future_bound
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- -10
Realistically there is going to be no solution of the kashmir conflict in the foreseeable future. No country is going to give up any land/territory as a compromise. And this discussion about Kashmir could go on forever simply because the issue was not resolved in 1947, is unresolved today and it will remain unresolved in the foreseeable future.
but you would notice one thing from the tone and views of most indian hindus on kashmir.
They actually believe that hindus have a God-given right to rule over the entire sub-continent. Because the issue of Kashmir was not resolved in 1947, the indian hindus today are claiming kashmir as their territory even though it has a muslim majority.
Now Keep in mind if the partition of 1947 had not happened. The hindus would also want to rule over the muslim majority areas of punjab, sindh and Khyber(formerly NWFP) against the will of the local muslim population. Hence that is why most hindus were against partition in 1947. Ofcourse the muslims with their larger numbers would not have tolerated this persecution by hindus and if there was no partition, it would have led to a very brutal civil war.
And if we go by the arguement that "might is right" or "possession is nine-tenths of the law", then i don't see why hindu indians today can complain about the british raj of the past. I would say that for the indian muslim minority today, the hindu-dominated government of india is far worse than the British raj of the past. Infact, if i had a choice as a muslim in india, i would rather live in a sub-continent under British Raj instead of living under a hindu-dominated government.
but you would notice one thing from the tone and views of most indian hindus on kashmir.
They actually believe that hindus have a God-given right to rule over the entire sub-continent. Because the issue of Kashmir was not resolved in 1947, the indian hindus today are claiming kashmir as their territory even though it has a muslim majority.
Now Keep in mind if the partition of 1947 had not happened. The hindus would also want to rule over the muslim majority areas of punjab, sindh and Khyber(formerly NWFP) against the will of the local muslim population. Hence that is why most hindus were against partition in 1947. Ofcourse the muslims with their larger numbers would not have tolerated this persecution by hindus and if there was no partition, it would have led to a very brutal civil war.
And if we go by the arguement that "might is right" or "possession is nine-tenths of the law", then i don't see why hindu indians today can complain about the british raj of the past. I would say that for the indian muslim minority today, the hindu-dominated government of india is far worse than the British raj of the past. Infact, if i had a choice as a muslim in india, i would rather live in a sub-continent under British Raj instead of living under a hindu-dominated government.