4 ms·

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 indepe

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.
        actuator 6y ago
        > I would think they were settling, if they got a more compact state. It is not like any land exchange happened. Sure, some resources got divided but I wouldn't see it as settling. If you read analysis about management of big states, even now a lot of analysts believe some of the other big states should be split up. > What I will say is that Sikhs I met in USA were not happy with say splitting Chandigarh. Well, that's not representative of them, no? I have also met people who are not happy with that decision and also people who are indifferent to it. > A lot of Punjabi-speaking Hindus "chose" Hindi for that to be true IIRC. Not really, look at any language census from before as well in the districts that became the new state. But the linguistic issue is not just limited to that state. Look at the northern Himalayan states and look at what has happened to their languages. Hindi has just subsumed their languages with its words and now most people speak Hindi only. This situation is made worse because of the necessity of English as a language, their own mother tongue kind of becomes third in the priority list.

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.
      - actuator 6y ago
        > I would think they were settling, if they got a more compact state. It is not like any land exchange happened. Sure, some resources got divided but I wouldn't see it as settling. If you read analysis about management of big states, even now a lot of analysts believe some of the other big states should be split up. > What I will say is that Sikhs I met in USA were not happy with say splitting Chandigarh. Well, that's not representative of them, no? I have also met people who are not happy with that decision and also people who are indifferent to it. > A lot of Punjabi-speaking Hindus "chose" Hindi for that to be true IIRC. Not really, look at any language census from before as well in the districts that became the new state. But the linguistic issue is not just limited to that state. Look at the northern Himalayan states and look at what has happened to their languages. Hindi has just subsumed their languages with its words and now most people speak Hindi only. This situation is made worse because of the necessity of English as a language, their own mother tongue kind of becomes third in the priority list.