13 ms·

Also, in Kashmir's case, the lines become blurry because on one hand you have excesses from the Indian state, and on the other hand you have a bloody armed insu

Also, in Kashmir's case, the lines become blurry because on one hand you have excesses from the Indian state, and on the other hand you have a bloody armed insurgent movement which sometimes is just separatist and sometimes also coloured on religious lines. It is quite a controversial topic and when someone looking from outside can't even gauge the recent issue at hand correctly[1], you can't expect them to have the context of Kashmir issue. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/rihanna-rallies-to-the-wrong-cause-in-india-11612465735 https://www.wsj.com/articles/rihanna-rallies-to-the-wrong-ca...

2Gkashmiri 6y ago
why are things blurry? you are saying >and on the other hand you have a bloody armed insurgent movement which sometimes is just separatist and sometimes also coloured on religious lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_rebel_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_rebel_groups kashmir has been fighting against both india and pakistan on many fronts ever since this issue began. the state of kashmir has been essentially fighting war of independence against foreign oppressive rule for the past 500 years. so what 30 years ago pakistan convinced and managed to turn thousands of kashmiris as pawns in a proxy war with india. that doesnt mean kashmir is with pakistan, on the contrary, people in pakistan occupied kashmir protest against their oppression daily. why do you think just because someone picked a gun that they have muddied the waters and only way out is to surrender because you cannot do an armed struggle?
- actuator 6y ago
  I apologise for any mistake I make here as my knowledge of Indian history is not very fresh. > the state of kashmir has been essentially fighting war of independence against foreign oppressive rule for the past 500 years. But what constitutes foreign rule. If I move before 500 years, we have Mauryas or Karkotas ruling Kashmir with Srinagar being an important city to them, which are pan North Indian empires. > why do you think just because someone picked a gun that they have muddied the waters and only way out is to surrender because you cannot do an armed struggle? Well, I think once a struggle turns violent, the issue becomes emotive on both sides as there is blood shed. For people in Kashmir, it has been since 1947, wounds of which keep opening up again. For people in rest of India, the narrative and the blood of the people from RoI which has been spent in keeping Kashmir has been huge as well. No one would want to back down, the armed insurgent movement is never going to succeed. My second point was, some of the groups are motivated on religious lines and want a country based on a religion which makes it extremely hard for others to sympathise for them.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    When East Punjab was split into Punjab and Haryana what the hell do you think GoI was doing then?
    - actuator 6y ago
      I am not too aware about the reason for this. Most of the states have been divided on linguistic lines. Punjab and Haryana have different dominant languages. It also might have been administrative like it was for a lot of states.
      - selimthegrim 6y ago
        If you think Nehru didn't want to weaken Sikhs I have a Ram Setu to sell you.
        actuator 6y ago
        Weaken them by making a state where electoral prospects are just decided by them? That is just counter intuitive. If you don't divide the state, they aren't in the majority anymore but it does increase the administrative burden. Also, you are talking about the same person who gave away land in other states, even the Himalayan ones to the community. They had very limited presence there before. If you read the history of the religion and subcontinent, there is no reason he would even want to weaken them as well. Leaving the small separatist voices aside, the vast majority is so intermingled with the dominant religion in North India, that there is no reason to do this. Anyway, it seems you are even less aware about this topic than most people are. I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but reading from your charged language I can only ask you to not fall for hyperbole and look at things pragmatically.
        selimthegrim 6y ago
        They wanted all of Punjab to be theirs, no? Not sharing a capital with Haryana. I would think they were settling, if they got a more compact state. What I will say is that Sikhs I met in USA were not happy with say splitting Chandigarh. >Punjab and Haryana have different dominant languages A lot of Punjabi-speaking Hindus "chose" Hindi for that to be true IIRC.

2Gkashmiri 6y ago

why are things blurry? you are saying >and on the other hand you have a bloody armed insurgent movement which sometimes is just separatist and sometimes also coloured on religious lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_rebel_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_rebel_groups kashmir has been fighting against both india and pakistan on many fronts ever since this issue began. the state of kashmir has been essentially fighting war of independence against foreign oppressive rule for the past 500 years. so what 30 years ago pakistan convinced and managed to turn thousands of kashmiris as pawns in a proxy war with india. that doesnt mean kashmir is with pakistan, on the contrary, people in pakistan occupied kashmir protest against their oppression daily. why do you think just because someone picked a gun that they have muddied the waters and only way out is to surrender because you cannot do an armed struggle?

actuator 6y ago
I apologise for any mistake I make here as my knowledge of Indian history is not very fresh. > the state of kashmir has been essentially fighting war of independence against foreign oppressive rule for the past 500 years. But what constitutes foreign rule. If I move before 500 years, we have Mauryas or Karkotas ruling Kashmir with Srinagar being an important city to them, which are pan North Indian empires. > why do you think just because someone picked a gun that they have muddied the waters and only way out is to surrender because you cannot do an armed struggle? Well, I think once a struggle turns violent, the issue becomes emotive on both sides as there is blood shed. For people in Kashmir, it has been since 1947, wounds of which keep opening up again. For people in rest of India, the narrative and the blood of the people from RoI which has been spent in keeping Kashmir has been huge as well. No one would want to back down, the armed insurgent movement is never going to succeed. My second point was, some of the groups are motivated on religious lines and want a country based on a religion which makes it extremely hard for others to sympathise for them.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  When East Punjab was split into Punjab and Haryana what the hell do you think GoI was doing then?
  - actuator 6y ago
    I am not too aware about the reason for this. Most of the states have been divided on linguistic lines. Punjab and Haryana have different dominant languages. It also might have been administrative like it was for a lot of states.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      If you think Nehru didn't want to weaken Sikhs I have a Ram Setu to sell you.
      - actuator 6y ago
        Weaken them by making a state where electoral prospects are just decided by them? That is just counter intuitive. If you don't divide the state, they aren't in the majority anymore but it does increase the administrative burden. Also, you are talking about the same person who gave away land in other states, even the Himalayan ones to the community. They had very limited presence there before. If you read the history of the religion and subcontinent, there is no reason he would even want to weaken them as well. Leaving the small separatist voices aside, the vast majority is so intermingled with the dominant religion in North India, that there is no reason to do this. Anyway, it seems you are even less aware about this topic than most people are. I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but reading from your charged language I can only ask you to not fall for hyperbole and look at things pragmatically.
        selimthegrim 6y ago
        They wanted all of Punjab to be theirs, no? Not sharing a capital with Haryana. I would think they were settling, if they got a more compact state. What I will say is that Sikhs I met in USA were not happy with say splitting Chandigarh. >Punjab and Haryana have different dominant languages A lot of Punjabi-speaking Hindus "chose" Hindi for that to be true IIRC.