qsaark
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,638
- Reaction score
- 0
“Maybe not for Muslims, but definitely for Kashmiris”. Why is that? The ‘Two Nation Theory’ was the basis of the partition, was it not? If the theory was correct, why we decided to help the Kashmiris but left the Muslims of HyderAbad, Junagarh and Manavader on their own? What was so special about the Kashmiris? I tell you what was so special. Special was the region where they live. Special is the source of fresh water Kashmir has. If Kashmir was a desert, you think we were so eager to help them?Maybe not for Muslims, but definitely for Kashmiris. They are struggling for what we (my ancestors, and maybe yours) did, and their desires are the same as ours, freedom in a land of their own, amongst their own people. I understand your point, but we are not fighting for a chunk of land. We are fighting with the people to whom that chunk of land belongs to. Not the same thing at all, not even close. We didn't struggle for Hyderabad because the people did not struggle for the same cause. They waited there for the rest of us to do something, whereas the Kashmiris didn't, they fought tooth and nail, and continue to do so. Again, I can't stress enough, India and Pakistan relative to Kashmir, not the same deal at all. I am sad that you, a poster whom I respect so much, feels this way.
When we sent in our troops back in 1948, it was the Pakistan Army and the Lashkaris (the tribal folks) who fought tooth to nail not the Kashmiris (few exceptions were there). Similarly when Pakistan started a covert operation in the valley in 1965 (The Op. Gibraltar), most of our fine men were got arrested and/or killed by the Indian Army on the 'lead' of no one else but the same Kashmiris for who’s liberation those men were sent in.
Last edited: