3 ms·
"Kashmir agreed to join India in 1948" What you are saying seems to be factual true, but for context one should probably add, that the only other option would
by hutzlibu 4y ago
"Kashmir agreed to join India in 1948"
What you are saying seems to be factual true, but for context one should probably add, that the only other option would have been Pakistan. Whose troops were already inside Kashmir.
Independence, which is what most Kashmiris likely would have preferred, was not on the table offered to them, by any of the bigger empires around them. And the Kashmir independence movement in its whole, seems to be considered terrorism by india since day one.
- kelipso 4y agoThere were many other independent to semi independent nations in India then who agreed to join India due to various forms of pressure. E.g. south Kerala Travancore was a princely state where the king gave up the throne and joined India, Bhutan was a princely state and became an independent kingdom. What makes Kashmir special. It could've stayed independent and gotten destroyed I guess. Who knows, speculative history.
- hutzlibu 4y ago"It could've stayed independent and gotten destroyed I guess. " Kashmir as a independent state is also destroyed in the current timeline. "What makes Kashmir special. " Lot's of things. But yes, other states are also special. I am open for them, to go for independence, or at least local autonomy as well, if they like.
- kelipso 4y agoDepends on your definition of destroyed I guess, point was various events and conditions led to nations joining India and Kashmir shouldn't have special status because of whatever conditions at the time. About independence etc, I'm not diving into fantasy territory lol.