Kashmir's illegal occupation by India justifies calls for Azadi: JNU Professor.

[Spectre]

It's her, did you watch the video btw?
Error, really, is it ?
Because there are no scope for error on the Right, its all intolerance, saffron terror and award wapsi. Here a Professor, winner of a national award- Ramanujan award, who is armed with every word of golwalkar, even a 100 year old essay that condones the british raj, cannot have an escape route of "just a factual error". Would you concede such "error", if there was a small generalization on JNU or jadavpur....



lets not conflate the issue, I don't care what students say, it is obvious that students will chant freedom from India, when the teacher here on the campus is saying 40% of India is under occupation and Kashmir illegally occupied. I do something earlier suggested to me : Hang my head in shame.

You got me! I did not watch the video but rather guessed on it's content based on the conversation flow in this thread. Sadly my guess wasn't off the mark at all. These kind of misrepresentation turns my stomach but it doesn't worry me because I am pretty much secure in my belief of sanctity of Indian cause and I am sure 99% of Indians are too.

My friend don't be so despondent. We Indians are too sensitive a bunch, we need to have thicker skins. Hell there are more secessionists in the rust belts of Michigan than in mainland India.

Freedom of speech is not a problem. But intentionaly or unintentionaly they are potentialy creating hundreds of Arundhati Roy s. They could use same freedom of speech in valley and do other way around. And Kashmiri Pandits are not even given space to speak.

This issue is hanging since decades. And since it is a major cause of enmity between India and Pakistan, Americans and Brits will not let it solve anytime soon. They will never let us have final war, nor any peaceful solution. They like it hanging. They can easily flame religious violence if it ever reaches a resolution.

But since unlike Pakistan, Indian government is happy with status quo, it needs unrest from within. Not saying that these institutes are being funded, but sometimes 'order from top' does the job. So we need to crackdown the top. Or just let it happen, its just freedom of speech.

Ms Roy for all her complaints should atleast appreciate the fact that she is not behind bars and is allowed to indulge in her cause. In a less tolerant society her lifespan would have been measured in minutes. This is the freedom of speech I respect and try to advocate - Equally for Arundhati Roys and Yogi Adityanaths.

I agree with your assertion that it should go both ways but sadly majority rights makes for bad optics.

 

[rubyjackass]

Nah bro terrorists use the freedoms and democratic system to get away with their ways. Such actions have to be called into play, because of there tactics they utilize. The main issue is controlling it properly so it used for only issues only like a severe national security threat.

Its very simple when the king signed Kashmir over to India, it was a done deal. Pakistan if you were so confident of obtaining Kashmir, then why did you attack?

I would be perfectly fine if India executed jihadi nutjobs. But the conversation is very distorted by half-truths and falsehoods these days. There is a thread doing rounds saying JNU students hailed Afzal Guru as a hero. Whereas what JNU students, a group of them anyway, are only questioning the way he was executed. His family was not allowed to meet him. Afzal Guru did not cry 'death for India'. Nobody is calling him a hero now. They are only calling him a victim. And for that people are branded 'anti-nationalist', desh-drohi and what-not. A hardcore jihadi would want to be remembered as a martyr nut-job and will spout the same BS during his prosecution. They don't submit like pu**ies. If they are using such tactics, they will be acknowledging Indian law in the process. As to them being a national security threat, I agree, in some cases, we have to be ruthless. But when the lines are not clear, there are lesser punishments than death.

What did the Government achieve by jailing JNU student union president anyway? They manufactured the strongest orator opponent in Indian politics for themselves today.

 

[HariPrasad]

One more fifth columnist on ISI role.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is an active lie, to couch things in the terms that she has.

Does it need answering? At that forum, at that moment, no. Waste of time and of productive energy.

Elsewhere, yes.

@Spectre @Joe Shearer I will reserve my comments, Please somebody explain to me how is it that I have been reading the UNSC resolution wrong for all these years, Evidently the JNU faculty is way more educated smarter and surely more patriotic than I can ever be, so I will deeply appreciate if someone could break down and explain the horrible illegal occupation of Indian forces.

regards

 

[Joe Shearer]

I visited today to find a lot of comment and very little or no insight, and a devastating amount of misinformation about various topics. These comments and the issues involved revolve around three issues:

1. The status of Kashmir;
2. The question of freedom of speech;
3. The question of constitutional sovereignty and the rule of law.

Let me address them at one place, in separate posts, and, it is hoped, deal with the high states of indignation as kindly as is possible.

THE STATUS OF KASHMIR

1. The position is quite clear: Kashmir was to have been one of the states ruled by a sovereign prince which emerged from Britain's suzerainty.
2. These sovereign princes were assured away from the written word that these states would not be encouraged to apply for Dominion status. They would have to join either India or Pakistan, and become part of these Dominions.
3. One of the reasons for encouraging the princes to join either of them was that it would then be an incentive for India to join the Commonwealth. It was important for Attlee, hence formed part of Mountbatten's instructions, to have India do so. Among other things, it would display that the partition of the country was no fault of Britain's.
4. There were further conditions, conveyed verbally by Mountbatten. One was the matter of contiguity. The prince could not join a Dominion not contiguous to his territory.
5. Kashmir held out and would not decide for some time. She entered into a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan, and sought to avoid a decision.
6. Rebellion against the Maharaja's rule broke out close together in western Jammu and in Gilgit-Baltistan. In GB, the British-raised and managed Gilgit Scouts mutinied under their commander, and took over the territory.
7. With the support of the Mehtar of Chitral's state forces, these mutineers aggressively attacked the rest of the territory, took Skardu, took Kargil and besieged Leh.
8. There were two other waves of violence, originating in Poonch and across the border in Pakistan. The cumulative weight of all these tipped the Maharaja's mind. He acceded to India.
9. Under prompting from Mountbatten, Nehru accepted the accession, and added that India would seek the will of the people of the state wrt the accession, once peace and quiet was restored. Indian troops were airlifted in.
10. The siege of Leh was lifted, Kargil re-captured, Rajauri re-captured, Poonch captured and Muzaffarabad was within striking distance. At this point, India referred the matter to the UN.
11. The UN Security Council sought the vacation of the aggression, and holding of the plebiscite and asked for the following:
    1. A ceasefire;
    2. A vacation by Pakistan of all the territory of J&K, soldiers and irregular fighters alike;
    3. A maintenance by India of such troops as were necessary to maintain law and order;
    4. Holding of the plebiscite.
12. This could not be done due to the refusal of Pakistan to withdraw, for various reasons.
13. The matter has remained at this point in terms of location of troops of either side, other than for small movements such as the restitution of Haji Pir Pass, the pre-emptive occupation of the Siachen Glacier, the cession of Shaksgam, the loss of Aksai Chin, and such.
14. In Pakistan Administered Kashmir, the Azad Kashmir government had come into being in Mirpur, headquartered in Muzaffarabad. In Indian Administered Kashmir, the Maharaja's Prime Minister was removed and Sheikh Abdullah was appointed in his place.
15. Under the Indian Constitution, adopted and brought into force on 26th January 1950, the State retained a degree of autonomy under Article 370, pending the promulgation of its own Constitution.
16. In 1956, the State Constituent Assembly presented it its Constitution which was adopted on the 17th November, and remains in force.
17. In 1972, in terms of the Shimla Pact, Pakistan and India agreed that J&K was a bilateral issue and no third party intervention would be sought.
18. The present situation is that two measures have an effect on the governance of Jammu and Kashmir, as far as India is concerned: Article 370 in the Indian Constitution, and the J&K Constitution.

Some special aspects have been omitted in order to articulate the Indian point of view to which I subscribe completely.

 

[American Pakistani]

Why should I check? It is you who is getting mixed up.

You are wrong. You need to keep track of what you post.

 

[dadeechi]

You are wrong. You need to keep track of what you post.

Sure but I cannot keep track of what I did not post.

 

[American Pakistani]

Sure but I cannot keep track of what I did not post.

Nor can you post some nonsense and deny it.

 

[dadeechi]

Nor can you post some nonsense and deny it.

I can neither deny what I have posted nor can accept that I did not.

 

[rubyjackass]

@Spectre @Joe Shearer I will reserve my comments, Please somebody explain to me how is it that I have been reading the UNSC resolution wrong for all these years, Evidently the JNU faculty is way more educated smarter and surely more patriotic than I can ever be, so I will deeply appreciate if someone could break down and explain the horrible illegal occupation of Indian forces.

regards

They are numbnut idealists. Many of their ilk go by the line that all people should be able to decide their state, even if that state is Islamic state. They wouldn't dare to make the same suggestion in Balochistan or in Iraq. But they want everyone to live in peace, Indians and those who are not. To call these academics anti-national is a bad play of the word. Is Noam Chomsky anti-national? He is still a persona on TV(serious TV not FOX news). Ask them what happens to the pro-Indian Kashmiris and non-muslims in the valley and beyond. They will just shrug.

 

[American Pakistani]

I can neither deny what I have posted nor can accept that I did not.

After you got busted, you have lost it all. I'm lovin it.

 

[dadeechi]

After you got busted, you have lost it all. I'm lovin it.

You cannot even quote where I posted a wiki link that says it all.

 

[American Pakistani]

You cannot even quote where I posted a wiki link that says it all.

Why would I after you deleted? You posted wiki which represents your mentality then you post some unknown piece of parchment. That is all you posted to counter my solid proof where akbar but and grandson of khan of Kalat were stating the facts on why it joined pakistan. First you posted off topic then you posted nonsense sources after getting busted.

 

[dadeechi]

Why would I after you deleted? You posted wiki which represents your mentality then you post some unknown piece of parchment. That is all you posted to counter my solid proof where akbar but and grandson of khan of Kalat were stating the facts on why it joined pakistan. First you posted off topic then you posted nonsense sources after getting busted.

The reason you could not find was not because I deleted it (Maybe you do not know that I do not have privileges to delete my posts) but I never made any such posts to start with. The post you are referring to is below. Posted by my friend @eyeswideshut

As I said you just mixed up things.

Kashmir's illegal occupation by India justifies calls for Azadi: JNU Professor. | Page 12

The following is what I posted

Kashmir's illegal occupation by India justifies calls for Azadi: JNU Professor. | Page 11

 

[American Pakistani]

The reason you could not find was not because I deleted it (Maybe you do not know that I do not have privileges to delete my posts) but I never made any such posts to start with. The post you are referring to is below. Posted by my friend @eyeswideshut

As I said you just mixed up things.

Kashmir's illegal occupation by India justifies calls for Azadi: JNU Professor. | Page 12

The following is what I posted

Kashmir's illegal occupation by India justifies calls for Azadi: JNU Professor. | Page 11

View attachment 297024

You thanked his post in acknowledgement which equals it.

Junagadh Manvadar were bordering sea. Balochistan had several states in it out of which all states joined Pakistan way before kalat and gwadar. Kalat joined after it's ruler announced to merge the state with Pakistan without waiting for kalat jirga's results. Gwadar was purchased in early 50's. The jirga elders who consists of nawabs and sardar were unhappy about khan of kalat's unilateral decision but they knew that they had no other option because after all Balochistan's states merger kalat was surrounded by Pakistan from all 4 sides. Hyderabad Deccan and junagadh manvadar's case was worst because their rulers decided not to join india but were forcefully annexed. Although the people were in favor of merging with india because they were hindus.

IOK was total aggression and occupation. The kashmiris were promised by their ruler dog ra that they will be asked before any decision but due to dogra's leaning position towards india and indian occupation of several states the kashmiris revolted. There was mutiny against dogra in the troops too. The entire Gilgit troops thrashed dogra army and merged itself with Pakistan. Kashmiris didn't had army but the population went out of control and dogra invited india to invade. Kashmir is only with india on gunpoint. Take your 7lakh occupier terrorists and see how soon kashmir quits india.