My understanding is that in 1947, Kashmir had Hindu king and majority Muslim population. In contrast, Hyderabad had Muslim Nizam and majority Hindu population. How could India got both these provinces legally?
RE:hmir & Tibet
by TongInChic on Mar 24, 2008 09:35 AM Permalink
India is not a Hindu state. It does not matter whether a certain part has Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Sikh majority. That is the essence of India.
In the case of Kashmir, the ruler decided in favor of India. In the case of Hyderabad, they decided that they did not feel threatened by religion and found it even more difficult to shift the land thousands of kilometers towards Pakistan.
Pakistan is based on religion, India is not. That is the main difference and once you absorb this fact, a lot of things will become clearer.
Look around you all over the world. In how many countries would you find so many religions living peacefully together?
RE:hmir & Tibet
by Srinivasa on Mar 24, 2008 09:39 AM Permalink
Mr Hari,
I agree that Hyderabad had more Muslim. But, India aneexed not just Hyderabd but whole "Hydardabad region" which consists of many districs of present Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka where majority were Hindus. One think I could not make out: why are rising questions link this? Who are you?
RE:RE:hmir & Tibet
by hari ray on Mar 24, 2008 10:19 AM Permalink
Dear Srinivas ... I am an Indian. And I am interested in dispassionate analysis. If we have done some thing wrong, lets face it and accept it. I feel, during independence it was decided that majority of hindu/muslim shold be the basis to divide the countries. And India used two different standards for J&K and Hyderabad province (I said Hyd had majority hindu i.e. the hyd province and not just the city).
We must be honest and sincere in discussion. Otherwise, we can always claim that whatever we have done or whatever we do are always right.
RE:hmir & Tibet
by hari ray on Mar 24, 2008 11:56 AM Permalink
Punjab and Bengal had areas of hindu / muslim majorities. These 2 states were split accordingly. The split, however, was not always fair. But by and large, Congress and League followed the agreed principal.
The resulting human tragedy (of fleeing, driving out, crime) is a different issue.
Guy, The problem is the similarity or difference between Kashmir and Tibet is not decided by you. Some say it is similar, some say it is different. Who knows? You say your words. They say their words. Democracy or democrazy, right. The key is India recognized Tibet is a part of China. What can you do for this? TO solve the problem ,there are two ways. One is to reason and talk sense, the other is to resort force. India does not know how to talk sense. Indians know how to argue and quarrel for years and do not move. China knows to discuss among political bureau and have a consencus and then move. So, they can finish everything. India can not even finish a road in five years. So, China means what they say. If India do not cooperate, they have enough measures to give India hard time. This is a fact. Big mouth solves no problem.
RE:RE:to Milind
by msnews on Mar 24, 2008 09:34 AM Permalink
very true.. toally agree, actually we have very low political influence in international circle, becoz of our bogus internal politics n many conflicting views on any situtation which is not applicable to China.
RE:to Milind
by Sundar K on Mar 24, 2008 09:35 AM Permalink
Tibet is sovereign country. China ruled it for few hundred years doesn't mean it is part of china. Can we accept India is part of Britain, since Britain ruled India for 3 centuries.
Infact Tibet is more close to India than China. Indian history texts and hindu textures talk lot of synonymous of Himalayas with India. Most of the Himalayas is in Tibet. In the foul play of British, we gave hundreds of thousands of sq mile land to Tibet which China has swallowed. We have to know our history, so that we stand up to China to claim our land. Sources of Ganga, and Bhramaputra were always in India -except since 1948.
RE:to Milind
by Milind on Mar 24, 2008 09:43 AM Permalink
Nico Davis,
Being an engineer, I very well understand "Get the job done" attitude. I agree that Big mouth solves no problems. Action is required. The question is what action ?
We cannot be naive to believe that international problems are solved by morality. No position is right or wrong. Right position is what is in the interest of your country. If there is a conflict of interest, it is solved by negotiations. Only thing that matters during negotiations is military might, economic might and lessons that we learn from history! Dont fight with someone who has nuclear weapons. Develop your own and then negotiate!
India should not support free tibet as we also have facing such problem as tibet.See in aasam,nagaland and manipur they are fighting for independence from india.They are murdering innocent people from bihar etc to get rid of india.so we have to be careful to talk about tibet as we are facing same problem.
Someone on forum said "We cannot have double stndards,if we say that kashmir is an integral part of india so is tibet an integral part of china"
This comparison is apples to oranges. Kashmir was annexed to India legally. Whether it was morally right is a different point. Suppose you pay by the nose to buy a property, occupy it and then realize that the property was stolen. What do you do ? Give it up easily ? You paid for it already !
When India parted with a part of its land to Pakistan on the basis of religion, why was this basis not strictly followed ? If Pakistan became a Muslim country, shouldnt India have become a non-Muslim country ? Our pseudo-secular leaders made it a secular country. We have more muslims in India than in Pakistan.
I would compare this with the previous owner of the house you bought still occupying the bathroom saying he likes the bathroom since he has emotions attached to it. So we make special rules in this new house (Muslim law) we bought where the original owner can occupy the bathroom when he needs it. Funny thing is this house belonged to our ancestors to begin with.
If Muslims can get a minority status in other states, shouldnt Hindus get a minority status in Kashmir ? Instead we make a special article where non-Kashmiris cannot settle or own property in Kashmir. Hindu pandits have been driven away by ethnic cleansing. This does not compare with Tibet where China has been moving Han settlers in Tibet to change the demographics.
RE:Kashmir vs Tibet
by Raghu K on Mar 24, 2008 08:50 AM Permalink
"If Pakistan became a Muslim country, shouldn't India have become a non-Muslim country?"
Are you saying that you should blindly copy what your neighbor does? Pakistan was propelled for 60 years with unjustified prejudice & hatred against India and now they are inches away from a total collapse. Are you saying India too should have followed a similar path?
RE:Kashmir vs Tibet
by Milind on Mar 24, 2008 09:34 AM Permalink
Raghu K,
Whether we like it or not, the basis of division of land was religion. That was the deal. We got a raw deal. Having said that, we should respect all muslims who are truely Indian, follow family planning, are willing to accept uniform civil code and do not celebrate when Pakistan defeat India in cricket.
Also, I fail to understand how India would have become chaotic if we were a non-muslim country ? There would be uniform civil code and no-minority appeasement. NDA and UPA would have to fight elections on true issues rather an Religion/Caste etc. Religious parties like BJP would not exist.
RE:Kashmir vs Tibet
by Raghu K on Jun 23, 2008 10:12 AM Permalink
I agree the basis of the partition was religion. But we DIDN'T get a raw deal. Looking at the way both the countries progressed after the partition, India is miles ahead of Pak.
And I never said India will become chaotic if we were a non-muslim country. The fact is we ARE a non-muslim country. As per Indian constitution we are a secular country where everyone has a right to practice the religion they like. If somebody is doing minority appeasement why can't the majority throw that party out in the next elections?
All I said was Pakistan took an approach based on India-hatred, and we shouldn't blindly copy that.
RE:Kashmir vs Tibet
by Arnav Singh on Mar 24, 2008 08:24 AM Permalink
Nice post Milind...hope guys/gals understand the core message of ur post. Kashmir n Tibet r same issues only for useless indian commies (who r paid chinese sgents in india) and people who know nothing about history of either land.
It is most likely India's stand will change once the marxist masters of the Congress Party receive fresh instructions from their china bosses! And that has been the story of the last 4 disastrous years!
Not much can be expected from a Congress-led government comprising of leftists. Our policy on Tibet was a flawed one and the blunder has been perpetuated by successive governments. One can very well expect the same type of knee-jerk (toeing the Chinese line) reaction on Tawang and Arunachal as well.
Hi, Everyone, I am Chen Cong from China. I just want to say, leave all this issue to the Congress, what we should focusd on is how to earn money, have a health body and have a happy life. That's no use for us to argue here, because we are not in the Congress. We don't have the power to change this.
Anyway, that's my personal words. And I am interseted in India very much. Hope can be friends with all of you. My E-mail: mohinder.chen@gmail.com Skype: mohinder.chen
