English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-05-17 07:36:10 · 11 answers · asked by COOL BAB 1 in Politics & Government Politics

11 answers

I think the kashmiris who don't like being part of India should move to the Pakistani side, and vice versa. I know it's terrible for so many people to have to leave thier homes and all, but compared to thier countrymen nuking eachother, it's the lesser of two evils...

And, if you're wondering how I'd feel in that situation: yes, when California becomes part of Mexico, I will be moving to Oregon (or whatever nearby state is still in the US), in spite of my family's roots here.

2007-05-17 07:41:48 · answer #1 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2 2

Kashmir became a part of India when Maharajah Harisingh signed the contract with Indian government. When it is yours, there is no issue of giving to India. If kashmiris do not like it, they should be given a chance to go to any country that will accept them. Kashmir is an integral part of India and should remain that way. Law must be changed for investors from other state. If they can buy land and own the property, they can improve the economy, provide employment to kashmiris.

2007-05-17 09:51:18 · answer #2 · answered by Hari Om 3 · 0 1

Of course... Kashmir belongs only to India. Maharajah Harisingh signed treaty with Indian government which says Kashmir is one of the states in India. Pakistan attacked Kashmir saying that it belongs to them. Pak covered some part of Kashmir in the war o f1948. Pt. Nehru put this question before United nations and UN declared ceasefire between both the countries. Because of it the area that pak had covered remained with it and still it is with pak even after more than 60 years. It is known as pak occupied Kashmir (pok). Pt. Nehru was not wrong in thinking that international interfere may solve this question, but it is un's failure that it can't solve this problem. However, it is clear that Kashmir along with pok belongs to India and not to Pakistan.

2007-05-19 19:56:18 · answer #3 · answered by Ni 1 · 0 2

What do you mean by given to India? The erstwhile Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, had already signed the accession document for Kashmir to become part of the Indian union, so that way it is an integral part of India...no question about that. Now, for the so-called Kashmir issue, if those ppl. who are not happy with this arrangement, they can leave...nobody is gonna stop them. As Sardar Patel said about Muslims at the time of independence, after partition, that if Muslims wanted to live in India, they had to accept India as it was and if they felt any loyalties towards their so-called religious brethren across the border, they were welcome to join them.

2007-05-17 14:35:20 · answer #4 · answered by Sh00nya 4 · 1 1

2 nations fight for a mere state. Did u ever think what amount of burden the people in kashmir have & r suffering? They r soooo frustrated, that they neither want to be a part of India nor pakistan. They want to separate themselves. Don't be so narrow minded like the fools in politics. Think about the people & their suffering. Atleast let the young generation be generous about it.

2007-05-17 08:42:38 · answer #5 · answered by Smile- conquers the world 6 · 1 1

the only solution to the problem is to convert LOC into a permanent border,and make the border irrelevant.I read the answer given by 'supercool'.he is talking about old things like plebiscite.he says that India is suppressing people in kashmirand Indian Army rapes women.In the last 18 years of Insurgency in Kashmir,20,000 civilians was killed by the militants and around 10,000 soldiers hav given up their life.they gave up their life fighting for whom????are they fools to leave their family and cm to a place like kashmir.a very small number in the army raped women.i acept tht.but can u judge the entire army by comparing it with 10 people.if the leaders of pakistan have too much love for kashmir,then why did they train militants to kill 20,000 civilians.regarding plebiscite,why is tht thy always tak about plebiscite.when india was divided,nobody talked about plebiscite.majority of people in India was against partition,thn y was jinnah silent whn he said about partition.noteven musclims would hav said yes for partiotion.partition was forced upon the people of india.why is that nobody cared about wht th majority felt.everyone knows ghow was pakistan created,who played wht games,who formed a secret agreement with the british.everyone knows these,htn y is tht only kashmir problem needs plebiscite.when an interim government was formed in 1944,Muslim League demanded 7 seas out of 14 for the executive council.thy said tht 7 seats 4 muslims and other 7 which was 4 congress,for hindus.and all of a sudden he withdrew his men from the executive council.why?because he got a secret message from the british tht if he withdrew from the council,he will be given paksitan.tht time nobody cared about the majority's voice in this coountry.the king of kashmir said yes to us.india will not make mistake like in 1947.the present line shoulfd be made border.

2007-05-18 00:23:31 · answer #6 · answered by Alien 4 · 0 2

India, because the maharaja of Kashmir signed the treaty to be annexed by India

2007-05-17 07:41:25 · answer #7 · answered by sushobhan 6 · 3 2

INDIA with some special powers to KASHMIR people.

2007-05-19 16:09:06 · answer #8 · answered by yuvraj S 2 · 0 2

india

2017-02-11 02:23:27 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 0 0

K a s h m i r is a state of India.
who are you Indian or Pakistani?
Buri nazar wale tera muh kala.

2007-05-17 08:36:54 · answer #10 · answered by robo 2 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers