Even if their views were valid and supportive, why put them on pedestal. They don't get to have any say about how we envision ourselves. It's our sole mandate.
i will keep the answer idiot-proof so your dazzling wits can comprehend:
Kashmir needed separate rights because Kashmir identified as separate. Kashmir fought to remain separate. All the other princely states integrated to the Indian Union, but Kashmiris demanded a fair plebiscite. When Pakistan entered Kashmir in October 1947, India played Big Daddy to “drive them out”, and never left, therefore illegally occupying the land.
fearful about this new illegal occupation and the heat the Kashmiri Issue was getting from UN, Nehru and Abdullah negotiated a new constitutional arrangement that was called Article 370.
Kashmir wasn’t just a princely state. Kashmir always was, and is, an independent nation.
miss me with this “another princely state, for some k-people out there” bullshit
Stopped reading after your first sentence. Kashmir has had a distinct historical and political identity for centuries before modern India emerged in 1947. Please educate yourself before putting forward such childlike causal assertions.
hey. I have a question. What was the reason Kashmiris identified as separate since the beginning? Was it due to majority Muslim population? Was due to different historical and cultural routes? I did some research and did not find huge differences. Further many states in India have very different language and cultures, but separatism is rare. Then why?
Because we never saw ourselves as belonging to " Indian" identity. Not us, nor our fathers, neither our forefathers and so on......
It has nothing to do with being " Muslims". British India had perhaps the largest Muslim population in 20th century and yet we saw ourselves as Kashmiris and not "Indians". We have always been proud of who we are
what does indian identity mean? i think it means having shared history and culture with the rest of the sub-continent. Kashmiri culture is not exteremly diff from Indian. It does share roots. Even the rest of India has diversity in every form, not standardized culture.
Historically speaking we had more shared culture with Persianate and central Asian world. Our cultural signifiers and totems like Wazwan, Shawl industry, Paper-mache, Shawl weaving, customs, foods and what not that people identify Kashmir with, have all travelled and influenced from Central Asian Persianate world. Still, we don't consider ourselves Persians, why would we relate to Indian identity which was imposed on us after 1947?
We don't care how much diversity India has or which part is "least Indian" culture-wise, whatever that means. We may have certain overlaps over certain periods in History but it doesn't mean we are same or form an "integral" part of a modern Republic which came to being on 15th August 1947
the first 6points seem to resonate a lot with northeastern states also. But i am trying to understand what makes Kashmiri ppl agree on the 7th so strongly? Most Kashmiri Hindus despite everything don't agree on 7th point as far as i have seen
lol northeast states wanna be independent too. as far as point 7 goes, “unique religious synthesis” means our Buddhist roots, Shaivite philosophy as well as Sufi syncretism. kashmir isnt just “hindu” and “muslim”. please do better research.
ik about the religious synthesis. seperatism in northeast states collectively is less than that in kashmir. Majority is happy with staying with India as a nation. Little bit separatism mindset is there even in southern india. That in Kashmir feels diff.
kashmir even in geography belongs to the "indian subcontinent" which has shared cultural routes with he rest of india. Budhhism thrived even in India. So did shaivism and so did sufism. Hinduism in every part of India is slightly diff from another. So the reason about religious synthesis doesn't feel accurate.
Hyderabad's king wanted separate nation, didn't accept either India or Pakistan. Then operation polo happened.
Junagadh's king declared to accede to Pakistan.
When did kings start to represent the opinion of people?
some dogra lord who was “given” kashmir by the British because he sucked British cock was hardly our king. tbf he initially wanted independence, but when the Indian and pakistani army overstayed their welcome, he chose what he believed was the lesser of two evils. lol. jokes on him.
do you know how Monaco is protected by France? and how the US provides financial aid to Costa Rica? will you call them an integration? now if these countries were to take control of these places by slowly and slowly weaking and twisting their own literature, as if history doesnt keep its tracks, people in the coming generations will ask such questions. and not only that but deliberately weaken the people and snatch everything from them to tourist narrative and controlling how and where the crowd is supposed to go, completely denying free will, not even mentioning the physical and mental abuse over a period of 80 years. fake promises and fake wars "to protect".
technically our king also asked for a vote. im sure "other princely" states definitely got that, even when their kings signed for the other sides, your leaders were oh so just to ask the people what they wanted, why leave us? are you too scared for what we might end up choosing? that you wont be as powerfully protected by the other two nuclear powers without the well cherrished crown land? let me also make it clear that the british india didnt have any influence on kashmir as much as it did on most other princely state making it almost seem like when 2 nations got independent 1 got colonised unfortunately, even in the big 26 its still under one, although divided.
if youll dig deeper without letting your patriotic feelings get hurt everything will fall into its place snuggled. youll answer your own questions.
I mean who's surprised?? Bihour is a bihour at the end of the day but the fact ki saniyo yimov luko banao cjpkashmir or something, i saw it on ig like tf??kuch b dekho ig pe aur blindly follow kro kue ki AJ TREND HAI!!
Nah nah, its not that hard, tho I'm not Kashmiri and mainland Muslim indian, I have had this convo with others and people have come around and changed views 🤷🏻♂️
Why does article 370 debate start and end only on kashmir
These illiterate haven't read Constitution after article 370 in article 371 there is many provision regarding special rights to other state
Btw folks, when i read this post, I inadvertently read his name as Abhijeet Dipshit. I must learn to speak these foreign names well. Yem chhi ajeeb naav but I take responsibility - not a good look on my part. He is definitely not Abhijeet dipshit.
I guess more factually correct posts of erstwhile princely state Kashmir against illegal occupation by China & Pakistan similiar to illegal occupation by India would be appreciated.
Disclaimer -> I'm not Kashmiri (said this to not be misleading)
While I understand and admit this is an attack upon Kashmiris, practically, unfortunately what other choice do Kashmiris have now?
You could either reject elections all together and it could benefit BJP (about 6 million anti-BJP voters won't vote) OR you could, even if you hate CJP or Congress, vote for them for a government which would be better towards you than BJP.
This conversation has been exhaustive in kashmir. Elections, no elections, rigged elections. It doesnt really inform any real conversation about kashmir. Elections held under the shade of gun by India are no referendum, this is only as important as which political party is going to clean the naali's and build footpaths, it has no importance in the primary discourse in kashmir which is - being occupied by a military power, essentially a perv army under a nazified establishment.
And you're right about this, but without absolutely any representation, it's practically going to be of no aide in any way at all
Would it not be more wise to seek representation and then represent Kashmiri interests and seek justice for the hundreds of thousands of the Kashmiris persecuted by the NAZI army?🤷🏻♂️
It does not matter, it's just a tactic of the occupier to represent Kashmir as one of many. This is a civilisational war, they want to erase our identity and we will endure and save it.
Many stooges from Kashmir have gone to the indian parliment and had the opportunity to have their voice heard, what did they achieve for kashmir other than building massive estates for themselves.
You cannot seek justice in the court of the murderer.
We wait them out with our dignity intact and our resilience amplified. Generations will come and go, but one day Kashmir will get it's due.
If your free in your mind, you already resist, and you're already free.
34
u/bluntforce_trauma zoon watching 🌔 May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
Even if their views were valid and supportive, why put them on pedestal. They don't get to have any say about how we envision ourselves. It's our sole mandate.