6 ms·
C'mon, stop bringing Pakistan into this. India has mismanaged Kashmir so badly that the majority of the population wants to leave India -- and not to join Paki
by 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
C'mon, stop bringing Pakistan into this. India has mismanaged Kashmir so badly that the majority of the population wants to leave India -- and not to join Pakistan, mind you, but to be independent.
- iamshs 7y agoPakistan is a big part of problem here by supporting militants and terrorists. Material, money and training support. Let’s not absolve Pakistan here. They invaded independent Kashmir in 1947 and Kashmir had to let go its independence to get support from India against Pakistan’s war.
- nashashmi 7y agoThey never invaded. Locals rebelled against the ruler for being independent. And asked to become part Pakistan. Army came in upon request from locals.
- iamshs 7y agoNah, tribals were armed by Pakistan. Tribals from Pakhtun invaded Kashmir. Locals actually helped repel the tribal attacks. Let’s not overlook stated facts.
- debuggerpk 7y agohaha .. if you can see the irony in your comment. So a resourceless Pakistan miraculously recovered from the bloody partition in mere three months to not only plan an insurgency, but also had the resources to execute it. Go Pakistan then? right?
- iamshs 7y agoGo learn your own history, Pakistan has given their highest bravery awards to these tribal invaders. Resourceless doesn't mean bereft of guns. British Army resources were divided among India and Pakistan.
- debuggerpk 7y agolol. Pakistan was meant to get 1/3rd, never go that.
- dang 7y agoYou broke the site guidelines frequently and egregiously in this thread. We ban accounts that do that. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules while posting here, regardless of how wrong or bad you think other comments are? And please don't use HN for nationalistic flamewar.
- dang 7y agoPlease do not post flamewar comments to HN, and especially not nationalistic flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- debuggerpk 7y agoLike you said, let's not overlook the facts. The fact is, India and Pakistan had visa on arrival up until 1974. The fact is, people from both sides of the border could still get naturalised citizens across the border up until early 70s. The fact is, both India and Pakistan did exactly the same things. Just look at the accession of Junagadh and Hyderabad estate into India. India got away with it because both the states were land locked and Pakistan couldn't help. If accession of Kashmir's raja is right, so was the declarations by nawab of junagadh and hyderabad. The fact is, the 1947 war ended with UN intervention which demanded plebiscite for kashmir. India had agreed, but so far failed to conduct that. Not only that, India doesn't even allow UN observers, while Pakistan do. I can throw in a lot of facts in here.
- iamshs 7y agoHyderabad was a land locked pocket, and one of the conditions of partition was states aligning with Pakistan to be contiguous. How is Hyderabad contiguous to Pakistan? Junagadh claimed to be contiguous to Pakistan through bullshit reasoning of sea. So viability of these pockets was not feasible. India took over Goa the same way too. But Pakistan invaded Balochistan and Kashmir and forcibly occupied these territories, so it is not 'exactly the same things'. BTW, Pakistan did try to send weapons to Hyderabad through America. First condition of plebiscite is withdrawal of Pakistani forces from occupied territories, 73 years and still waiting. India doesn't allow UN observers because they have outlived their utility, as LoC has been codified between Pakistan and India through Simla Agreement in 1971.
- sbmthakur 7y agoThe exact pre-conditions for the UN mandated plebiscite are impossible to meet. Anyway, the UN resolution is superseded by the Shimla Agreement.
- ra7 7y agoHuh what? Are you even aware of the history? Being independent has been their goal from day 1; that's the reason for the conflict. It's not because India has "mismanaged" Kashmir.
- nashashmi 7y agoStaying away from hindu extremist dictatorship has been their goal and why they never conformed.
- ra7 7y agoThere was Hindu extremist dictatorship in 1947 when the conflict started? They originally wanted a separate country because they felt they are ethnically and culturally different to Indians. It didn’t become a religion issue until the 80s.
- kbad1000 7y agoIf Pakistan is not part of problem then why is it so much agitated by internal affairs of India? Let's be clear here the call for 'Gajawa E Hind' (which means complete destruction of Kafirs in India and establishment of a Islamic rule) runs in most of the Pakistanis, though they can't do anything for this, the emotions are clear. On the other hand Pakistan is a military autocracy. Without enemity with India and a cause for fighting, their existence and dominance is threatened. For them the conflict is their oxygen.
- sbmthakur 7y agoOfcourse, why blame Pakistan? Pakistan has only invaded the region few times and has made several inflitration attempts. Nothing more.