How Kashmir was stolen from Pakistan by Mountbatten

[IND151]

Kashmir was not stolen from Pakistan, Infact Raja Harisingh was thinking to join Pakistan. but Pakistan Army showed impateince and attacked it. Harisingh did what any king will do for saving his kingdom he approached to Indian government & signed papers of accession in return of security assurance. No body stoled Kashmir its Pakistan's lust & impateince which cost them the loss.

About Gurdaaspur given to India & Why was Mountbatten not made governor of Pakistan you can check following link and find some answers yourself.

https://sites.google.com/site/cabin...en-and-jinnah-negotiations-on-pakistan-april-

right

had Pakistan not attacked Kashmir under international pressure hari singh would have been forced to accede it to Pakistan

 

[buddyboyyash]

But neither your govt nor you people have a single evidence to support this BS

after hafiz saeed 26/11 case...i believe evidences are BS in pakistan

 

[Joe Shearer]

For the bold part, I would have to go back to the History when Aurangzeb exploited and discriminated Hindus, Invaders Like Mauhammad Ghauri, including Mughals etc, all these people did not have a very good impression in the hearts of Natives. You should also consider that part. Fearing the Islamic leadership would not be accepted by Hindus after what their Great Grandparents had gone through, and why should they? If you could justify me this, I would be ready to accept Islam.

Coming to Gujarat Riots and etc and all, they were all the repercussions what the Minority tried to achieve through Violence in their dominating area in India. You should be also aware of how those riots started.

So there is indeed no comparison and you cannot expect a box of sugar If you gift poison to the latter. Still in India the people accept each other, WE have Public Holiday for EID, DiWALI, GURU NANAK Birthday, Mahavir Jayanti , Christmas, and Buddh Purnima. Do you have such in Pakistan?

I couldn't disagree more with this post, both with its contents and its tone.

Niaz was precisely right in pointing to the beginnings of religious exclusivity in politics. Perhaps due to politeness, he did not mention that Savarkar was the first person to articulate that theory that we all love to hate, the Two Nation Theory.

Much, not all, written about Aurangzeb is myth; he was obstinate, bigoted and implacable in his persecution of those he felt to be enemies of Mughal reign, specifically, his reign, but much of the malevolent aura around him is due to a cottage industry devoted to producing inchoate, unsubstantiated comments about how terrible he was. Three facts seem to have contributed to popular aversion to him: his apparent contrast to his benign and broadminded predecessors; his persecution of his brothers and father; his persecution of the personification of Hindu resurgence, of Hindu Pad Padshahi, Shivaji. Obviously, this ignores substance and leans heavily on symbolism.

For one, after the open-minded reign of Akbar, first, Jehangir, then, more than he, Shah Jahangir, were increasingly rigid and unbending on issues of religious tolerance. Before drawing our breath in sharply, it would well to remember that both princes came to the throne with the support of powerful factions in court. In that court, there was an increasingly weaker constituency for religious toleration.

That also gives us clues to his cruelty to his brothers and father; that's how things were. The first Mughal actually asked his son to take a lenient view of his brothers, even if they proved unreliable or even hostile. They were unreliable and treacherous and poor Humayun had a very difficult time with his brothers. The trend continued, through every reign, ambitious young princes challenging ea ch other for the throne, and taking no prisoners.

Finally, the great Maratha was actually housed as a great courtier should have been, from all accounts. He was under strict guard; his return to a career of guerrilla resistance to the Mughal state was unthinkable. But he was not in prison, he was not physically in danger, and he was not executed out of hand to start with.

We could go on, but this was a most unappealing presentation of a case, whatever the case was.

 

[DGMO]

Whatever has happened, has happened. It's how we move forward from the current situation that really matters. If we keep on digging up history, then how much progress do we honestly expect to make?

The truth is, we're not going back to 1947 or 48 and readdressing any grievances there may be. We need to be honest with ourselves on what is the most realistic solution for all concerned parties. Pakistan is not going to take Jammu, Ladakh and Leh, and India is not going to take the Northern Areas or AJK.

Therefore, we have a stalemate, and that will form the basis for any resolution. We can cry about what Mountbatten did, what was said, what was written etc. until the cows come home. The fact is that it won't influence any final decision or peace between India and Pakistan, or offer any breathing space for the Kashmiri's.

Once the LoC is confirmed as the final border in a peace deal, we can move forward towards friendship and prosperity.

What is the problem with that? Why does common sense and reality elude so many people on this subject?

 

[niaz]

Hon Joe Shearer has hit the nail on the head. It is the mass hysteria which brings the animal out of the normally rational humans.

For example, Indra Gandhi was shot by her Sikh body guard. A murder most heinous and foul. Suppose the mob had dragged the body of the assassin thru dirt and the hung on a pole for all to see; barbarous acts but nevertheless it was understandable fury. But to run around the streets of Delhi targeting Sikhs and their property? How is this justified? It is doubtful if any of the 3,000 or so Sikhs reputed to be killed during riots even knew the assassin or in any way related to the killer.

I hear the argument about Aurangzeb and Moghal far too often, especially after the famous Advani Rath Yatra. People forget that many Hindu Rajputs were part of the Aurangzeb’s army and fighting their fellow Hindus Marhatas. One such was Raja Jai Singh of Amber and it was him who brought Shivaji to Delhi in the first place. Why reserve one’s hate for Aurangzeb alone, why not settle the score with the Bhatti, Rathore and Kachwahha Rajputs as well who sided with Aurangzeb?

Aurangzeb fought and killed his brothers and imprisoned his father that should tell you about the ruthless nature of the man. To consider Muslims of today; a vast majority of whom are converts and carry no Mughal blood: responsible for crimes of Aurangzeb who died in 1707is very twisted logic.

Alas there too many with such outlook all over the world. It is only a few years ago that Serbs killed hundreds of Bosnians ostensibly because of the atrocities committed by Ottoman Turks who were ruling Serbia up to the 19th Century; ignoring the fact that Bosnians are ethically and linguistically related to Serbs.

Times during the Aurangzeb and Ottoman Turk era were totally different. Majority were illiterate and superstitious, whereas now most people are literate and some highly educated.
However it is precisely this kind of view point which leads me to conclude that scientific achievements aside, civilization in most people, even those who are educated, runs only skin deep.

Coming back to the topic of Kashmir. My personal view concurs with the solution that both the parts of Kashmir should be united and given independence, with easy access to both Indians and Pakistanis.

I honestly can’t see any other way that would be even remotely acceptable to Kashmiris as well as to India and Pakistan.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I'm happy to see that majority of Kashmiris have a favourable view of Pakistan and that despite our domestic problems, there are people that still keep Kashmiris and their plight at heart.

may the Kashmiri nation see victory

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

I'm happy to see that majority of Kashmiris have a favourable view of Pakistan and that despite our domestic problems, there are people that still keep Kashmiris and their plight at heart.

may the Kashmiri nation see victory

Most of the kashmiris have lost trust in pakistan. Meri kashmiri se baat cheet hoti rehti he, they want independant kashmir country.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Most of the kashmiris have lost trust in pakistan. Meri kashmiri se baat cheet hoti rehti he, they want independant kashmir country.

some of them have, actually...no doubt

but then again, they should just be able to determine their fate -- free of intimidation. Pakistan had one thing going for it. We never had to subjugate, humiliate and degrade Kashmiris and instill fear into them.

it's no wonder that despite some untoward incidents, Azad Kashmir sees no anti-Pakistan resistance. The people are very nationalistic there - even if they have economic issues or other issues.

 

[Joe Shearer]

some of them have, actually...no doubt

but then again, they should just be able to determine their fate -- free of intimidation. Pakistan had one thing going for it. We never had to subjugate, humiliate and degrade Kashmiris and instill fear into them.

it's no wonder that despite some untoward incidents, Azad Kashmir sees no anti-Pakistan resistance. The people are very nationalistic there - even if they have economic issues or other issues.

I agree with Niaz' vision of the only stable outcome, with some reservations. These reservations are due to the existence of people who write self-deluding, self-congratulating comments like this one above.

Have you come across the term 'disingenuous'?

What would you expect after millions have been spent on subsidizing religious fanatics to do nothing but spout unremitting hatred, breed suspicion, question every act of administration as being part of a deep conspiracy, and destroy every spell of peace with a rent-a-crowd riot? That people should sit around a bonfire, sipping cocoa and singing Kumbaya?

In the same vein, when you make sanctimonious remarks, you no doubt know that the centre forward of your team doesn't pay his taxes because he can't explain his income?

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Lal Chowk, Sri Nagar, Occupied Kashmir

 

[lkozhi]

Lal Chowk, Sri Nagar, Occupied Kashmir

[/QUOTE

Putting a flag like that is insulting. The moon is facing other way and flag is ulta . Very nice

 

[Pakistanisage]

Lal Chowk, Sri Nagar, Occupied Kashmir

[/QUOTE

Putting a flag like that is insulting. The moon is facing other way and flag is ulta . Very nice

I think you are missing the point, as usual.

The INSULT is directed at India ? Capisch, Genius ???????

 

[kas786]

Lal Chowk, Sri Nagar, Occupied Kashmir

[/QUOTE

Putting a flag like that is insulting. The moon is facing other way and flag is ulta . Very nice

The message was clear.

The poor guys had to work with whatever limited resources they had to make the flag and put it up there. After all, YOU guys had control over them.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Lal Chowk, Sri Nagar, Occupied Kashmir

[/QUOTE

Putting a flag like that is insulting. The moon is facing other way and flag is ulta . Very nice

these are small nuances.....

the fact that they compromised a bit to ensure the sitaara-hilal were facing correctly is refreshing.


Lal Chowk is actually a very interesting place, with a very interesting history to it. Not sure if this is the appropriate place to delve into it. But very symbolic venue for the Kashmir Freedom movement.

 

[lkozhi]

la bangladesh not working out that well. Keep trying. Because of afgan issues not many terrorists available so sleeping on kashmir. Actually GOI missed an opportunity to show world press as to who is behind kashmir problems. Should have made this to a press party as 26/11.