Terrorists kill 2 bank guards in Kashmir

[DarX]

Kashmir became part of India when the accession was approved by the king. From that moment, Kashmir belonged to India and Indians, including the new Indian Kashmiri citizens. Why should a large percentage of the population loose land because of a few? We have to consider the needs of the majority. They can have Kashmir as a part of India or they can be stateless people. Their choice.

Hyderabad acceded to Pakistan. Why wasn't that area given its rights? But that was wrong because the majority of Hyderabad wanted to join India. Kashmir is a similar case.

I don't know why you think that Kashmir is the property of India. It is owned by Kashmiri people only. The majority or minority are within Kashmiri people only, not the whole of India.

The choice now is not for the Kashmiri people to make. Kashmir has made its choice. It is for Indians. Will they let Kashmir get independent from India? Or will the independence of Kashmir occur with fracturing of India into a dozen states? Their choice.

 

[Corona]

Hyderabad acceded to Pakistan. Why wasn't that area given its rights? But that was wrong because the majority of Hyderabad wanted to join India. Kashmir is a similar case.

I don't know why you think that Kashmir is the property of India. It is owned by Kashmiri people only. The majority or minority are within Kashmiri people only, not the whole of India.

The choice now is not for the Kashmiri people to make. Kashmir has made its choice. It is for Indians. Will they let Kashmir get independent from India? Or will the independence of Kashmir occur with fracturing of India into a dozen states? Their choice.

There is nothing common about Hyderabad and Kashmir. Kashmir is located between the borders of India and Pakistan. Hyderabad was deep in Indian territory, literally an island. It was geographically and politically infeasible. Would any country let an enemy nation have a foothold in it's territory? Would said territory even survive being surrounded by enemies? Remember what happened to Bangladesh.
I don't think that Kashmir is the property of India, I know that Kashmir IS a PART of India. Same goes for the people, citizens of India. And I would love to keep it that way, but if they want out they can go out. Land stays.

 

[DarX]

There is nothing common about Hyderabad and Kashmir. Kashmir is located between the borders of India and Pakistan. Hyderabad was deep in Indian territory, literally an island. It was geographically and politically infeasible. Would any country let an enemy nation have a foothold in it's territory? Would said territory even survive being surrounded by enemies? Remember what happened to Bangladesh.
I don't think that Kashmir is the property of India, I know that Kashmir IS a PART of India. Same goes for the people, citizens of India. And I would love to keep it that way, but if they want out they can go out. Land stays.

So you have one set of rules for one case and another for the second? That doesn't sound ethical. But then what is ethical about the Indian stance? Although I personally feel that accession is the wrong pretext, where the Muslim Nizam decided the fate of his Hindu subjects and the Hindu Raja decided the fate of the Kashmiri Muslims, if the accession is the deciding point, then India could've made a treaty to allow Hyderabad to accede to Pakistan and allowed free movement. It could've been just like the EU. Everything is possible. The border is only an imaginary line.

But all of this is moot. Just like India can't let go of its obsession with the land of the Kashmiris, the Kashmiris can't accept Indian rule. The people stay. The land stays. The Indian govt will go.

 

[Corona]

So you have one set of rules for one case and another for the second? That doesn't sound ethical. But then what is ethical about the Indian stance? Although I personally feel that accession is the wrong pretext, where the Muslim Nizam decided the fate of his Hindu subjects and the Hindu Raja decided the fate of the Kashmiri Muslims, if the accession is the deciding point, then India could've made a treaty to allow Hyderabad to accede to Pakistan and allowed free movement. It could've been just like the EU. Everything is possible. The border is only an imaginary line.

But all of this is moot. Just like India can't let go of its obsession with the land of the Kashmiris, the Kashmiris can't accept Indian rule. The people stay. The land stays. The Indian govt will go.

Kashmir as a border land had a chance. Hyderabad never did.
Oh and we've had the land for 70 years and we've gotten quite good at keeping it regardless of what happens to the people......

 

[DarX]

Kashmir as a border land had a chance. Hyderabad never did.
Oh and we've had the land for 70 years and we've gotten quite good at keeping it regardless of what happens to the people......

Having control of the land for 70 years is no guarantee of its continuity, and judging by the panicked reaction of India towards Kashmir, it is slipping out of India's grasp. Get your passports ready if you might want to visit Srinagar.

 

[Corona]

Having control of the land for 70 years is no guarantee of its continuity, and judging by the panicked reaction of India towards Kashmir, it is slipping out of India's grasp. Get your passports ready if you might want to visit Srinagar.

70 years in our hands gives us the edge over those gun totting wanna be Rambos on social media that we pack and ship to the afterlife on a weekly basis......oh and I don't need any passport to visit my own land.

 

[DarX]

70 years in our hands gives us the edge over those gun totting wanna be Rambos on social media that we pack and ship to the afterlife on a weekly basis......oh and I don't need any passport to visit my own land.

70 years of rule.. And Indians still only obsess with land of the Kashmir, rather than have any emotional bond with the Kashmiris?

 

[RISING SUN]

They attacked a cash van. That is what is mentioned in the report. You didn't notice?

After demonetization, cash hoarded by extremists were turned to waste. New notes are intentionally low in supply. Extremists can't use digital means of transaction like plastic money as government will be able to track them down. So they have only one option left to get hands on bulk currency notes that is stored in bank branch. So they try to rob distant located banks to get their hands on currency. As most of branches have kashmiri people as employee, it piches kashmiri people against the extremists including kashmiri extremists. You should read recent such attempts. If you need links, do let me know. Thank you.

 

[Peshwa]

Indians have no sympathy for Kashmiri people. They only want their land. If you think that there is no example of a people breaking free from a powerful occupation, then I would suggest you should have a look at a history book.

The path is now set. Sooner or later, Kashmir will free itself from India.

We would have sympathy if their behavior garnered any sympathy to begin with.
Stone pelting, destroying property, killing civilians, policemen, attacking the army are not behaviors we tolerate. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and mind you, before 89 militancy, we didn't have AFSPA or the levels of army concentrations in Kashmir either. It was the Kashmiris (and Pakistani terrorists) that evoked an armed reaction from us. So like I said, Kashmiris should drop their violent methods and use the democratic process to seek freedom within the boundaries of the Indian constitution. Otherwise they can continue to get blinded and killed as a reaction to their violence.

I repeat again, the Kashmiris face an uphill task against the wishes of 1.2 billion people. Nothing is impossible, but the odds are not in their favor.But of course you can go the Lloyd Christmas way......

You just proved the point of the Kashmiri people. Land belongs to the people of Kashmir. People of Kashmir stay. Land of Kashmir stays. India and Indians go.

If Pakistan is so concerned about the Kashmiri people, Pakistan should drop its claim on Kashmir completely and push for an independent Kashmir. Because that's what the majority in the polls suggest.
Why don't you lead by example and show us all the true love for human rights and Kashmiris?!

You're a bunch of hypocrites, that is all! You want the same thing we want, ie Kashmir the strategic piece of land. But since you cant get your grubby paws on it through force, you resort to singing kumbaya and acting like bastions of human rights!
Wonder where your human rights were when the Bengalis were asking for their rights? Please save the crocodile tears, we know your kind too well!

Firstly, Kashmir never belonged to India. it was a separate state which even got special status under the puppets who signed the accession to India.

Then I would challenge you to show me where in history did Kashmir belong to the people of Kashmir to begin with?
It has always been under one ruler or another. And its last ruler acceded Kashmir to India. We have a legal case while yours is purely emotional which literally holds no value to us. PERIOD!

 

[DarX]

We would have sympathy if their behavior garnered any sympathy to begin with.
Stone pelting, destroying property, killing civilians, policemen, attacking the army are not behaviors we tolerate. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and mind you, before 89 militancy, we didn't have AFSPA or the levels of army concentrations in Kashmir either. It was the Kashmiris (and Pakistani terrorists) that evoked an armed reaction from us. So like I said, Kashmiris should drop their violent methods and use the democratic process to seek freedom within the boundaries of the Indian constitution. Otherwise they can continue to get blinded and killed as a reaction to their violence.

It is quite clear that Indians have an "Us vs Them" attitude against the Kashmiris. There is nothing further to discuss.

I repeat again, the Kashmiris face an uphill task against the wishes of 1.2 billion people. Nothing is impossible, but the odds are not in their favor.But of course you can go the Lloyd Christmas way......

Do you know what is the definition of courage? It is anything but backing down against superior numbers. Many super powers have been humbled by the people of a land, and Kashmiris are only facing India here. Kashmiris have a much higher chance than the Vietnamese.

If Pakistan is so concerned about the Kashmiri people, Pakistan should drop its claim on Kashmir completely and push for an independent Kashmir. Because that's what the majority in the polls suggest.
Why don't you lead by example and show us all the true love for human rights and Kashmiris?!

Haha. So you're comparing IOK to Azad Kashmir, when the Indian Army Chief, General Bipin Rawat, had to stoop to the point that he had to threaten the people of Kashmir that they will turn their guns on civilians?

You're a bunch of hypocrites, that is all! You want the same thing we want, ie Kashmir the strategic piece of land. But since you cant get your grubby paws on it through force, you resort to singing kumbaya and acting like bastions of human rights!
Wonder where your human rights were when the Bengalis were asking for their rights? Please save the crocodile tears, we know your kind too well!

Nothing comes close to the hypocrisy of Indians. They scream for the blood of Kashmiris and then act the victims in the capitals of the world. The area of Azad Kashmir has been kept under separate jurisdiction since 1948 just so it can be reunited with an independent IOK. Pakistanis have no right to purchase land in Azad Kashmir and only the defense, for obvious reasons, is provided by Pakistan army. The fact remains that the flag of Pakistan waves proudly on the streets of Kashmir, while the flag of India has no backers in Srinagar.

With regards to the Bengalis, the difference between India and Pakistan today is that we realized our mistakes and carry no ill will towards them. That is much less than what the Indians have been able to do since 1947. We know your kind too well!

Then I would challenge you to show me where in history did Kashmir belong to the people of Kashmir to begin with?
It has always been under one ruler or another. And its last ruler acceded Kashmir to India. We have a legal case while yours is purely emotional which literally holds no value to us. PERIOD!

Haha. So if Kashmir didn't belong to its people and only belonged to its rulers, does India actually belong to the British, or the Afghans, or the Persians, or the Mongols? or the Greeks?

The British have a legal case, while Gandhi had a purely emotional case which should have no value to you? Or Bhagat Singh should be treated as an arsonist and a murderer instead of a hero? Shashi Tharoor should stop demanding the British for an apology and you along with all of India should kneel before the British for forgiveness against the Indian protests for freedom? The Indian rebellion of 1857 was actually the mutiny of 1857 as the British had termed it? The Jallianwal Bagh massacre was absolutely justified?

Please don't run away now and explain all of this in the light of your statements for the Kashmiris. Or else it will be proved that your kind was just the sort that we had thought you were.

 

[Peshwa]

It is quite clear that Indians have an "Us vs Them" attitude against the Kashmiris. There is nothing further to discuss.

Sure. And the US vs. them attitude is a product of the behavior of the Kashmiris. If they were peaceful, we the common Indian would be in their corner.
But since that's not the case, we are fine with treating them the way they want to be treated.

But you're right, you as a Pakistani, there isn't much to discuss Kashmir with you anyways.

Do you know what is the definition of courage? It is anything but backing down against superior numbers. Many super powers have been humbled by the people of a land, and Kashmiris are only facing India here. Kashmiris have a much higher chance than the Vietnamese.

Do you know the definition of stupidity?! Its trying the same thing over and over expecting different results.
In the case of Pakistanis and by extension the dissenting Kashmiris, the line between courage and stupidity is a hairline.

Kashmiris have tried the violent approach in the past only to be crushed under the boot of the Indian army. Pakistan has tried to wrest Kashmir from our control by force only to be humiliated time and again. Not to mention been cut down to size as a result of the same.
Now both Kashmiris and Pakistanis can try invoking the power of "Jihad" and see where it gets you. LOL!
I for one wont be holding my breath.
Maybe its not the definition of courage you should be looking up. Try Pragmatism and Practicality. But I suppose the Pakistani curriculum has not gone past the C in the alphabet, so we shall give it a few years. You too shall accept your fate dear Pakistani.

Haha. So you're comparing IOK to Azad Kashmir, when the Indian Army Chief, General Bipin Rawat, had to stoop to the point that he had to threaten the people of Kashmir that they will turn their guns on civilians?

I suppose missing the woods for the trees is the standard Pakistani approach. So ill let you slide.

You claim to have a "moral and emotional" connection to the Kashmiri cause. So please put your money where your mouth is and give up claim on ALL Kashmir as per Kashmiri wishes, which is to be independent of India and Pak. Maybe then we will take your nautanki of having a moral high ground seriously.
But who are you trying to fool? Like I said, we know your kind way too well.

Nothing comes close to the hypocrisy of Indians. They scream for the blood of Kashmiris and then act the victims in the capitals of the world.

I suppose you've never heard of an action and reaction.
India is reacting to violent Kashmiris. We obviously would prefer to kill no one. But peace cannot be one sided.
Our diplomacy in other capitals is to dissuade Pakistan from arming and using Kashmiris as cannon fodder.
Now in the process if Indians (army or civilians) die at the hands of Kashmiri and Pakistani terrorism, we will obviously demand retribution of equal measure.
So what you consider baying for blood is simply our attempt at eliminating violent elements from Kashmir. Our diplomacy is to have your friends (the few that exist) to knock some sense into you guys.

The area of Azad Kashmir has been kept under separate jurisdiction since 1948 just so it can be reunited with an independent IOK. Pakistanis have no right to purchase land in Azad Kashmir and only the defense, for obvious reasons, is provided by Pakistan army. The fact remains that the flag of Pakistan waves proudly on the streets of Kashmir, while the flag of India has no backers in Srinagar.

LOL. Sure, if you're content with useless symbolism, be our guest. While we continue to actively rule Kashmir.
Like I said, we are both after the same thing, ie. Kashmir the strategic piece of land. If the people want to live peacefully in Indian lands, they will be welcome with open arms and integrated. If not (take the peaceful approach) they will face the barrel of our guns. The choice is simple.

With regards to the Bengalis, the difference between India and Pakistan today is that we realized our mistakes and carry no ill will towards them. That is much less than what the Indians have been able to do since 1947. We know your kind too well!

As if you had a choice! lol
You were forced and humiliated into a surrender. The **** could you do anyways in that situation.
But notice how when the Bengalis were asking for freedom, the Pakistani Army massacred Bengalis. No Pakistani stood up for human rights then! Now you want to sit here and lecture us? Please! its like the Nazis trying to profess human rights. lol

Haha. So if Kashmir didn't belong to its people and only belonged to its rulers, does India actually belong to the British, or the Afghans, or the Persians, or the Mongols? or the Greeks?

It did at those points in time. Kashmir belongs to India now.
Funny how this Kashmiri nationalism didn't exist then but suddenly sprouted out of thin air in 1947? Where were those courageous Kashmiri stone pelters?
Kashmir as an independent state has never been ruled by the people as a democracy. The dogras were the last rulers that are of Kashmiri origin. And they acceded to India.
So I ask you again, when have the people of Kashmir owned Kashmir?

The British have a legal case, while Gandhi had a purely emotional case which should have no value to you? Or Bhagat Singh should be treated as an arsonist and a murderer instead of a hero? Shashi Tharoor should stop demanding the British for an apology and you along with all of India should kneel before the British for forgiveness against the Indian protests for freedom? The Indian rebellion of 1857 was actually the mutiny of 1857 as the British had termed it? The Jallianwal Bagh massacre was absolutely justified?

And the British willingly ceded the territory to the Republic of India. As did the Dogras in Kashmir. Applying the same legal means of succession in both cases.
So what exactly is the point of your asinine mumbo jumbo?

So as I said, we aren't willing to cede ANYTHING to Kashmiris or Pakistanis. Get emotional coz that's the only option left for you guys. From a legal standpoint, we are toight like a toiger!

Please don't run away now and explain all of this in the light of your statements for the Kashmiris. Or else it will be proved that your kind was just the sort that we had thought you were.

haha. Yeah sure, coz I'm really scared of losing face to some emotional people on an anonymous forum.
Mind you, your huffing and puffing and emotional rants aren't going to change anything! India will continue to rule Kashmir. Our back and forth is as useless as tits on a bull.

 

[DarX]

Sure. And the US vs. them attitude is a product of the behavior of the Kashmiris. If they were peaceful, we the common Indian would be in their corner.
But since that's not the case, we are fine with treating them the way they want to be treated.

But you're right, you as a Pakistani, there isn't much to discuss Kashmir with you anyways.




Do you know the definition of stupidity?! Its trying the same thing over and over expecting different results.
In the case of Pakistanis and by extension the dissenting Kashmiris, the line between courage and stupidity is a hairline.

Kashmiris have tried the violent approach in the past only to be crushed under the boot of the Indian army. Pakistan has tried to wrest Kashmir from our control by force only to be humiliated time and again. Not to mention been cut down to size as a result of the same.
Now both Kashmiris and Pakistanis can try invoking the power of "Jihad" and see where it gets you. LOL!
I for one wont be holding my breath.
Maybe its not the definition of courage you should be looking up. Try Pragmatism and Practicality. But I suppose the Pakistani curriculum has not gone past the C in the alphabet, so we shall give it a few years. You too shall accept your fate dear Pakistani.



I suppose missing the woods for the trees is the standard Pakistani approach. So ill let you slide.

You claim to have a "moral and emotional" connection to the Kashmiri cause. So please put your money where your mouth is and give up claim on ALL Kashmir as per Kashmiri wishes, which is to be independent of India and Pak. Maybe then we will take your nautanki of having a moral high ground seriously.
But who are you trying to fool? Like I said, we know your kind way too well.





I suppose you've never heard of an action and reaction.
India is reacting to violent Kashmiris. We obviously would prefer to kill no one. But peace cannot be one sided.
Our diplomacy in other capitals is to dissuade Pakistan from arming and using Kashmiris as cannon fodder.
Now in the process if Indians (army or civilians) die at the hands of Kashmiri and Pakistani terrorism, we will obviously demand retribution of equal measure.
So what you consider baying for blood is simply our attempt at eliminating violent elements from Kashmir. Our diplomacy is to have your friends (the few that exist) to knock some sense into you guys.


LOL. Sure, if you're content with useless symbolism, be our guest. While we continue to actively rule Kashmir.
Like I said, we are both after the same thing, ie. Kashmir the strategic piece of land. If the people want to live peacefully in Indian lands, they will be welcome with open arms and integrated. If not (take the peaceful approach) they will face the barrel of our guns. The choice is simple.




As if you had a choice! lol
You were forced and humiliated into a surrender. The **** could you do anyways in that situation.
But notice how when the Bengalis were asking for freedom, the Pakistani Army massacred Bengalis. No Pakistani stood up for human rights then! Now you want to sit here and lecture us? Please! its like the Nazis trying to profess human rights. lol



It did at those points in time. Kashmir belongs to India now.
Funny how this Kashmiri nationalism didn't exist then but suddenly sprouted out of thin air in 1947? Where were those courageous Kashmiri stone pelters?
Kashmir as an independent state has never been ruled by the people as a democracy. The dogras were the last rulers that are of Kashmiri origin. And they acceded to India.
So I ask you again, when have the people of Kashmir owned Kashmir?



And the British willingly ceded the territory to the Republic of India. As did the Dogras in Kashmir. Applying the same legal means of succession in both cases.
So what exactly is the point of your asinine mumbo jumbo?

So as I said, we aren't willing to cede ANYTHING to Kashmiris or Pakistanis. Get emotional coz that's the only option left for you guys. From a legal standpoint, we are toight like a toiger!





haha. Yeah sure, coz I'm really scared of losing face to some emotional people on an anonymous forum.
Mind you, your huffing and puffing and emotional rants aren't going to change anything! India will continue to rule Kashmir. Our back and forth is as useless as tits on a bull.

As expected, your response epitomizes the fascist attitude of the indians towards the Kashmiri people.

 

[Peshwa]

As expected, your response epitomizes the fascist attitude of the indians towards the Kashmiri people.

LOL! Sure!