The JNU episode

brie wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:
In his effort to minimize the brutality of Kashmir Muslims, he is weaving fictitious stories about t area people.
It is amazing that he would go to these extremes of creating such baseless fiction. It goes to his extreme devotion to providing cover to the inhuman Kashmir Muslim jehadis.

TBT, Do you blurt whatever comes to mind? Where did I try to minimize the brutality? In fact, I said the opposite. I said, that useless state Kashmir has been a burden on India; Cost India 3 wars and a lot of human & financial loss, and Kashmir's secession from India would be good for India's future. It would help, if you to read the posts before providing your expert commentary/analysis.

and what good would it do to us to let it cede to rogue pakistan? will it stem the bleed or increase it?

brie wrote:
it is a true part of india despite article 370 and despite your leftist teachings. 

it's a bit like sikkim. read it up (it's history) in wikipedia. sikkim entered a one-way street after it's last referendum. now it cannot leave india and india is legitimized to use force to prevent it's secession.

confuzzled dude wrote:

brie wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:
In his effort to minimize the brutality of Kashmir Muslims, he is weaving fictitious stories about t area people.
It is amazing that he would go to these extremes of creating such baseless fiction. It goes to his extreme devotion to providing cover to the inhuman Kashmir Muslim jehadis.

TBT, Do you blurt whatever comes to mind? Where did I try to minimize the brutality? In fact, I said the opposite. I said, that useless state Kashmir has been a burden on India; Cost India 3 wars and a lot of human & financial loss, and Kashmir's secession from India would be good for India's future. It would help, if you to read the posts before providing your expert commentary/analysis.

and what good would it do to us to let it cede to rogue pakistan? will it stem the bleed or increase it?

They want independent Kashmir, let them have it; why should India care about Kashmir after secession. Does India care about Pakistan & Bangladesh?

Vetri Vel wrote:confuzzled, please revise your thinking. if kashmir goes it will have a direct impact on the sovereignty of the country, since it would give fresh impetus to separatist movements from other parts of the country (like North-East), and  India will break up. that is why kashmir cannot be allowed to separate.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:confuzzled, please revise your thinking. if kashmir goes it will have a direct impact on the sovereignty of the country, since it would give fresh impetus to separatist movements from other parts of the country (like North-East), and  India will break up. that is why kashmir cannot be allowed to separate.

That shouldn't prevent India from doing the right thing. A country is not a permanent fixture, have we not seen how many new countries have born in the last 2-3 decades?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:confuzzled, please revise your thinking. if kashmir goes it will have a direct impact on the sovereignty of the country, since it would give fresh impetus to separatist movements from other parts of the country (like North-East), and  India will break up. that is why kashmir cannot be allowed to separate.

That shouldn't prevent India from doing the right thing. A country is not a permanent fixture, have we not seen how many new countries have born in the last 2-3 decades?

Vetri Vel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

brie wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:
In his effort to minimize the brutality of Kashmir Muslims, he is weaving fictitious stories about t area people.
It is amazing that he would go to these extremes of creating such baseless fiction. It goes to his extreme devotion to providing cover to the inhuman Kashmir Muslim jehadis.

TBT, Do you blurt whatever comes to mind? Where did I try to minimize the brutality? In fact, I said the opposite. I said, that useless state Kashmir has been a burden on India; Cost India 3 wars and a lot of human & financial loss, and Kashmir's secession from India would be good for India's future. It would help, if you to read the posts before providing your expert commentary/analysis.

and what good would it do to us to let it cede to rogue pakistan? will it stem the bleed or increase it?

They want independent Kashmir, let them have it; why should India care about Kashmir after secession. Does India care about Pakistan & Bangladesh?

if confuzzled were to by chance become Prime Minister of India, there would be no India; he would have ensured the balkanization of India. Since whoever would have wanted to secede from India would have been given the green signal by Confuzzled. Let us remind ourselves that in the US Abraham Lincoln had gone to war when the southern states wanted to secede from the northern states. We should follow the line taken by Abraham Lincoln, and not the line taken by confused (albeit probably well meaning) people like Arundhati Roy.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:confuzzled, please revise your thinking. if kashmir goes it will have a direct impact on the sovereignty of the country, since it would give fresh impetus to separatist movements from other parts of the country (like North-East), and  India will break up. that is why kashmir cannot be allowed to separate.

That shouldn't prevent India from doing the right thing. A country is not a permanent fixture, have we not seen how many new countries have born in the last 2-3 decades?

Tell me what is the right thing?  Show me 3 countries that has done this right thing? Why India alone should do thIS right thing ?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

brie wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
TBT, Do you blurt whatever comes to mind? Where did I try to minimize the brutality? In fact, I said the opposite. I said, that useless state Kashmir has been a burden on India; Cost India 3 wars and a lot of human & financial loss, and Kashmir's secession from India would be good for India's future. It would help, if you to read the posts before providing your expert commentary/analysis.

and what good would it do to us to let it cede to rogue pakistan? will it stem the bleed or increase it?

They want independent Kashmir, let them have it; why should India care about Kashmir after secession. Does India care about Pakistan & Bangladesh?

if confuzzled were to by chance become Prime Minister of India, there would be no India; he would have ensured the balkanization of India. Since whoever would have wanted to secede from India would have been given the green signal by Confuzzled. Let us remind ourselves that in the US Abraham Lincoln had gone to war when the southern states wanted to secede from the northern states. We should follow the line taken by Abraham Lincoln, and not the line taken by confused (albeit probably well meaning) people like Arundhati Roy.

If an American President were handling the situation such as in India, the JNU probably would be closed by now. Google for the Kent State University when its students were protesting against the Vietnam War during Nixon's time.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:confuzzled, please revise your thinking. if kashmir goes it will have a direct impact on the sovereignty of the country, since it would give fresh impetus to separatist movements from other parts of the country (like North-East), and  India will break up. that is why kashmir cannot be allowed to separate.

That shouldn't prevent India from doing the right thing. A country is not a permanent fixture, have we not seen how many new countries have born in the last 2-3 decades?

Tell me what is the right thing?  Show me 3 countries that has done this right thing? Why India alone should do thIS right thing ?

A precedence was set when Andhra Pradesh was split against the wishes of the majority, because it was the right thing to do. Why change the rules of the game now?

Vetri Vel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:confuzzled, please revise your thinking. if kashmir goes it will have a direct impact on the sovereignty of the country, since it would give fresh impetus to separatist movements from other parts of the country (like North-East), and  India will break up. that is why kashmir cannot be allowed to separate.

That shouldn't prevent India from doing the right thing. A country is not a permanent fixture, have we not seen how many new countries have born in the last 2-3 decades?

Tell me what is the right thing?  Show me 3 countries that has done this right thing? Why India alone should do thIS right thing ?

A precedence was set when Andhra Pradesh was split against the wishes of the majority, because it was the right thing to do. Why change the rules of the game now?

Apples and Oranges. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana both remained a part of India.

Vetri Vel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:confuzzled, please revise your thinking. if kashmir goes it will have a direct impact on the sovereignty of the country, since it would give fresh impetus to separatist movements from other parts of the country (like North-East), and  India will break up. that is why kashmir cannot be allowed to separate.

That shouldn't prevent India from doing the right thing. A country is not a permanent fixture, have we not seen how many new countries have born in the last 2-3 decades?

Tell me what is the right thing?  Show me 3 countries that has done this right thing? Why India alone should do thIS right thing ?

A precedence was set when Andhra Pradesh was split against the wishes of the majority, because it was the right thing to do. Why change the rules of the game now?

Apples and Oranges. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana both remained a part of India.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
That shouldn't prevent India from doing the right thing. A country is not a permanent fixture, have we not seen how many new countries have born in the last 2-3 decades?

Tell me what is the right thing?  Show me 3 countries that has done this right thing? Why India alone should do thIS right thing ?

A precedence was set when Andhra Pradesh was split against the wishes of the majority, because it was the right thing to do. Why change the rules of the game now?

Apples and Oranges. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana both remained a part of India.

Nope. Underlying theme is the same, both didn't/don't want to coexist.

Vetri Vel wrote:
Wrong again. For example people of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh do not require a passport to travel from one state to another--neither before the bifurcation nor after.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:
Wrong again. For example people of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh do not require a passport to travel from one state to another--neither before the bifurcation nor after.

You're comparing logistics rather than their true feelings to each other, from that standpoint both issues are one and the same.

Vetri Vel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:
Wrong again. For example people of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh do not require a passport to travel from one state to another--neither before the bifurcation nor after.

You're comparing logistics rather than their true feelings to each other, from that standpoint both issues are one and the same.

you are mistaking regionalism and regional chauvinism with separatism and secessionism. Both Andhra and Telangana people continue to remain Indians. On August 15, schools and govt. offices across Andhra and Telangana will continue to raise the Indian flag.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:
Wrong again. For example people of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh do not require a passport to travel from one state to another--neither before the bifurcation nor after.

You're comparing logistics rather than their true feelings to each other, from that standpoint both issues are one and the same.

you are mistaking regionalism and regional chauvinism with separatism and secessionism. Both Andhra and Telangana people continue to remain Indians. On August 15, schools and govt. offices across Andhra and Telangana will continue to raise the Indian flag.

How are they different? A couple of generations ago there was no Pakistan or India nor Andhra Pradesh heck there was no entity called India either.

Vetri Vel wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

brie wrote:
and what good would it do to us to let it cede to rogue pakistan? will it stem the bleed or increase it?

They want independent Kashmir, let them have it; why should India care about Kashmir after secession. Does India care about Pakistan & Bangladesh?

if confuzzled were to by chance become Prime Minister of India, there would be no India; he would have ensured the balkanization of India. Since whoever would have wanted to secede from India would have been given the green signal by Confuzzled. Let us remind ourselves that in the US Abraham Lincoln had gone to war when the southern states wanted to secede from the northern states. We should follow the line taken by Abraham Lincoln, and not the line taken by confused (albeit probably well meaning) people like Arundhati Roy.

If an American President were handling the situation such as in India, the JNU probably would be closed by now. Google for the Kent State University when its students were protesting against the Vietnam War during Nixon's time.

the litmus test in my opinion is violence. If the students were not indulging in violence, but only in slogan shouting, then they cannot be arrested. That is also what Indian law says. Chaddis cannot take the law into their own hands.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
They want independent Kashmir, let them have it; why should India care about Kashmir after secession. Does India care about Pakistan & Bangladesh?

if confuzzled were to by chance become Prime Minister of India, there would be no India; he would have ensured the balkanization of India. Since whoever would have wanted to secede from India would have been given the green signal by Confuzzled. Let us remind ourselves that in the US Abraham Lincoln had gone to war when the southern states wanted to secede from the northern states. We should follow the line taken by Abraham Lincoln, and not the line taken by confused (albeit probably well meaning) people like Arundhati Roy.

If an American President were handling the situation such as in India, the JNU probably would be closed by now. Google for the Kent State University when its students were protesting against the Vietnam War during Nixon's time.

the litmus test in my opinion is violence. If the students were not indulging in violence, but only in slogan shouting, then they cannot be arrested. That is also what Indian law says. Chaddis cannot take the law into their own hands.

The real issue is the "freedom of expression"  (as granted in the U.S. under the First Amendment). The questions is whether such right (freedom of expression) applies to anti-national activities (under the excuse of "peaceful" protests).  The U.S. example involving the students protesting against the Vietnam War says 'no' to such rights. The attack on Indian Parliament, etc., including the protests in support of such attackers, similarly would fall under the same anti-national category, and therefore would be outside the domain of "freedom of expression" granted under the Constitution which itself is protected and exercised by the Parliament (the very Institution abused and threatened by the attackers).

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:
In his effort to minimize the brutality of Kashmir Muslims, he is weaving fictitious stories about t area people.
It is amazing that he would go to these extremes of creating such baseless fiction. It goes to his extreme devotion to providing cover to the inhuman Kashmir Muslim jehadis.

TBT, Do you blurt whatever comes to mind? Where did I try to minimize the brutality? In fact, I said the opposite. I said, that useless state Kashmir has been a burden on India; Cost India 3 wars and a lot of human & financial loss, and Kashmir's secession from India would be good for India's future. It would help, if you to read the posts before providing your expert commentary/analysis.

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:
In his effort to minimize the brutality of Kashmir Muslims, he is weaving fictitious stories about t area people.
It is amazing that he would go to these extremes of creating such baseless fiction. It goes to his extreme devotion to providing cover to the inhuman Kashmir Muslim jehadis.

TBT, Do you blurt whatever comes to mind? Where did I try to minimize the brutality? In fact, I said the opposite. I said, that useless state Kashmir has been a burden on India; Cost India 3 wars and a lot of human & financial loss, and Kashmir's secession from India would be good for India's future. It would help, if you to read the posts before providing your expert commentary/analysis.

cd
Being stupidly stubborn does not make your arguments any better. I lived near nampally. I know lot of adults who lived in the area in 60's and are quite familiar with t agitation. So try to hoodwink posters on this forum by claiming only you have knowledge of t agitation. I challenge you to walk with me to nampally station and verify our stories with real people.
You said useless Kashmir but did not identify the group that perpetuated the atrocities. Based on your apologist attitude towards Islamic jehadi atrocities,  that is not accidental either.

Vetri Vel wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:

if confuzzled were to by chance become Prime Minister of India, there would be no India; he would have ensured the balkanization of India. Since whoever would have wanted to secede from India would have been given the green signal by Confuzzled. Let us remind ourselves that in the US Abraham Lincoln had gone to war when the southern states wanted to secede from the northern states. We should follow the line taken by Abraham Lincoln, and not the line taken by confused (albeit probably well meaning) people like Arundhati Roy.

If an American President were handling the situation such as in India, the JNU probably would be closed by now. Google for the Kent State University when its students were protesting against the Vietnam War during Nixon's time.

the litmus test in my opinion is violence. If the students were not indulging in violence, but only in slogan shouting, then they cannot be arrested. That is also what Indian law says. Chaddis cannot take the law into their own hands.

The real issue is the "freedom of expression"  (as granted in the U.S. under the First Amendment). The questions is whether such right (freedom of expression) applies to anti-national activities (under the excuse of "peaceful" protests).  The U.S. example involving the students protesting against the Vietnam War says 'no' to such rights. The attack on Indian Parliament, etc., including the protests in support of such attackers, similarly would fall under the same anti-national category, and therefore would be outside the domain of "freedom of expression" granted under the Constitution which itself is protected and exercised by the Parliament (the very Institution abused and threatened by the attackers).

with respect to the Vietnam protests, the US had no problem as long as the protests were peaceful. The US took action against the Kent State University students only after the protests became violent. We need to emulate the US in India. We need to respect the right of everyone to protest peacefully.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
If an American President were handling the situation such as in India, the JNU probably would be closed by now. Google for the Kent State University when its students were protesting against the Vietnam War during Nixon's time.

the litmus test in my opinion is violence. If the students were not indulging in violence, but only in slogan shouting, then they cannot be arrested. That is also what Indian law says. Chaddis cannot take the law into their own hands.

The real issue is the "freedom of expression"  (as granted in the U.S. under the First Amendment). The questions is whether such right (freedom of expression) applies to anti-national activities (under the excuse of "peaceful" protests).  The U.S. example involving the students protesting against the Vietnam War says 'no' to such rights. The attack on Indian Parliament, etc., including the protests in support of such attackers, similarly would fall under the same anti-national category, and therefore would be outside the domain of "freedom of expression" granted under the Constitution which itself is protected and exercised by the Parliament (the very Institution abused and threatened by the attackers).

with respect to the Vietnam protests, the US had no problem as long as the protests were peaceful. The US took action against the Kent State University students only after the protests became violent. We need to emulate the US in India. We need to respect the right of everyone to protest peacefully.

Do you consider the attack on Parliament a peaceful activity, which ultimately has led to the protests and sloganeering in support of men attacking the Parliament?

Vetri Vel wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Vetri Vel wrote:

the litmus test in my opinion is violence. If the students were not indulging in violence, but only in slogan shouting, then they cannot be arrested. That is also what Indian law says. Chaddis cannot take the law into their own hands.

The real issue is the "freedom of expression"  (as granted in the U.S. under the First Amendment). The questions is whether such right (freedom of expression) applies to anti-national activities (under the excuse of "peaceful" protests).  The U.S. example involving the students protesting against the Vietnam War says 'no' to such rights. The attack on Indian Parliament, etc., including the protests in support of such attackers, similarly would fall under the same anti-national category, and therefore would be outside the domain of "freedom of expression" granted under the Constitution which itself is protected and exercised by the Parliament (the very Institution abused and threatened by the attackers).

with respect to the Vietnam protests, the US had no problem as long as the protests were peaceful. The US took action against the Kent State University students only after the protests became violent. We need to emulate the US in India. We need to respect the right of everyone to protest peacefully.

Do you consider the attack on Parliament a peaceful activity, which ultimately has led to the protests and sloganeering in support of men attacking the Parliament?

non-sequiteur.

truthbetold wrote:Cd

Let us extend your example to Sikh routs in Delhi. Hi bhagat was widely regarded as the prime mover behind the killings.

Would you support a jnu carnival to celebrate hk bhagat?

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:
In his effort to minimize the brutality of Kashmir Muslims, he is weaving fictitious stories about t area people.
It is amazing that he would go to these extremes of creating such baseless fiction. It goes to his extreme devotion to providing cover to the inhuman Kashmir Muslim jehadis.

TBT, Do you blurt whatever comes to mind? Where did I try to minimize the brutality? In fact, I said the opposite. I said, that useless state Kashmir has been a burden on India; Cost India 3 wars and a lot of human & financial loss, and Kashmir's secession from India would be good for India's future. It would help, if you to read the posts before providing your expert commentary/analysis.

cd
Being stupidly stubborn does not make your arguments any better. I lived near nampally. I know lot of adults who lived in the area in 60's and are quite familiar with t agitation. So try to hoodwink posters on this forum by claiming only you have knowledge of t agitation. I challenge you to walk with me to nampally station and verify our stories with real people.
You said useless Kashmir but did not identify the group that perpetuated the atrocities. Based on your apologist attitude towards Islamic jehadi atrocities,  that is not accidental either.

Ignorance is bliss. If you're not aware of those incidents does not mean they did not happen. Next time, when you're in Hyderabad, by all means, check around. As for your other argument about Kashmir, who do you think India fought wars against? Sri Lanka?

Kinnera wrote:
CD, my parents and the whole extended family lived in hyderabad since the early 60s and they are out and out Rayalaseemites. Most of them lived in Lakdikapool during that time, which is very close to Nampally. Nopes, I never heard of anything as remotely as anything that you are claiming. So, boo to that. 

But, I don't discount what you are saying. The difference will only be in landmarks/timeline. Such things must've happened during the Razakar movement. Unspeakable horrors have been committed by the muslim Razakars (under Nizam) on the hapless hindu Telanganites. Yes, the Razakar movement is very very similar to the Kashmir issue. The Nizam wanted the Hyderabad state to be a part Pakistan, not India. And in order to justify that, he needed the Hyderabad state to be a total muslim majority state. So he terrorized the hindu telanganites and tried to drive them out of Hyderabad. The similar thing that happened to the Kashmiri Pandits. Thankfully, Patel intervened and things  got under control. If a similar thing had happened in Kashmir too, we wouldn't be having the Kashmir problem today. But alas, Nehru messed up everything totally. 

So yeah, in a way you are right. The Razakar movement, their intent and the atrocities committed are very similar to what's happened/happening in Kashmir.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
CD, my parents and the whole extended family lived in hyderabad since the early 60s and they are out and out Rayalaseemites. Most of them lived in Lakdikapool during that time, which is very close to Nampally. Nopes, I never heard of anything as remotely as anything that you are claiming. So, boo to that. 

But, I don't discount what you are saying. The difference will only be in landmarks/timeline. Such things must've happened during the Razakar movement. Unspeakable horrors have been committed by the muslim Razakars (under Nizam) on the hapless hindu Telanganites. Yes, the Razakar movement is very very similar to the Kashmir issue. The Nizam wanted the Hyderabad state to be a part Pakistan, not India. And in order to justify that, he needed the Hyderabad state to be a total muslim majority state. So he terrorized the hindu telanganites and tried to drive them out of Hyderabad. The similar thing that happened to the Kashmiri Pandits. Thankfully, Patel intervened and things  got under control. If a similar thing had happened in Kashmir too, we wouldn't be having the Kashmir problem today. But alas, Nehru messed up everything totally. 

So yeah, in a way you are right. The Razakar movement, their intent and the atrocities committed are very similar to what's happened/happening in Kashmir.

You win again. I've been proved a Muslim by you, umpteenth time. Great work.

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
CD, my parents and the whole extended family lived in hyderabad since the early 60s and they are out and out Rayalaseemites. Most of them lived in Lakdikapool during that time, which is very close to Nampally. Nopes, I never heard of anything as remotely as anything that you are claiming. So, boo to that. 

But, I don't discount what you are saying. The difference will only be in landmarks/timeline. Such things must've happened during the Razakar movement. Unspeakable horrors have been committed by the muslim Razakars (under Nizam) on the hapless hindu Telanganites. Yes, the Razakar movement is very very similar to the Kashmir issue. The Nizam wanted the Hyderabad state to be a part Pakistan, not India. And in order to justify that, he needed the Hyderabad state to be a total muslim majority state. So he terrorized the hindu telanganites and tried to drive them out of Hyderabad. The similar thing that happened to the Kashmiri Pandits. Thankfully, Patel intervened and things  got under control. If a similar thing had happened in Kashmir too, we wouldn't be having the Kashmir problem today. But alas, Nehru messed up everything totally. 

So yeah, in a way you are right. The Razakar movement, their intent and the atrocities committed are very similar to what's happened/happening in Kashmir.

You win again. I've been proved a Muslim by you, umpteenth time. Great work.

I don't care whether you are a muslim or not. My posts says nothing of that sort. I just presented my view on what you were claiming.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
CD, my parents and the whole extended family lived in hyderabad since the early 60s and they are out and out Rayalaseemites. Most of them lived in Lakdikapool during that time, which is very close to Nampally. Nopes, I never heard of anything as remotely as anything that you are claiming. So, boo to that. 

But, I don't discount what you are saying. The difference will only be in landmarks/timeline. Such things must've happened during the Razakar movement. Unspeakable horrors have been committed by the muslim Razakars (under Nizam) on the hapless hindu Telanganites. Yes, the Razakar movement is very very similar to the Kashmir issue. The Nizam wanted the Hyderabad state to be a part Pakistan, not India. And in order to justify that, he needed the Hyderabad state to be a total muslim majority state. So he terrorized the hindu telanganites and tried to drive them out of Hyderabad. The similar thing that happened to the Kashmiri Pandits. Thankfully, Patel intervened and things  got under control. If a similar thing had happened in Kashmir too, we wouldn't be having the Kashmir problem today. But alas, Nehru messed up everything totally. 

So yeah, in a way you are right. The Razakar movement, their intent and the atrocities committed are very similar to what's happened/happening in Kashmir.

You win again. I've been proved a Muslim by you, umpteenth time. Great work.

I don't care whether you are a muslim or not. My posts says nothing of that sort. I just presented my view on what you were claiming.

You do obviously.

truthbetold wrote:Cd
I am not just saying I am not aware. I smashing you are making this up. You have a habit of making up facts against people you do not like.

truthbetold wrote:
As far t area facts are concerning,  you try to claim more knowledge than me.  You don't. You truer to pull a fast one and got caught.

Hellsangel wrote:


The black section reads Pakistan.

confuzzled dude wrote:

brie wrote:
it is a true part of india despite article 370 and despite your leftist teachings. 

it's a bit like sikkim. read it up (it's history) in wikipedia. sikkim entered a one-way street after it's last referendum. now it cannot leave india and india is legitimized to use force to prevent it's secession.

Leftist teachings!! Instead of mindless parroting of idiotic lines read a bit about true democracies and how they dealt with sedition issues; that is, if you're a true democrat not an ultra-nationalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession wrote:Discussions and threats of secession often surface in American politics, and secession was declared during the Civil War between the States. However, in 1869 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that unilateral secession was not permitted saying that the union between a state (Texas in the case before the bar) "was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Barmy Fotheringay-Phipps wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:


The black section reads Pakistan.

nicely photoshopped.