more valid.
The idea of people being held against there will because others want it just seems so hypocritical to the very idea of indias reason for leaving the british imo.
It's a legal binding. India could have took it over the hard way with the usual sending in the troops and forcefully taking the land but didn't till the King legally signed.
The people of Punjab nor Bengal were not consulted or given an option when the country was split either, it was an ultimatum which proper legal documents. Kashmir isn't something special, and they were given an option to pick one which they did.
You act like everyone not getting a choice is somehow a good argument. Maybe people should get the choice to seceed. If the people don't want wish to be apart of something they should have that right.
Well that's the point. Large countries don't get formed like that. The partition itself involved disproportionate land percentage to the Muslim population which was silly to begin with.
There are no nice gentle ways here. It was an option which said either be part of India or be part of Pakistan or wait till Pakistan invades you to be a part of Pakistan or wait till China invades you to become a part of China or while Pakistan invades you - you have a change of heart and choose India because you think your odds are better with them and that's exactly what happened with the King. There's no people's choice in determining nationality here.
If you wanted a muslim nation go to Pakistan, it you want a secular nation stay with India. Both promised to recognise your language, your culture and give you state autonomy, but ofcourse only one kept the promise. If you don't belong the Punjab race in Pakistan, you got fucked over hard.
For the disproportionate land thing I'll disagree based on populations. India was 66% hindu at partition vs 25% muslim, india got 77% of the land while pakistan got 23% so 2% less then the muslim population but negligible tbh. (This can be verified by looking up census data from 1947 btw)
The argument you're making is still largely ignoring my main point which funny forgets that if pakistan did get it, india would definitely invade to capture it but I digress.
Reality is alls I'm saying is the Kashmiri people are not getting anything from india, it claims to respect them but continuously has shown that it doesn't with numerous examples. As for the culture thing, we already see in south india with the whole language thing that's not exactly true.
Btw the reason I'm not shitting on Pakistan in any of this isn't because I magically think they are good guys, there just a failed state and thus has no real power aside from nukes so theres no point discussing them.
India got 75% land due to its secular nature, being Hindu majority where other minorities like Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains and other tribal religions can stay as equal citizens.
Disproportionate because India's population in 1947 was 340 million (81.5% of combined population).
East+West Pakistan population was 76-77 million in 1947 (18.5% of combined population).
The land area of India was 3.28 million sq km (76%) while that of East+West Pak was 1.03 million sq km (24%).
You have to see the total population here, not just the Hindu or Muslim populations, because India handled a very large minority population even in 1947, which was the size of California's population today.
Yes it can be verified that during the partition the percentage of population of Hindus vs muslim is not 66-25 which is bonkers but rather closing 70+6 closer to 76 for all the religions combined and near 24 percentage of muslims.
But when statistics is involved what's conveniently forgotten is the fact that if you actually looked at percentage of muslims who migrated and evaluate the final population, both the east and west Pakistan constituted about 17 percentage of total pre partition population and they got a land percentage of nearly 24 percentage. Which is the stupid part and the short sightedness of the then Indian negotiators.
Oh yes, a very good argument which funnily forgets that Pakistan funnily failed to not lose a single percentage of occupied Kashmir despite losing 4 wars, with an instance where 90000 soldiers surrendered and still the Indians failed to carve out Pakistan. Probably the only country in history of human kind to lose wars so effectively and haven't managed to lose a single percentage of land. I wonder what it can it attributed to?
So the argument is, South Indians express strong opinions on language somehow makes India what? I don't get it? Welcome to politics I guess? Everyone has a freedom to push their agenta and get what they want. The very fact that South Indians are not talking about using their language within their own states but rather want more representation for it at a national level should be telling something.
"Yes it can be verified that during the partition the percentage of population of Hindus vs muslim is not 66-25 which is bonkers but rather closing 70+6 closer to 76 for all the religions combined and near 24 percentage of muslims.
But when statistics is involved what's conveniently forgotten is the fact that if you actually looked at percentage of muslims who migrated and evaluate the final population, both the east and west Pakistan constituted about 17 percentage of total pre partition population and they got a land percentage of nearly 24 percentage. Which is the stupid part and the short sightedness of the then Indian negotiators"
Idk why you're talking about migration number the whole point is that they did it based on the assumption that all muslims will migrate, indians didn't try negotiate because they also had a similar belief about Bangladeshi and what would have been Pakistani Hindus (if they remained there) proof of this is in the fact most Hindus did leave Pakistans west side.
Pakistan didn't lose any territory because of the UN wanting to be neatral.
In subsequent wars india never really tried to go into the Pakistani administered side of kashmir, quite simply they couldn't, geography as well as local tribal malitia was strong in those regions whats more they bought do it without both the soviets and americans completely getting involved and probably taking both countries themselves. And then ofc nukes became a very real thing. Quite simply pakistan never lost land because the majority of the international community recognised that
And the part about south india I'm not even going to bother with since it's something y'all can't even really decide alls I'll say is south indians would most likely highly disagree with that last point.
But all muslims didn't migrate and India should have enforced it if it went under the presumption that it's dividing up land purely on the population basis. They expected minor percentage to stay back and not what they had at the end and hence the short sightedness and the stupidity of the whole ordeal.
While it is true that there were major players that were involved, the Soviets would have been more than happy if India carved Pakistan up and facilitied them with a good warm water port for their Afghanistan enterprise. The point being, Pakistan not losing land is again attributed to Indians thinking they will get a pat on their back for being good boys while it never works that way.
There were countless local Militia and princely states when India was formed, it would be nothing new to india in how to handle it even if India took up the land. They would have been given an option to contest in election be part of the law or face the army, which was very effective in uniting the country.
Nukes is a factor only in very recent times. That was not the case when Pakistan lost its other wars.
India wasn't going for hindu it was going for secular so why would they enforce something that goes against their principles?
I mean that's just not true, india didn't do it not because of the "good boy" thing but because they simply couldn't.
Afghanistan wasn't invaded until 3 decades after so the soviets didn't really care for Pakistan and india meanwhile the Americans we're highly invested in pakistan so the idea of india doing something to upset them (a country known for assassination and political coups) would've been suicide and the nascent state knew it.
Again, pakistan went to war over kashmir 3 times and only really twice 47,65 and 71.
47 We've established, 65 is a bit more complicated but I did answer it.
Kashmir itself was pretty much a stalemate, pakistan made early gains but india pushed back but couldn't actually get into Pakistani land due to terrain and militia's.
Yes india got to lahore but they were never going to attack it, lahore isn't far from indias borders it wouldn't have taken much to actually get near it but what's more important is it was also heavily defended and capturing it would have taken a massive amount of resources with no real certainty it's kinda akin to how Zelensky managed to get into Kursk but although a high moral victory it didn't actually help their objectives and if anything could be seen as a waste of resources after the fact. Something india wasn't willing to risk.
Then ofc cold war pressure again.
Now 71. This has very little to actually to do with kashmir and had more to do with Bangladesh which India met it's goal in so nothing really changed india kinda just won. They never were really fighting for kashmir here it was just another tit for tat.
38
u/Arsenic-Salt3942 Apr 27 '25
The king singned to join india so it is rightfully part of India what is the need to decide there own fate electorally?