(Inaccurate) Kashmir: every year

Рет қаралды 1,260

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 68

@Igorrrrrr26 2 ай бұрын

Maharaj was a nemesis of India coz he was an arch rival of Shiekh Abdullah, and shiekh abdullah was one of biggest ally of Nehru, this is the reason why initially he wasn't acceding Kashmir to India 2.) Gilgit rebels had attavked the vale even before when Indian forces had airlifted to Kashmir, this itself proove that Gilgit rebels had defeated the forces of Maharaja but not the Indian forces, India had finally invaded Kashmir from the south by 26th of oct, and Pakistan had already invaded Kashmir by 22nd of october, this proove that it was India, which had defeated Gilgit rebels and Pakitani forces and had moved them out of the vale, 3.) I agree India took the matter to UN, coz A.) India had the support of Shikh abdullah B.) Case of Junagarh was still pending C.) India was always the biggest regional power D.) India was overconfident about her position in Kashmir, India was already defeating Pakistan, it was a diplomatic failure of India, if India had not took this matter to the UN, then it was just the matter of time, and whole Kahsmir would had been a part of India, your histrory lessons needs to be checked, Jinnah had stooped at unimaginable levels , he had wanted to to establish the illegal state of Pakistan quite entirely over the Hindu India , his ill intentions were not just limited to the the 6 states, case of Junagarh and Hyderabad prooves that, and also if Pakistan could had the audacity of claiming Hindu majority Hyderabad and Hindu majority Junagrah on the basis of so-called IOA ,then why not India?India is way more powerfull and influentiol than Pakistan, if Pakistan can dare to provoke India, then the regional superpower India would surely retaliate and also the people of Kashmir had never wanted to join Pakistan, they just had wanted to get rid of the Dogra ruler, and for that they had been supporting Shiekh abdullah, shiekh abdullah was pro-India, coz of that jinnah had even referred Abdullah as a traitor, which had offended the Kashmiri people, and also we are talking about the 1940' sat that time, Hindus of kashmir used to make about 30 percent of the population( before the forcefull exodus of Hindus by the Muslims of Kashmir), and the Hindus of Kashmir(including Bhuddists and Sikhs)were and are still highly pro-India, so your arguments are quite baseless And for the record, Pakistan wasn't really supporting a plebscide in Kashmir initially coz it knew that the peope would vote for Shiekj abdullah and he was sponsoring the legallity of the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir with India ,coz of this Pakistan voilated the UN resolution and din't vacate the occupied terretories,Dogra ruler was Hindu, but still his ties with the Indian government were quite bad(that's the reason why din't signed the IOA with the Indian government initially, but only after the Pakistani invasion of Kashmir) The misleading info which is being spread by the Pakistani media has deeply infiltrated into the minds of Pakistanis! Pakistan is purely at the fault, it's Pakistan, which is instigating this issue even after losing all the wars and conflicts against India, India is, was, will always be on the morally right side,

@ibie27 2 ай бұрын

@@Igorrrrrr26 congress supported Maharaja in his blackmail case. Lol. Congress was the reason he was referred to Mister A during case for privacy

@Igorrrrrr26 2 ай бұрын

@@ibie27 LOL, Nehru(who himself was a Kashmiri Pandit) had close ties with Shiekh Abdullah, both used to refer each other as Brothers, Shiekh Abdullah had many times supported the accessation of Kashmir within India and as a matter of fact Hari Singh was against accessation of Kashmir into India, he would have supported India over Pakistan for sure but he wasn't really a fan of Nehru's close ties Sheikh Abdullah and the time of the Pakistani invassion of Kashmir, Shiekh Abdullah had been in house arrest by the Hari Singh forces, India had airlifted it's forces to defend Kashmir from Pakistan only after when Shiekh Abdullah had been freed from the house arrest, And that's the same reason why Shiekh Abdullah and Nehru had even supported a plebcite in Kashmir in 1949 since they knew that the people would choose Shiekh Abdullah over Hari Singh any day, however Pakistan did not supported this plebcite coz Pakistan knew that onces Shiekh Abdullah comes into power then Kashmir would be an integral part of India, and since then Kashmir remains an integral part of India

@Igorrrrrr26 2 ай бұрын

It's more the fault of Kashmiries themselves since this fight was never about the indpendence, this fight was always about the Sultan-E-Kashmir, if Kashmiries would had accepted the secular rule irresepcted with the obession of Shiekh Abdullah, just to counter Hari singh, then neither Kashmir would have been a part of India and nither Pakuisan would had invaded it, but the atttacks on Hindus in Mirpur, Neelum, and Gilgit proovs that it was always about the "independance from Kufr" they got what they deserved Current situation wouldn't be considered, remember during the onset of the war?? Just coz the people and thier ruler, Shiekh abdullah had been the vocal supporters of India and Nehru( who himself was a Kashmiri Hindu) and since the politics of Kashmir wasn't really in favour of Pakistan, Pakustan had voilated the UN resoluations and had waited patiently till the agenda was in their favour that was in 1989, when the this struggle was not just a "territorial dispute of Kashmir" but was suddenly transformed to more of a "freedom struggle of Kashmir spevifically from the Indian rule" thanks to Pakistan for the religious divide, and and too specifically after the Bangladeshi liberation from Pakistan with the Indian assistance, after the infamous Hindu exodus and the entry of JKLF, now all of a sudden Pakistan wants a plebiscite in Kashmir, no it wouldn't happen, now India will wait patienlty till the political narravitive of Kashmir is in the Indian favour, untill the large numbers of Hindu Pandits are re-established in Indian Kashmir, till then India should make sure that there should be no plebicite in Kashmir

@Open__56 2 ай бұрын

Good video bro

@Igorrrrrr26 2 ай бұрын

A robber is occupying your home but after sometimes that robber started to loose it's ground and decides to ally itself with it's minion, minion has this historic rivallery with you, Meanwhile after some time, robber decides to leave but at the cost of the partion of your home, your home is carved and since then that minion is your neighbour, and now that minion wants more place from your home, according to the minion more place was actually promised to it by the robber, minion declares war on the original owner only to be defeated by the original owner, minion later forms an alliance with the arch rival of the original owner and then declares another war but this war gets transformed into a war of defence of it's capital, another defeat for the minion, even after that minion continue to claim more land, Meanwhile minion is having a tough time in controlling it's own place, which leads to a civil war, original owner decides to to teach minion a lesson and minion gets beaten up again by the original owner, minion also makes a record surrender of 93K as well, minion lost half of it's nation in this war, Afterwards minion began to hold a grudge against the original owner beliving that owner had taken away it's place

@wownews1426 2 ай бұрын

34000 not 93000 manik shah would hv surrendered

@Igorrrrrr26 2 ай бұрын

@@wownews1426 "Per the trilateral agreement, the Pakistani government surrendered the Armed Forces Eastern Command,[1][5][6] thereby enabling the establishment of the People's Republic of Bangladesh over the territory of East Pakistan. The document was signed by Jagjit Singh Aurora and Pakistan's A. A. K. Niazi, who corroborated the surrender of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers - the world's largest surrender in terms of number of personnel since World War II.[7][8] Despite the agreement, Pakistan did not formally recognize Bangladeshi sovereignty until February 1974" This is what the global times( China's media outlet says), I have specifically picked the Global times since China is a nemesis of India and they would not favour India over Pakistan Also you do realize that who's the minion and who's the owner here??

@Igorrrrrr26 2 ай бұрын

@@wownews1426 "The document was signed by Jagjit Singh Aurora and Pakistan's A. A. K. Niazi, who corroborated the surrender of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers - the world's largest surrender in terms of number of personnel since World War II.[7][8] Despite the agreement, Pakistan did not formally recognize Bangladeshi sovereignty until February 1974"

@Igorrrrrr26 2 ай бұрын

Palestine was a British colony quite same as the British India and FYI, British Raj is a modern term used by the Islamists and Communists in order to erase the Indian heritage(or more likely the Hindu heritage), Palestine(British colony) had it's saying during the illegal partion of India, along with the British empire, 2.) No Hindus(or Muslims) would had been displaced if it wasn't for the AIML's constant wish for the creation of the illegal state of Pakistan, AIML's provoking declaration of Direct action is the best example of the Pan-Islamic agenda of the AIML, thus making it's pan-Islamism ideolgy a reflection of the Zionsim 3.) INC( Hindu leaders in your language) had never wished for th3 creation of Pakistan( Bangladesh), it' s like saying that Palestinian leaders had wished for the creation for Israel, Gandhi had agreed to the most of the wishes of Jinnah, but it went over the boared when he had asked for A.) Making Urdu as the state language of India thus jeopardizing Hindi B.) Making Islam as the state religion of India( I mean just look at the audacity, even when he knew that Hindus were in the majority still he had tried to erase seculasim out of India for his Pan-Islamic agenda) C.) He had wanted to become the first prime minister of India, and by judging him through his actions and words, it was pretty clear he had dreamed of an Islamic India without Hindus Thus forcing INC leaders(incluring Gandhi and Nehru) to agree for a two state solution, 4.) If there was no Indian rule, and British can solely act as a boundary creators of the Indian subcontinent then what makes Palestine a licit state as well???you are contradicting yourself, coz first of all there was no independent Palestinian state, it was under the British rule as well, secondly, unlike the Indian subcontinent , UN was directly involved for a resoltuion of Israel-Palestine conflict, thus making Pakistan's(Bangladesh as well) creation out of India a more illegal and non-licit than Israel's creation out of Palestine 5.) Well Pakistan is zilch before India, thus it can't really confront India in an one on one full fledged war, but still this non-licit state had tried to annex Kashmir, had forced the native Hindus of Kashmir to move out of the vale(through Mujahuddins), had backed Militancy against India, and many more...you don't need to be a Hindu in order to get familier with the injustice that had happended with them, you just need to be a Human with rational thinking

@Igorrrrrr26 2 ай бұрын

admit it, Muslims had nothing to do with the Indian Subcontinent, it was only after the Gaznavids, Sultanates and Mughal when Islam was established in India(and that too aftertge numerous genocides of the Hindus that were committed by the invading Islamists), Indian National Congress was the secular government, they were following the principles of the western backed democracratic values, it was Jinnah and All India Muslim league which had created this havoc along with British in order to counter Hindus, if AIML was having this rift with the INC or with the secular Hindu dominated India, then there was something seriouslly wrong with the Indian Muslims(modern day Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and India's Muslim population) Jinnah had dreamed of this greater Pakistan over the Hindu India in which he had wished to include Hyderabad, Junagrah, Kashmir, Bengal, Punjab, Lakshdweed , Kerala, but fortunetly, Jinnah was partially unsuccessfull in his sinister plans, as Hindu India continues to rule over the majority of land, but still by this time Islamists had occupied Half of Punjab, half of Bengal, Khyber, Boluchistan and Sindh from India, and also Pakistani ideology of Pan-Islamism was a disaster which was witnessed globally by the world,(1970 Pakistani civil war, 1971 Indo-Pakistani war and Bangladeshi liberation along with the Pakistani surrender to the Indian forces), this only prooves that Pakistan and Bangladesh were better off with India, and Pan-Islamism is a disaster ideology

@Hunzapost 2 ай бұрын

that is wrong map you showed gilgit baltistan isnt part of kashmir and there were state of NAGAR AND HUNZA in region of gilgit baltistan )

@Troyxxt 2 ай бұрын

wrong map sure buddy when that part of kashmir lands in POK you are like wrong map and paks leaders who attacked kashmir which was free nation it was not part of India or pakistan. If never attacked Kashmir the kashmiri king would have never signed to make kashmir part of india. At least India does not have change map or say Kashimir was always part of India or change the history like Pak.They don't have teach lies to their children.

@Hunzapost 2 ай бұрын

@@Troyxxt Man you misunderstood what I meant! I'm from Nagar , Gilgit baltistan It's true that Gilgit baltistan was under administration of Jk, But not whole Gilgit baltistan, There were many 14 princely states in region there of them Where burushaski language is spoken were not direct part of Jk Which includes Hunza Nagar and Yasin, Hunza and Nagar were allied to Jk but not parts of it) I'm not going to judge whether Tribal invasion was right or wrong!

@Fusianwnw 2 ай бұрын

@@Hunzapost I think gilgit and hunza was more similar to kashgar and khotan of uyghur region than Kashmir

@Hunzapost 2 ай бұрын

@@Fusianwnw Actually Hunza Nagar people are unique They speak an isolated language Burushaski They are not similar to any other,

@Hunzapost 2 ай бұрын

@@Fusianwnw Gilgit baltistan was under control of King of Kashmir except the Regions of Hunza and Nagar )

@ibie27 2 ай бұрын

As a Kashmiri, i want Freedom from India.

@neonaimx 2 ай бұрын

As a Kashmiri. I was sad that my great grandfather were forced to leave Kashmir because I was Hindu

@neonaimx 2 ай бұрын

If you want independence then gain independence from Pakistan. Because Azad Kashmir is not Azad. It has become a forcefully integrated state of Pakistan.

@BomBoyzhiphop 2 ай бұрын

As a Kashmiri I want my state to be free from ijhlamic Terrorism 😂

@ibie27 2 ай бұрын

@@BomBoyzhiphop lmao, define terrorism???

@KnickGurr 2 ай бұрын

Islam has only brought destruction to Kashmir, it was in its Golden period during korkata dynasty, was a centre of culture and education during that period.