The fact that religion was USED to create Pakistan does not mean it was correct. This politicized Islam has nothing to do with authentic or traditional Islam, the Islam of the Quran and Sunnah. The Two Nation Theory has no basis in Islam and was infact first propounded by a Hindu Mahasabha founder Sarvarkar. So please stop insulting yourself by connecting it with Islam.
This ideology of religious nationalism is a perverted version of similar western ideologies that is nothing but a way to grab political power using religion as a tool. There is nothing pious about it. That is why those who genuinely followed Islam rejected this viewpoint.
The Kashmiri public made a choice when in the first elections in the state in 1951, the national conference came to power and passed a resolution acceding to India. They accession was on TOP of the treaty signed by the Maharaja. So the people of Kashmir had shown their decision back in 1951 itself.
That should be the basis of the resolution of Kashmir. And seriously its about time this Two Nation theory nonsense is put in the bin. Pakistan is a multi-racial, multi-ligusitic and multi-religious country and all these sub-nations have to be given equal opportunities if Pakistan as a state has to succeed.
And on Kashmir, many Pakistanis wrongly believe that Kashmiris want to join Pakistan. That is wrong. Infact, by almost all independent polling studies a major majority oppose joining Pakistan. The valley mostly want independence and if you take J&K as a whole less than half want independence. But independence was never in the UN resolutions so that is out of the question.
98% Kashmiris do not want to join Pakistan
Actually you are uneducated. You are of that crowd which keeps screaming Maulana Azad.
There were many Islamic Scholars that agreed with the creation of Pakistan such as
Chaudhry Niaz Ali Khan.
There were many practicing Muslims such
Muhammad Asad ( formerly known as Leopold Weiss) and Chaudry Rehmat Ali who helped in the creation of Pakistan and were members of the All India Muslim League and helped create Pakistan out of their dedication for Islam.
But of course you have been blinded by propaganda.
As for you chess-writer you are
hypocrite. Lets try again, so me and Salman108 can understand what you are trying to say.
First of all Nehru promised that there would be a referendum in Kashmir. This has not happened.
The KASHMIRIS do not want India. Everybody knows that for sure. Even Arundhati Roy goes and tells that to the world.
According to the partition plan it did not matter where the princely states acceded to, because that would only be conditional,
for a referendum would then be done to see what the people wanted: Pakistan or India.
That is were India FAILED! India did not want to hold a referendum in Indian Occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan was ready to do so in her Kashmir.
Sheikh Abdullah in 1952 wanted self-determination for Kashmiris, but conveniently India ignored this.
And what does your argument of "a minority in any country will want independence, if they believe if it is an achievable aim."
What does this argument have to do with the Kashmir dispute?
Muslims are not a minority in Kashmir. And a referendum was supposed to happen according to the partition rules.
Chess-writer you are just beating around the bush.
---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------
@PakShah : LOL Buddy, I understand ! People say that when they are defeated. Sort of like the child who takes his bat and ball home when his friend hits him for a few sixes.
It is extremely hard for an unitellectual buffalo to understand that I used Historical examples to support an idea because you yourself demanded that I prove things. But I didn't talk about pelbiscite and stuff at all, because that is the only argument you have and it is the most flawed of all your arguments (because the Indian side has points too). So I saw it better to discuss the common threads and underlying ideas sorrounding the Kashmir issue. The Answer does not lie in the History of Kashmir, it lies in the Future of Kashmir and we can shape it by learning from the History of the whole world ---- Get my point ?!
Unfortunately , I had to tell you a few truths and humiliate you in doing so. But , you would of course admit that part of the problem lay in your rigidity. You were stuck like an old tape recorder on a few points(like saying economics don't matter and that I am a troll) but I used that to put you in your place.
Guess what, I am feeling a bit sorry now, You are after all, a human being, and an educated one at that (although it looks like you have been educated by a Mad Mullah in a Madrassa or something), so I sympathise with you.
Happy Debating, just don't mention anything ilogical here, or I will have to reply to it and then you wouldn't like it ! So far you keep yourself to liking other people's comments, you'll be fine and the stupidity of your arguments will stay hidden.
No, that is where you are wrong, the future of Kashmir is about
just and moral principles. India does not have any arguments if one looks at the history of the Kashmir dispute. India is holding Indian Occupied Kashmir by Force.
Go tell you pathetic arguments to Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, and Arundhati Roy.
I'm a university student by the way. I don't have a lot of time to waste with you.
And where are you chess-writer? Are you afraid to talk to me and salman108. Or have you realized you have been caught as a hypocrite and ran away?
And chess-write your arguments about the "future" and the "economic" situation of Kashmiris are pretty pathetic arguments.
Point1:
You are saying since so much time has passed, the principle of following the rules of the partition of the British Raj, is outdated?
Thats a pretty stupid argument.
If a person A borrows something from person b, and is supposed to give it back, but 30 years has passed, this means person A should not return the (eg.car) back to person B?
If person A does not return the borrowed object back to person B that is stealing and agianst
principles.
Likewise to India. If India is supposed to hold a referendum in Indian occupied Kashmir but going according to your nonsense, ooops 30-40 years has passed, and then your foolish countrymen say "just accept the line of control", this is going against the rules, this is going against principles.
This is where India FAILS.
Point 2:
Again you use "Economics." You cannot use money to buy out principles. That is where you fail.
Forget which country is more economically better.
I would rather be in my country and have my rights and be poor, than live with injustices and be rich!
Money cannot be used to buy freedom!
Seriously, your logic is weird dude. 
Stop living in wonderland ... No foreign power ever stopped you ... In 1947 , Nehru went running to the UN for cease fire , not Pakistan ... Shastri died of heart attack at Tashkent after calling for ceasefire in 1965 ... What reason would have been there for someone gaining territory to call for ceasefire and not the other party ? 
