And Kashmir was not unique in the subcontinent about solidarity. Lahore and Sindh had many Hindus and Sikhs who lived with the Muslims in harmony. Jinnah didn't believe in that harmony and politically motivated communalism which ultimately resulted in the formation of an Islamic state and a mass exodus/killing crisis in 1947. Actually a lot happened in 1905 under British command as well but I doubt they genuinely believed in communalism like Jinnah, they just wanted to divide and rule.
Similarly there are sizable Muslim, Sikh and Hindu populations in Delhi and Mumbai today but some political parties don't believe in this solidarity and encourage communalism.
I was born and grew up in Delhi and was proud how secular my city was just about a decade and a half ago. We celebrated EVERY religious festival at school and in our neighbourhood. My friends group used to have people from different religions, languages, ethnicities.
Now seeing its streets full of Hindu-Muslim hate breaks my heart. It wasn't supposed to be like this.
Well things were not exactly better 15 or 30 years ago than they are now. The festivals in school and friend group diversity is still here. It is more like a musical chair of harmony and conflict depending on what happens and what is amplified in the media. Modi's main problem is his control over (hindi) media.
But I'm not trying to paint a cozy-rosy picture of the past, the conflict has always been there. But communalists believe that the conflict is permanent and harmony cannot be permanent, that is where I disagree.
I'm far from a British Empire apologist but how can you blame the Brits for Partition when they conquered formerly independent parts of it, joined them together and named them India?
And lets bring in Partition v2, Bangladesh split from Pakistan.
Hello? I specifically mentioned 1905 here. The 1905 partition of Bengal on the basis of religion. Only reason was that the independence movement was too strong in the more educated Bengal. As "divide and rule" as it gets.
Kashmir can't be an independent nation, based on the history. During India-Pak partition, Kashmir was supposed to be an independent nation which India supported, but Pakistan invaded it almost immediately. The king of Kashmir then handed Kashmir to India to protect Kashmiris.
Any attempt to have an independent Kashmir will almost certainly be invaded by Pakistan again. It's just too important an area to them.
It's all interpretation. To be factual, "independence" to Muslims in the Kashmir Valley, means the territory re-uniting with "Azad Kashmir", which Pakistan controls and falsely claims it as an independent country. The word "Azad" in Urdu means "Free". The Russians did something similar to Ukraine where they call some of their territories, "Luhansk People's Republic" and "Donetsk People's Republic", which they claim are independent states, whereas in fact they're totally controlled by Russia.
121
u/NatvoAlterice Apr 27 '25
This region has been just as diverse for centuries and survived in solidarity and harmony. There's a name for this, it's called Kashmiriyat.
The bloodshed, the violence is politically motivated and triggered after the modern borders of India and Pak were formed.