While Indians call Kashmir 'an integral part of India', Pakistanis have sensibly avoided that. Our stand has stressed the importance of Kashmiris' opinion. Surely you can see the logic in that?
Sadly, that is not the general Pakistani stand. Not in terms of the mass of participants in this forum, certainly, and emphatically not in terms of state policy, except for weak moments from halfway through the troubled relationship between our two countries. If it had been such a principled stand, there would have been no need for the original act of coercion that brought arms and fighting to the dispute over interpretation of the India Independence Act. If it had been such a principled stand, there would have been no sanctimonious hypocrisy over commandoes in plain clothes being infiltrated to incite the population to rise in revolt (it is worth pointing out that they did not). Nor would large sums of money have flowed into the valley, into the specific ambit of those who denigrate independence for Kashmir, and will hear only of a full union with Pakistan.
I am willing to accept what you have stated as your personal point of view, and it does you credit. Expanding it to the membership at large is, however, ingenuous.
I have discussed Kashmir issue a number of times with Indian friends (and foes) and have successfully pointed out the inherent weakness in the official Indian position. It is offensive to any Pakistani to hear (or read) Indians declaring Kashmir to be a part of India. Nobody consulted Kashmiris, and it sounds arrogant to say the least. That is principally why the whole world concedes that Kashmir is a disputed Territory.
You are to be congratulated on your successful advocacy, and your Indian friends (and foes) on their patience and forbearance. While many, though not most, Indians will be devastated that you find it offensive that Indians declare Kashmir to be a part of India, that is the cold, brutal legal reality, which cannot be swept away on a tide of emotion and salt water. Your point about Kashmiris being consulted is self-serving. Kashmiris were never to be consulted, any more than the population of any other Indian state was to be consulted. On the midnight of the 14th of August, the Maharaja of Kashmir became a sovereign ruler, with complete authority to decide his fate and the fate of his subjects, as much as the Maharaja, say, of Patiala.
As it happened, the only worthwhile part of Kashmiri political opinion, the National Conference led by Sheikh Abdullah, was already committed to India, and to alignment with the Indian National Congress, and went so far as to resist the invading tribals at the cost of their lives. Whatever the vicissitudes of the relationship between the Sheikh and his Indian interlocutors later, at that point of time, he was uncompromisingly on the side of merger with India, and ironically, it was his sovereign who hesitated, long enough to tempt Pakistan to seek to arrogate by force of arms what she could not achieve by suasion.
The only section of Kashmir that sought union with Pakistan was the Punjabi-settled fringe constituting the Mirpur belt, and the tribal enclaves of Swat and Chitral. It was in fact the state forces of the Mehtar of Chitral that captured Skardu and then Kargil, and laid siege to Leh. We shall leave aside the logistical aid given to these columns, and those to the south, by the Pakistan Army; somehow, that institution has throughout its history convinced itself that if it pretends not to notice by-standers, those by-standers will not notice it. Mildly innovative military theory, but not particularly successful.
Kashmiris from the valley of Kashmir have almost always stressed their identity. That has meant that they oppose assimilation into India or Pakistan as such. By declaring Kashmir to be a part of India, JLN essentially put a time bomb inside the union.
Might I point out that this is a half-truth? There was certainly no denial of assimilation (partially, with ample safeguards) into India; there was, however, denial of assimilation with Pakistan, with only an Islamist minority holding out for it.
Coming to the issues of trolling - let me stress two facts. First, this is defence.pk and we in / from Pakistan feel it is our 'home' territory. Second, when many (most in fact) Indians troll this site, you can not blame Pakistanis when they answer in kind. Many a good discussion gets derailed because of pointless trolling. Take this thread for example.
Really?
You claim, a little later, that you have been visiting this site since 2003. Have you read my posts? Have you read those of countless other Indians, the semi-permanent population from India, if you care to notice them, and the contents? Would you consider that your rights of ownership, based on lurking since 2003, and active participation since a month ago, outweigh those from India who have worked hard for almost every post, and who have sought to understand and to convey their understanding of any subject in the fairest possible terms?
On the specific issue of trolling, while there is no doubt that some Indians (not most) come here to make trouble, usually through trolling, the surprising thing is that those who should preserve the sanctity of discussion on this forum, the Pakistani members, are among the worst offenders. Read the Indian history thread, which I notice you have visited, and on which you have commented very wisely, and you will see what I mean. There was no need for a harmful or malicious interjection; it was made, it lies in public view, and it daubs the forum with stinking dirt.
Your age on this forum should not count, if it is a reasoned point of view that you present. If, on the other hand, you wish to generalize, you will readily agree that an observer has the right to ask for the basis on which you generalise. This, in response to your next.
Lastly, I have been visiting this site since 2003. My having made an account recently (and having few posts) should have no bearing upon my participation in any of the discussions. Who knows, I might have thousands of posts on other forums? But one thing is for sure, One-liners are not my forte.
Sometimes, a line does the job. What counts is relevance, not the number of lines. Just a suggestion that you might like to mull over.
I got your message, but unfortunately I can not respond unless I have more than 1000 posts. I appreciate your positive feelings and wish you all the best in return.
And my best wishes to you.
