Originally posted by souro
Originally posted by chal_phek_mat
I agree but Indira Gandhi and her cronies decided to utilize this opportunity to do a divide and conquer. I dont fault her, but lets call a spade a spade and this is exactly what Pakistan did in KashmirWhen you say divide and conquer then two things come to mind. First, India only helped an oppressed group of people achieve their independence (and that too only after the oppressed asked for independence and the oppressor started killing them)
Even the Brits said similar things while illustrating how horribly we treated our minorities and women and inflicting Divide and Rule. That is the same as ever intervention that America does in another country
But the British established their rule over India and sucked it dry. India didn't do any such thing. Instead it was Pakistan who were using Bangladesh as a colony. Everything was from administration to industry were controlled by West Pakistan and East Pakistan was used as a supplier of raw materials.
. Second, there was no conquering from India's side following the division.. Conquering the enemy is more fun, India basically managed to split the strength of the enemy in half by doing this, that is the biggest conquest
Maybe so but it was Pakistan who initiated the fun.
As far as likening it to Pakistan's role in Kasmir. India didn't send mercenaries to Pakistan to blow up people or to drive out Muslims from East Pakistan.
Again go back and check the RAW activities in that period. Indira Gandhi was notorious in using RAW for these reasons. Ask any Pakistani and they will say they got the inspiration of ISI from RAW and Indira Gandhi
To be honest I've no idea what RAW did at that time. But I've never heard of RAW causing explosion in Pakistan, then or now. Whereas ISI links with terrorism is clearly established.
India helped Bangladeshi freedom fighters legally through it's own army in uniform and not some terrorist.
One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, depends on which side of the debate you are on, they are just interchangeable terminoligies
Bangladesh was clearly getting exploited and were treated as a colony with no rights. People in Bangladesh who demanded rights or freedom didn't resort to terror. They protested the exploitation and forceful foisting of Pakistani culture on them. Pakistan instead of giving them rights started killing them. I don't think the people of Bangladeshi can be termed terrorists under such circumstances. It was Pakistan who creating terror amongst the Bangladeshi people.
India doesn't deny that help and neither do they deny that those who helped were from India. And ultimately the fact is it was Pakistan who attacked first both in case of Kashmir and Bangladesh. The same way India attacked in Kargil.
India attacked Kargil to get it back that is defending one's territory. Kashmir was never a part of Pakistan but it deliberately attacked it. And in case of Bangladesh first it attacked Bangladeshi people and then attacked India from the western border which was nowhere related to Bangladesh.
Pakistan even got a portion of Kashmir and then went ahead and gave a portion of it to China. That is their choice and shows their altruistic nature
Yeah sure, if you say so.
Really, I don't see much similarity with India's position on Bangladesh in 1970s.
It completely depends where your sunglasses are made in
We were both giving reasons for our arguments. So, that doesn't really matter.
Originally posted by chal_phek_mat
Well the Boatload of refugees change equation. India knew they either have to deal with the problem in their backyard in future in settling these refugees OR sympathize with them, win the war for them and get them to their homes, they chose the later
They could have easily thrown away the refugees and blocked their entry. Ultimately only because Pakistan attacked did the war start.
As I said Indians did not get caught with their pants down, Go check the news accounts, India was planning to attack in Winter and Pakistan just attacked first Atleast they were wiser than we were during the Kargil thingSo, who do you say attacked first?? We can never be sure who was planning what. I can say Pakistan govt. plans to attack India every day, will that prove anything.
Originally posted by chal_phek_mat
The original population of Jammu is Hindu and the original population of Kashmir is Muslim If you look at the population map of J&K in 1947. It was decidedly Muslim, that is why Sardar Patel and Nehru decided to go the backdoor to get the Maharaja's approval rather than do a simple count by religious lines And Nehru knew this b'cos that was his backyard.
The Radicalization of the valley started in 1990's and only around that period the kashmiri pandits were driven out.
I was actually speaking historically. Most of the muslims there had migrated from the other side. And many muslim rulers of the region started driving out Hindus. That started long back. Strangely and I don't know why but Hindus even when they became rulers never persecuted muslims for their religion.
It all depends on how far back in the history you want to go,If you go back 500 years ago, they were more Hindus, so we should declare India as a Hindu state. 2000 year ago we had half Aryan state and Half Dravidian state, so the first half should declare their affiliation with Nazi Germany
The fact is India Pakistan were divided on Religious lines, the terms and conditions were, more muslim majority goes to Pakistan, more Hindu majority goes to India. Kashmir in 1947 was more Muslim than Hindu and it belonged to Pakistan.
I was saying that Hindus had been made a minority because they were driven out over the years and not just in 1980s and 90s and Muslims have kept on influxing and breeding like bunnies. Anyways, lets stick to 1947. Even then Kashmir was a princely state and had the right to choose it's allegiance as the ruler saw fit. And he chose to remain independent.
What happened in 1990s was just a repetition of history.
What happened in 1970 was Majabir Rehman won a election. Yahya Khan overturned a democratice decision of the E Pakistani people, there was resentment in E. Pakistan. India used that event to fan Anti Pakistan feelings
What happened in 1990 was Rajiv Gandhi overturned a democratic decision of the people of Kashmir, there was resentment in the J&K, Pakistan used that event to fan anti India feelings
So I agree it was a replitation of history
And anyways, both Pakistan and India had decided that princely states will have the power to decide whether they want to join Pakistan, India or remain independent. Kashmir wanted to remain independent but Pakistan launched an attack on them.
Only then the Maharaja of Kashmir asked for India's help (and no India didn't interfere in their affairs to begin with). So, it was Pakistan who breached what was decided upon from the very beginning.
The King wanted to remain independant, the people wanted to join Pakistan. And India was a democracy meaning where you go by the will of the people
see... Bangladeshi people were not happy with their bossy West Pakistan
administrators. They asked for freedom. West Pakistan started killing
them. Then they attacked India. India retaliated and Bangladesh got
it's freedom in the process.
Now we come to Kashmir. Kashmir was a princely state and not a
democratic country to begin with. And both India and Pakistan knew that
it can choose as it wishes. The Maharaja of Kashmir wished to remain
independent. Pakistan didn't like the decision and mounted an attack on
Kashmir, which was a breach of the contract. Maharaja sought help from
India. India helped and the Maharaja decided to annexe his kingdom to
In 1980s and 90s anti-India sentiment flared up but by now Kashmir was
very much a part of India. And although India is a democratic country
but that doesn't mean sedition can also be decided by democratic voting.