No need to get personal or emotional. You can make me emotional only if I am convinced that I am occupying something that is not mine. I am convinced that I am not.
"Personal or emotional"? Is straw man your go to? Or is it that you are overly sensitive to everything?
In fact, I am convinced that "if certain foreign ideology/mentality/morality/religion/whatever entered certain geography and started to take over parts of that geography such that the original ideology/mentality/morality/religion/whatever is erased completely in those parts", it is a much more clear case of occupation. You should be too and so should be any individual with logical, cognitive abilities.
That is a stance only held by the losing "
ideology/mentality/morality/religion/whatever". It is a natural human defense mechanism born from insecurities of losing power/influence and the fear of the new. It is an archaic stance, which already has and still continues to cause atrocities against millions. Stands opposed to logic and those with "cognitive abilities".
I could further stiffen my argument by stating the fact that neither Hinduism nor any of the other major religions in the subcontinent "originated" in Kashmir and hence would all be "occupiers" as per your argument. However, I'd rather first have you answer the fact that Kashmir, throughout its history, has never been an intrinsic part of any political entity resembling what is today the State of India, primarily because the very state of India and the former Princely State of Kashmir are themselves modern constructs born from the doings of a foreign occupational force. If India's stance is based on this false historical claim born from a dishonest jumbling together of a historical geographical concept with a modern political entity, then I'm afraid the Afghans, Central Asians, the Chinese, and even the Greek have an equal claim to Kashmir. I would advise caution while pursuing this arc, we don't want these guys also laying claim to regions belonging to the State of India today.
So, no. India, Hinduism, and Indians themselves are as foreign to Kashmir as anyone else. Kashmiris consider you as such, always have, always will.
Like I said above, occupied people and occupied region is your perspective.
And of Kashmiris. You know, those whose perspective is the only one that matters? Also accepted by India when it signed international agreements testifying to and acknowledging the fact that Kashmir is a disputed land and not sovereign Indian territory. I mean, you and Modi are more than welcome to print out as many new documents stating otherwise but these "mein nahi manta" statements will remain only comical.
Don't expect that perspective to be mine or India's.
I do not, seeing as how both you and the State of India come from a dishonest and disingenuous agenda.
In fact, read the para above and try to see if you can think form a perspective different than yours. I am not saying, you must. I am saying, can you try?
As explained above, no thank you. I can't be expected to entertain nonsensical fantasies concocted only to satiate the cognitive dissonance from what is Vs what you wish it was.
On a different note, if certain people are taking up arms for any & all reasons everywhere, no one takes them seriously. Gandhi strictly followed non-violence all his life. Then, at one point of time, he gave the slogan "Do or Die" ("Karo ya Maro"). It was a call for violence. It caught everyone's attention because he was a non-violent person all his life. If he was violent from beginning to end, no one would have paid attention to his "Do or Die" slogan. It would have been run-of-the-mill slogan. Just something for you to ponder over.
There's nothing to ponder over, your's is a nonsensical argument which does not even align with Kashmir's history. Which I'm guessing you have no clue about?
Your hate for the name "India" is ok. Refer my para above. Call it by any name. Call it a "geographic land" if you will (I hope you dont hate 'geography').
A geographic landmass (GL) had an identity X.
A foreigner with identity Y entered GL, carved out parts of GL and erased X from those carved out parts.
How long should the GL allow the above to repeat?
It has to be enough sometime. Is it Today? or Tomorrow? or Day After? When? You would agree it has to be sometime. Only disagreement between you and me should be "WHEN". Not on "WHETHER". Correct?
Please go back and re-read my post, repeat until actually understood. Make this your SOP before responding to any post.
The only identity the geographic landmass had was of a geographic landmass, which it still does. Geographic landmasses do not posses any political identity or power and hence can and cannot allow nothing. It is as idiotic as America (US) claiming Mexico and Canada because they are a part of America (the continent).
