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.
