Revival of Khalistan or plot by ISI?

[ejaz007]

lol the only one that doesn't know history here is YOU. It is pak supported terrorist pathans that Invaded J&K, while the maharaja of kashmir succession and acceded J&K to India after which the 1st sikh batallion of IA was flown to srinagar inorder to save the capital city from Invading forces. If there is anyone that invaded J&K it is YOU.

hyderabad was in the middle of India with no connectivity with the outside world it is surrounded by India on all sides. The Hindu majority of Hyderabad were already up against the Nizam and there was a suppression on Hindu forces. Hyderabad state was offered an autonomy which was much greater than that of kashmir but the nizam rejected it and gave a signal for Indian govt to liberate them. (I am from Hyderabad so stop trying to teach me abt its history )

It was portugese that Invaded goa and harassed its people, India liberated its brothers and there motherland.

Next time when you speak of history try to read about it once.

I believe your logic comes from your behind instead of head.

In first part you declare us as invaders.

In the second part you are the liberators since majority of population was Hindu and had according to you revolted against the Muslim ruler.

What was the population doing in Kashmir exactly the same thing what according to you was happening in Hyderabad. Majority of population was Muslim and revolted against non Muslim ruler for ignoring their wishes.

Either we are also liberators or you are also invaders.

Logic can not be modified according to your requirements.

 

[Icewolf]

I believe your logic comes from your behind instead of head.

In first part you declare us as invaders.

In the second part you are the liberators since majority of population was Hindu and had according to you revolted against the Muslim ruler.

What was the population doing in Kashmir exactly the same thing what according to you was happening in Hyderabad. Majority of population was Muslim and revolted against non Muslim ruler for ignoring their wishes.

Either we are also liberators or you are also invaders.

Logic can not be modified according to your requirements.

"Me Karoo to baladtkar, Tum karo to chamatkar"

 

[itachiii]

I believe your logic comes from your behind instead of head.

Stop expecting every one to be of your kind.

In first part you declare us as invaders.

Prove me wrong if you can. Acc. to treaty of accession princely states had right to either join pakistan/ India/ stay neutral. Final decision lied with the ruler of these princely states to decide. both India and pak had no qualms over it. kashmir would have been part of pak had it shown a ltl patience. rather pak sent pathans to invade J&K after which maharaja hari singh signed treaty of accession by which J&K became a part of India. we could stand enemy forces invading our land so IA was flown in to kashmir to defend it. this is a reason why pak stance never found any support in Intl world.

In the second part you are the liberators since majority of population was Hindu and had according to you revolted against the Muslim ruler.

What was the population doing in Kashmir exactly the same thing what according to you was happening in Hyderabad. Majority of population was Muslim and revolted against non Muslim ruler for ignoring their wishes.

Lol, wasn't I clear when I said Hyderabad was in the middle of deccan?? and blocked routes to other south Indian states ?? the entire hyderabad state was surrounded by India on four sides and the nearest port was at least 250kms from the borders of hyderabad.

Hyderabad was not invaded becoz the hindu majority were being opressed and killed, congress back then and even today never cared about hindu lives. but becoz the Hyderabad state was preparing for war with India and the nizam took 22 crore ( a pretty large amount during that time) from pak in order to make war preparations. that was the turning point. BTW he didn't sign treaty of accession with pak

 

[ejaz007]

Stop expecting every one to be of your kind.

Prove me wrong if you can. Acc. to treaty of accession princely states had right to either join pakistan/ India/ stay neutral. Final decision lied with the ruler of these princely states to decide. both India and pak had no qualms over it. kashmir would have been part of pak had it shown a ltl patience. rather pak sent pathans to invade J&K after which maharaja hari singh signed treaty of accession by which J&K became a part of India. we could stand enemy forces invading our land so IA was flown in to kashmir to defend it. this is a reason why pak stance never found any support in Intl world.

Lol, wasn't I clear when I said Hyderabad was in the middle of deccan?? and blocked routes to other south Indian states ?? the entire hyderabad state was surrounded by India on four sides and the nearest port was at least 250kms from the borders of hyderabad.

Hyderabad was not invaded becoz the hindu majority were being opressed and killed, congress back then and even today never cared about hindu lives. but becoz the Hyderabad state was preparing for war with India and the nizam took 22 crore ( a pretty large amount during that time) from pak in order to make war preparations. that was the turning point. BTW he didn't sign treaty of accession with pak

Nizam of Hyderabad never had the intentions of joining Pakistan. He had opted for independent country. Hyderabad even had representation in the UN. Go read UN resolutions.

Second your logic that if a nation is surrounded on all sides by other nations then they can be occupied by force is as stupid as it can be. You are questioning the right to existence of a number of countries.

A nation who did not even had a proper army was preparing for war with India. You must be smoking something really strong.

Really how long people are going to say this is the revival of Khalistan....In my view, non-state actors from Pakistan who wanted to push their carders inside J&K are now struggling coz modern equipment used by Indian army for surveillance ...So they are opening a new front...

No your assumption is wrong.

Kashmir is a disputed territory, Punjab is not.

Better find these non state actors on your side of the border.

 

[itachiii]

Nizam of Hyderabad never had the intentions of joining Pakistan. He had opted for independent country. Hyderabad even had representation in the UN. Go read UN resolutions.

he wanted to join pak, nut geography played against his wishes.. go read about his love towards pak..

Second your logic that if a nation is surrounded on all sides by other nations then they can be occupied by force is as stupid as it can be. You are questioning the right to existence of a number of countries..

pardon my ignorance but how many countries exist deep inside other countries that are hostile to the host country..

A nation who did not even had a proper army was preparing for war with India. You must be smoking something really strong.

you should check the razakar leader qasim razvi statements on india, he waas calling for the muslims of hyderabad to carry quran in one hand and sword in other to fight india and make the nizam as the head of India .. on the other hand his razakkars were committing attrocities on hindus.. the kingdom was already in shamble and would have been crushed dwn by the hindu forces even if the IA didn't involve.. it was only a matter of time back then..

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I believe your logic comes from your behind instead of head.

In first part you declare us as invaders.

In the second part you are the liberators since majority of population was Hindu and had according to you revolted against the Muslim ruler.

What was the population doing in Kashmir exactly the same thing what according to you was happening in Hyderabad. Majority of population was Muslim and revolted against non Muslim ruler for ignoring their wishes.

Either we are also liberators or you are also invaders.

Logic can not be modified according to your requirements.

It's based on strength and realpolitik. If India was weaker Pakistan would have annexed all it wanted. Rest is all diplomatic speak.