US Congress approves aid, with caveats

[Kakar-Wardak]

India has never started a war. All wars were started (and lost) by Pakistan. Pakistan is the real hostile neighbor thats why you are surrounded by hostile neighbors (except China that its wisely taking full advantage of Pakistan).

Anyway you should know that India needs Pakistan. You are a buffer zone between them and the Islamic world. Its your military that its spreading those lies in order to keep enjoying from their corrupt style of life and privileges.

Still that doesn't answer why Pakistan is a beggar nation.

This is true Indians by their nature are a passive people they only care about making money, every Indian I know is only after one thing that is money, I have never seen them start a fight or cause much trouble, the exception to this is some Sikhs they are more about turbans and beards and smelling like a dead fox and dal and other disgusting stuff their culture involves.

[Porus]

India started a war by initiating hostilities. They tried to snatch grab Kashmir. All wars were revolving around India's attempt at stealing.

Pakistan decided to throw a punch here and there. Good.

It was Pakistan that first sent tribal lashkars into Kashmir. After doing that the Kashmiri price Hari Singh signed the treaty to join India, India was only defending what was then legally its own territory. If anything India has the claim to the rest of Kashmir.

But I don't think India should invade. Pakistan should just stick to what it has and let India deal with Kashmir. We have our own problems, and Kashmir is just not one of them, sorry to say.

[Elite Pakhtun]

It was Pakistan that first sent tribal lashkars into Kashmir. After doing that the Kashmiri price Hari Singh signed the treaty to join India, India was only defending what was then legally its own territory. If anything India has the claim to the rest of Kashmir.

But I don't think India should invade. Pakistan should just stick to what it has and let India deal with Kashmir. We have our own problems, and Kashmir is just not one of them, sorry to say.

Ehhh... see the thing is, their prince made an "executive decision", without holding any sort of a referendum etc. There is argument that he was under duress, which he probably was.

"Legally" depends on which law is being applied. If you believe the colonials get the final say, then you could be right. If you believe a voice of the people matters more than oppressive colonials, and a fair democratic referendum should've transpired, then India is in the wrong.

Majority of Kashmir are Muslim, making it rightfully Pakistan's.

[Porus]

Ehhh... see the thing is, their prince made an "executive decision", without holding any sort of a referendum etc. There is argument that he was under duress, which he probably was.

Well, you can't expect a referendum during a war can you? Thing is, if Pakistan really wanted Kashmir it could've tried to strike a deal with Hari Singh, promising him power or autonomy if he agrees. Not that we'd have been obliged to keep that promise later.

"Legally" depends on which law is being applied. If you believe the colonials get the final say, then you could be right. If you believe a voice of the people matters more than oppressive colonials, and a fair democratic referendum should've transpired, then India is in the wrong.

I do believe that India is in the wrong, however that doesn't make Pakistan in the right. Pakistan is even more in the wrong because it made the first step by attacking Kashmir. Both Pakistan and India are post-colonial states anyway.

Majority of Kashmir are Muslim, making it rightfully Pakistan's.

Nope. By that logic all Muslim states belong to Pakistan. Plus like you said, to take the democratic will of the people into account is important. I agree. Most Kashmiris don't want to join Pakistan anyway. They prefer independence. My question is, if they get independence, will they be able to sustain themselves from the hostile policies of both India and Pakistan?

[Peshawer_222]

India has never started a war. All wars were started (and lost) by Pakistan. Pakistan is the real hostile neighbor thats why you are surrounded by hostile neighbors (except China that its wisely taking full advantage of Pakistan).

Anyway you should know that India needs Pakistan. You are a buffer zone between them and the Islamic world. Its your military that its spreading those lies in order to keep enjoying from their corrupt style of life and privileges.

Still that doesn't answer why Pakistan is a beggar nation.

Is that what they teach you in Afghanistan ? Apart from 71 all three wars were stalemates according to independent sources . In 47 we got half of Kashmir , In 65 both suffered equal loses with PAF completely destroying 3/4 of Indian Airforce . While in Kargil they did get their peaks back but with higher casuality rate than us .

[Samandri]

It was Pakistan that first sent tribal lashkars into Kashmir. After doing that the Kashmiri price Hari Singh signed the treaty to join India, India was only defending what was then legally its own territory. If anything India has the claim to the rest of Kashmir.

But I don't think India should invade. Pakistan should just stick to what it has and let India deal with Kashmir. We have our own problems, and Kashmir is just not one of them, sorry to say.

I agree, legally Kashmir belongs to India..........but India ignored legality when it came to the largest princely state Hyderabad Deccan, and Jonagadh, their excuse was that these two princely states were Hindu majority and geographically belongs to India. So Pakistan's claim on Kashmir is not non-nonsensical.

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

Stupid leaders otherwise we have to charge them 2 Billion dollars for transit for nato supply line per year with no strings attached.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Well, you can't expect a referendum during a war can you? Thing is, if Pakistan really wanted Kashmir it could've tried to strike a deal with Hari Singh, promising him power or autonomy if he agrees. Not that we'd have been obliged to keep that promise later.

Bad argument. Why use one standard for the entire sub continent, and an entirely different one for kashmir? Striking a deal is nonsensical. India can offer more because they're bigger in size.

I do believe that India is in the wrong, however that doesn't make Pakistan in the right. Pakistan is even more in the wrong because it made the first step by attacking Kashmir. Both Pakistan and India are post-colonial states anyway.

No, pakistan was in the right. India snatching grabbed based on a biased, undemocratic, authoritarian ruling. Pakistan defended it's rightful claim.

Nope. By that logic all Muslim states belong to Pakistan. Plus like you said, to take the democratic will of the people into account is important. I agree. Most Kashmiris don't want to join Pakistan anyway. They prefer independence. My question is, if they get independence, will they be able to sustain themselves from the hostile policies of both India and Pakistan?

Per mandate of Pakistan, and 1946 elections, yes.

Most kashmiris do want to join.

Comments

[dawn]

Actual amount is only $500 million with no strings attached. While $400 million more to release Shakeel Afridi and take action against Haqqanis? I don't see it happening.

[Porus]

Bad argument. Why use one standard for the entire sub continent, and an entirely different one for kashmir? Striking a deal is nonsensical. India can offer more because they're bigger in size.

No standards :/ just saying that war/invasion is not a solution. I maintain that view in regards to Afghanistan and Bangladesh as well.

No, pakistan was in the right. India snatching grabbed based on a biased, undemocratic, authoritarian ruling. Pakistan defended it's rightful claim.

Again, Pakistan invaded first, it's important to understand that. We invaded them sending Waziri/Maseed Lashkars into Kashmiri territory, thinking they would initiate an uprising against a Sikh king. Unfortunately that didn't happen.

Per mandate of Pakistan, and 1946 elections, yes.

Most kashmiris do want to join.

Comments

One village in Kashmir doesn't mean anything. You're more educated than that.

Plus I mean it's like... if Afghans wave an Indian flag, it would be to piss Pakistan off not because they wanna join India. Same with the Kashmiris. I guess they regard Pakistan as a brother, but not the country of their future.

[dawn]

Well, you can't expect a referendum during a war can you? Thing is, if Pakistan really wanted Kashmir it could've tried to strike a deal with Hari Singh, promising him power or autonomy if he agrees. Not that we'd have been obliged to keep that promise later.

Right but you forget about freedom movement of current day AJK and Gilget by locals who were in British army and armed against Dogras. Jinnah who clearly ****ed up here by not sending army. Instead some soldiers from neighbour districts of punjab went there on their own in shalwar kameez. After that no way Hari Singh would have joined Pakistan.

Most of muslim majority areas of Jammu & Kashmir are under Pakistan already, with some effort from Jinnah, Kashmir valley could have been captured. Rest of and in fact most of IoK land is hindu/bhudist majority. Kashmiri muslim make majority but they have small area under their control.

Kashmiri muslims now may not want to join Pakistan, they were not eager to join in 1948 either when tribal lashkars went there. But if option is between India and Pakistan then they will 100% chose Pakistan.

[Elite Pakhtun]

No standards :/ just saying that war/invasion is not a solution. I maintain that view in regards to Afghanistan and Bangladesh as well.

India violated sovereignty with the snatch grab. Pakistan did the right thing.

Again, Pakistan invaded first, it's important to understand that. We invaded them sending Waziri/Maseed Lashkars into Kashmiri territory, thinking they would initiate an uprising against a Sikh king. Unfortunately that didn't happen.

He was hindu.

Initiating an uprising wasn't the end goal, army eventually intervened. The tribals were sent as a fighting force on behalf of Pakistan. It was chaos.

One village in Kashmir doesn't mean anything. You're more educated than that.

Lol... c'mon man. India has been brutal to kashmiris for how long? They've been suppressing them. That video is just one example. There's far too many examples.

You shouldn't be so disingenuous. India has imposed many media blackouts. In just glad social media exists. These guys want to leave.

Plus I mean it's like... if Afghans wave an Indian flag, it would be to piss Pakistan off not because they wanna join India. Same with the Kashmiris. I guess they regard Pakistan as a brother, but not the country of their future.

C'mon dude... you're a reasonable guy. Flag waving is dependent on the context, and scale. There's no push in Afghanistan to join india.

Even if we run with your example...then kashmiris think they're not indian, to the point they'll wave pakistani flags and fight indian authorities.

[Porus]

India violated sovereignty with the snatch grab. Pakistan did the right thing.

Okay. Guess I can't say more.

He was hindu.

Nope. Not that it matters anyway.

Hari Singh - Wikipedia

Initiating an uprising wasn't the end goal, army eventually intervened. The tribals were sent as a fighting force on behalf of Pakistan. It was chaos.

Tribals were sent to gather an uprising in a preemptive measure to overthrow the Maharajah. The decision wasn't made yet, but Pakistan was afraid that the king would either opt for India or independence, thus sabotaging Pakistan's right to Kashmir. So the Lashkars go into Kashmir, Hari Singh ****s his pants and asks India to invade, upon which he signs the document of accession.

Lol... c'mon man. India has been brutal to kashmiris for how long? They've been suppressing them. That video is just one example. There's far too many examples.

You shouldn't be so disingenuous. India has imposed many media blackouts. In just glad social media exists. These guys want to leave.

Not being disingenuous; if you want an example, compare the coverage of Kashmir in Indian media to the coverage of the Baloch insurgency in Pakistan, you'll find a striking similarity. There has literally only been a couple of interviews with separatist leaders like Brahamdagh, portraying a very one-sided view of the Baloch problem. Right now, media outlets are very aware of what's happening there, but they can't cover it. They fear the ISI.

C'mon dude... you're a reasonable guy. Flag waving is dependent on the context, and scale. There's no push in Afghanistan to join india.

Even if we run with your example...then kashmiris think they're not indian, to the point they'll wave pakistani flags and fight indian authorities.

When there was 'ab ki baar, modi sarkaar' written on the walls of Baloch villages... it didn't mean joining India. It's all an expression of hatred for a singular thing. I agree with you, Kashmiris hate Indians and rightfully so, but we're not in a position to help them without sabotaging our own future as a country. We've been trying to attain Kashmir since independence... in the process we've lost half of our country, while the rest of it is hanging high and dry right now. I wish that Pakistan would listen to reason and understand that it's better to let go. Can't afford to have hostile neighbours on your largest borders.

[Porus]

I agree, legally Kashmir belongs to India..........but India ignored legality when it came to the largest princely state Hyderabad Deccan, and Jonagadh, their excuse was that these two princely states were Hindu majority and geographically belongs to India. So Pakistan's claim on Kashmir is not non-nonsensical.

No I agree with that. But better to have acknowledged a tactical defeat 70 years ago than to have faced 4 humiliating ones back to back.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Nope. Not that it matters anyway.

Hari Singh - Wikipedia

Somebody changed that. It read hindu before. Someone should put it back to hindu. You realize there are Singhs that are hindu, right?

Hari Singh was more than a Hindu king who ruled over a Muslim majority state

Non wiki sources confirm he's hindu.

Tribals were sent to gather an uprising in a preemptive measure to overthrow the Maharajah. The decision wasn't made yet, but Pakistan was afraid that the king would either opt for India or independence, thus sabotaging Pakistan's right to Kashmir. So the Lashkars go into Kashmir, Hari Singh ****s his pants and asks India to invade, upon which he signs the document of accession.

It was definitely a cluster****. Pakistan didn't handle it right. But it's certainly pak's.

Not being disingenuous; if you want an example, compare the coverage of Kashmir in Indian media to the coverage of the Baloch insurgency in Pakistan, you'll find a striking similarity. There has literally only been a couple of interviews with separatist leaders like Brahamdagh, portraying a very one-sided view of the Baloch problem. Right now, media outlets are very aware of what's happening there, but they can't cover it. They fear the ISI.

Sure. However, Baluchistan province has a sizeable pashtun population, and they are not the least desirous of separation.

Also, these are 2 separate issues. We were talking about Kashmir.

When there was 'ab ki baar, modi sarkaar' written on the walls of Baloch villages... it didn't mean joining India. It's all an expression of hatred for a singular thing. I agree with you, Kashmiris hate Indians and rightfully so, but we're not in a position to help them without sabotaging our own future as a country. We've been trying to attain Kashmir since independence... in the process we've lost half of our country, while the rest of it is hanging high and dry right now. I wish that Pakistan would listen to reason and understand that it's better to let go. Can't afford to have hostile neighbours on your largest borders.

Which is why india gives so much of a ****. It's an investment by them to keep us security oriented.

Kashmir also has significant strategic importance.