Hindus, Muslims are separate nations: Geelani

[KS]

I don't know where these brilliant ideas come to your mind but do know that Kashmir is not a part of India so this brilliant Idea does not applies there,so whats left? the remaining Muslims in India.

Research how the name Kashmir came into being and then come....

hint: It didnt come from Saudi Arabia.

^^^^
Off topic
Dude read this


See the word "ancestors" this means "forefathers" and clearly "ancestors"of Pakistanis who migrated from India were Muslims and Hindus is the case for Indians,so he's suggesting a Hindu-Muslim swap.Read carefully before you comment.

By Ancestors I meant those Hindus/Sikhs who left Pakistan and those Mulsims who left India.And the context in which I mentioned is the modus-operandi of their journey.

They gathered their belongings,liquidated their assets and travelled to the place of their choice on either side of the border.They didnt have the authority to declare the land in their possesion as a part of either country.

So the Kashmiris can do the exact way..take whatever they can,sell whatever they can and migrate to the other side.THE LAND STAYS HERE UNDER OUR CONTROL.

FYI,Read the first part of my previous post ,but this time very S-L-O-W-L-Y and comprehend .Then we shall talk further.

 

[KS]

You cant simply ignore Indian interests or expect India to take a loss.....especially being that they have the most to lose while also being the most powerful player in the equation.

Some people just dont understand this....they want India which is at a position of strength,holds all cards to relinquish all of these and just give away a strategic piece of real-estate with no palpable advantages to it.

 

[ardent]

hindus and muslims being seperate nations is pakistani logic ,not indian logic.

india is a secular nation ,not a hindu nation.

therefore ,muslims can stay in this nation.

of course ,hindu majority areas like hyderabad and junagadh cannot stay in pak because pakistan is an avowedly islamic republic.

on its creation ,the hindus all were forced to flee away from pak.

from 15 percent of pakistan's population ,the hindu population fell down to 2 percent just after its creation.

so did the sikh population fall.

obviously ,the creators of pakistan had no place for these minorities in mind while creating pakistan.

on the other hand in india, most muslims ,except in punjab and some areas of bihar were allowed to stay.

the muslim population has grown from 10.6 percent according to the 1961 census to 13.4 percent according to the 2001 census ,in india.

so muslims of kashmir can stay in india....nothing wrong with that.

if pakistan wanted junagadh or hyderabad ,it should have been a secular republic like turkey , but it is not......in fact it is an islamic republic .......so how can hindus stay there??

but india ,which is secular republic , can keep kashmir ,as it is not a hindu nation.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

the fact of the matter is (and based on recent events, showing their adamance to acceding to your federation) -- Kashmiris don't seem to have anything to lose by voicing that which has been voiced for past 6 decades

we know already what that is; it is not an integral part of bharat, it is disputed territory

 

[Swift]

the fact of the matter is (and based on recent events, showing their adamance to acceding to your federation) -- Kashmiris don't seem to have anything to lose by voicing that which has been voiced for past 6 decades

we know already what that is; it is not an integral part of bharat, it is disputed territory

Thats not the debate about. Debate is about the old man showing his true color in front of the world and getting exposed big time.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I don't know; seems that Mr. Geelani has more credibility amongst Kashmiris than Mr. Abdullah does; in retrospect, it's too bad that APHC boycotted the elections, though it was hardly at all an environment conducive for a true democratic process to take place; we know why

 

[Swift]

I don't know; seems that Mr. Geelani has more credibility amongst Kashmiris than Mr. Abdullah does; in retrospect, it's too bad that APHC boycotted the elections, though it was hardly at all an environment conducive for a true democratic process to take place; we know why

Tell me why election in Bihar fetched 51% voters but in Kashmir its 60%+ ?

 

[Peshwa]

the fact of the matter is (and based on recent events, showing their adamance to acceding to your federation) -- Kashmiris don't seem to have anything to lose by voicing that which has been voiced for past 6 decadeswe know already what that is; it is not an integral part of bharat, it is disputed territory

I think thats fair....Kashmiris should have the freedom of speech to voice their opinions.....that is their right....

Any "demands" for ascesion from India though will have to be voted in through elections in the Indian parliament....

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I think thats fair....Kashmiris should have the freedom of speech to voice their opinions.....that is their right....

Any "demands" for ascesion from India though will have to be voted in through elections in the Indian parliament....

while deliberations in your parliament are internal affairs, it is obvious that such deliberation would not be binding

i.e. india alone has little to no say in the fate of Kashmiris, though as a stakeholder, they are welcome to present their ''case'' no matter how flawed or obscure it may seem

Kashmiris themselves from all districts should be empowered to vote under a fair and neutral referendum

there's NO other way forward

 

[Peshwa]

I don't know; seems that Mr. Geelani has more credibility amongst Kashmiris than Mr. Abdullah does; in retrospect, it's too bad that APHC boycotted the elections, though it was hardly at all an environment conducive for a true democratic process to take place; we know why

Independence and ascesion to Pak apart.....something that is a distant dream

If Geelani is actually so "popular" among the Kashmiris (compared to Abdullah), why doesnt he opt to run for the state elections and form a govt in Kashmir?

At least this can help mitigate some of the law and order situation in the region....maybe not revoke the armed forces special powers act, but at least limit the casualties due to stone pelting since he will have the state police and the stone pelters alike in his power.....

I fail to understand why leaders like Geelani have not opted for the political route to get at least some of their genuine demands....

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

as implied in my post, I believe he should be more active and participate; though that is his own prerogative....

unfortunately, as I also mentioned, it is not possible to be active in politics when the occupational forces are consistently placing him and his cohorts under house arrest; people (citizens) cannot participate actively in environment of curfews, checkpoints and other degrading atmospheric conditions

 

[bc040400065]

Okay...what about the Hindus living in your own country??According to your theory,you should create a country within a country for them.....

1. The hindu minority is really small in number in Pakistan and they don't have any issues being Pakistani. So when they have no problem living as a Pakistani there is no question of separate country for them. On the other hand kashmiris don't want to be Indian citizens.
But Still Hindus and Muslims are different in matters of religion, in terms of culture, in matters relating to a society, still in India a Muslim would not like his son/daughter get married with a hindu girl/boy. The separation is there from the start and will remain till the end, no matter what you say or misguide people but Muslims cannot merge with any other religious community, They are meant to the separate from everyone else.

 

[Peshwa]

while deliberations in your parliament are internal affairs, it is obvious that such deliberation would not be binding

i.e. india alone has little to no say in the fate of Kashmiris, though as a stakeholder, they are welcome to present their ''case'' no matter how flawed or obscure it may seem

Kashmiris themselves from all districts should be empowered to vote under a fair and neutral referendum

there's NO other way forward

I think you forget that the Kashmir is in Indian control and has been integrated into the Union of India just as Gilgit and Baltistan have been to the Pakistani federation.....

So as far as a solution is concerned....even if autonomy is provided to Jammu and Kashmir, it will have to be done through the vote in the Indian parliament.......Kashmir could obtain a Bhutan like situation at best.....
So I fail to understand how you're able to ignore or sideline the most important power and player in this equation.....

India actually has the most say here being that it is us who will negotiate a settlement if at all....and it is the Indians that the Kashmiris need to convince to get ANY demands secured.....

Militarily changing the current scenario has been tried and tested to failure....so a political solution being the only non-violent option, the Indians I think have the most say here....
I think you fail to understand the sentiment that the Indian public has towards Kashmir....any govt. seen making a compromise to Indian interests in Kashmir can etch their tombstone right away....

Its not that easy to change the current scenario without convincing the avg. Indian...PERIOD!

 

[Peshwa]

as implied in my post, I believe he should be more active and participate; though that is his own prerogative....

unfortunately, as I also mentioned, it is not possible to be active in politics when the occupational forces are consistently placing him and his cohorts under house arrest; people (citizens) cannot participate actively in environment of curfews, checkpoints and other degrading atmospheric conditions

Not at all true.....

Lalu Yadav and a plethora of other leaders have been contesting elections from jail (State only).....in fact people with criminal backgrounds far worse than Mr.G here have been elected with the media and police up their arse....

Besides....as per your own perception, Mr. Geelani is the most popular man in the state....so by default majority would vote for him.....why does he need to campaign?

 

[nForce]

1. The hindu minority is really small in number in Pakistan and they don't have any issues being Pakistani. So when they have no problem living as a Pakistani there is no question of separate country for them. On the other hand kashmiris don't want to be Indian citizens.
But Still Hindus and Muslims are different in matters of religion, in terms of culture, in matters relating to a society, still in India a Muslim would not like his son/daughter get married with a hindu girl/boy. The separation is there from the start and will remain till the end, no matter what you say or misguide people but Muslims cannot merge with any other religious community, They are meant to the separate from everyone else.

So Muslims and Hindus cant live in the same nation,according to you.Thats the whole point of the ideology that you support.But,since Hindus are minoroty in Pakistan,hence they can be ignored or over ruled.They dont feature in your ideology anymore.But again,the very same ideology applies in case of the Indian Muslims...

How very convenient!!!!!

There goes your ideology down the drain..reasons being simple enough,it provides room for unfair discrimination of human beings..Come up with something better next time,or at first divide your own nation based on religion,then we may consider talking to you based on your ideology.

BTW,from what I know,there is significant Christian population in Pakistan as well.Yousuf Youhana,a cricketer in Pakistani cricket team,was a Christian.So what about them??Separate nation for them as well???