What's new

Arundhati Roy calls for end to Indian ‘occupation’ of Kashmir

.
I met Roy in a literary meet not so long ago and yes she is from my state and I also know what "state of mind " she is in, more than a "keyboard hate monger" sitting comfortably miles away "defending" his nation online without know a thing and debates on basis on whats been spoon-feed on hate articles.

:wave:

I read she was born in Meghalaya, is that where you are from Benny?
 
.
Pakistani export of terror to Kashmir was illegal. The wars of 1965 and 1999 were also illegal!

After trying everything, terror, wars et al for 5 decades, Pakistan can't say, give us Kashmir as you are a democracy.

Doesn't work that way.
 
.
.
I read she was born in Meghalaya, is that where you are from Benny?

Nope. I am from Kerala. She too is from there atleast partially and spend her childhood and school here in a place called kottayam.

Have u read her booker award winning novel yet or are u in supporting role here as always?
 
.
Indians moved troops into Junagadh when clearly the state was trying to seceede to Pakistan. Indians take pride in being dishonest and cheaters. Kashmir will be azad, because they don't want anything to do with you. I don't care if it's 200 years from now. They may align themselves with India to improve their infrastructure and global awareness, but they will separate from you Imperialists as soon as they get the chance, because you do not respect their wishes.

Looks likes Indians are stuck in stockholm syndrome and now emulating their British masters by oppressing people. What a sad day. :no:

kashmir was azad,it was pakistan who invaded it and the king asked india to help in countering pakistan so we did it after he aceeded to india
so dont know why pakistan hype azad kashmir so much,even pakistan itself gives lower freedom to media than indian side of kashmir so we know how much freedom azad kashmir has
and no kashmiri ever wanted to join pakistan or india even now they dont want to join either
 
.
I'm glad you find it funny that you find 'the people she stands up for' effectively control 1/3rd of India (at the expense of the Indian government).

I think you are way too far to understand realities.When the news finally reaches you it is either massively cooked up or highly distorted.Maoist activity has been noticed in various parts of India,as much as 1/3 rd part of the territory.That does not mean they control that territory
 
.
Have u read her booker award winning novel yet or are u in supporting role here as always?

Why would I read that Indian book? :lol:

I've seen some interviews of her on the internet though, the Western media loves to have her as a guest for some reason.
 
.
kashmir was azad,it was pakistan who invaded it and the king asked india to help in countering pakistan so we did it after he aceeded to india
so dont know why pakistan hype azad kashmir so much,even pakistan itself gives lower freedom to media than indian side of kashmir so we know how much freedom azad kashmir has
and no kashmiri ever wanted to join pakistan or india even now they dont want to join either


:rofl:

Is this a joke?
*You have not adressed any of the points I've made.
*Pakistan has one the world's most liberal media institutions.


Facepalmz
 
.
Why would I read that Indian book? :lol:

I've seen some interviews of her on the internet though, the Western media loves to have her as a guest for some reason.

The reason is that book. Read it.
 
.
I'm going to bed. :lazy: Looks like there are only Indian novices out tonight.
 
.
Pakistan tried to get Jungarh and Hyderbad as they were ruled by Muslim rulers (probablt invaders) despite 90% Hindu population. Despite seceding on the basis of Islam and promptly indulging in ethnic cleansing of Hindu Sikhs.

It also tried to get Kashmir because it had Muslim majority. Even though it has barely 2-3% of Indian Muslims.

It failed in all three.

Learn to deal with it. ;)
 
.
:rofl:

Is this a joke?
*You have not adressed any of the points I've made.
*Pakistan has one the world's most liberal media institutions.


Facepalmz

no not joking,you can see that if you have an open mind and are not dependent on propaganda
what points have you made i dont care to see all your previous posts,show me where you posted it
liberal institutions is different from media freedom :lol:
 
.
It's not about Canadian or US model. They are both the same: Quebec in Canada and Puerto Rico in US.

It's about how modern democracies handle these situations.

I specifically told you the American civil war to show there is also another way to handle these situations. And I think the Kashmir is more analogous to this as armed insurgency was not a part of Puerto Rico issue but it was a part of the American civil war.


Once again, Baluchistan is not the subject of discussion. I only mentioned Quebec and PR because you guys claimed that national sovereignty trumps democracy. US and Canada showed that, for true democracies, it does not.

Ok lets make it then as it is very much relevant to this discussion. And I mentioned the American civil war to show that Sovereignity and territorial integrity trumps democracy. BTW since democracy is the will of the majority, the majority in India says No to a referendum..So there goes our democracy discussion.


This is not 1947 and the situation on the ground is not the same. Therefore, that 'solution' is not relevant.

How it is any different. Care to elaborate ? I think it is still the same. The inability of a section of Muslims to live with Hindus.

What is relevant is India's claim to be a democracy. As an area under India's control, these people are entitled to democracy and I just showed how real democracies handle these situations.

True that. They are entitled to democracy under Indian Constitution and they also exercised it recently with a huge 88% turnout in local polls.


A British poll telling us what our own citizens want? When there is no independence movement of comparable magnitude to the one in Indian held Kashmir?

British poll or Martian poll. The respondents were still Kashmiris.

Once again, we don't need an occupying force of 700,000 men to hold on to our Kashmir.

The official estimate is 3.5 Lakh troops and moreover the Army is present only in the border. There is no visible presence in civilian areas.

BTW noticed that "our Kashmir" and laughed at it. Come take it.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom