Shivaji bhonsle Posted May 31, 2015 Author Posted May 31, 2015 Indians can try as much as they like to portray the Balochistan badly but it will never reach the level the Kashmir situation is at. Lol. Kashmir isn't an international issue to start with. It doesn't get as much priority in world media coverage like Gaza. Pakistan have tried their pissy might to make it an international issue by crying in UN, but no country in the world gives a damn about it and every one of them supports India 's stand on Kashmir. Coming back to Baluchistan, it is already a bigger news to get coverage from world media , I agree not as big as Kashmir, but the kind of money and resources we have, we can take it to a whole new level if you don't stop meddling in Kashmir. Baluchistan is already on world news every week. Few days back, some 20 militants and security got killed and it was all over the world media. If you think India is doing it, well, yes, we are doing so that you understand what you are doing in Kashmir. Ps- I'm not one of those posters who would deny our hands in Baluchistan. Yes, we are doing it and I'm happy we are doing it.
Kalia_Test Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 LTfuM_Xo59U FkCVe0azlEk JM0dojM58VE Gpcq6ScI5-Q 9aWRnAhEyj4 tC63sLBxob4
zen Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 Mate I've met many many Kashmiris from Azad Kashmir here in the UK and they are all proud Pakistanis. In fact majority of the Pakistanis you would meet in the UK are from Mirpur. And there are far more genuine examples of Kashmris wanting freedom from India than Balochis from Pakistan. And I don't want an argument on Kashmir now please, the argument would go nowhere. All I know is that with a 75% Muslim Majority Kashmir should have always been Pakistan's. Why weren't the people of Kashmir allowed to decide who they wanna be with? Its a no brainer they would have gone with Pakistan. Its not hard to choose between being a minority in a country and being a majority in a country. Similarly, there are Kashmiris who are proud to be Indians as well and have served or are serving the Indian Army The bolded part shows your ignorance on the issue. Please try to read from neutral sources. To briefly educate you: a) The pre-independence princely states had the option to 1) remain independent, 2) join Ind, or 3) join Pak .... so there is no point in saying that Kashmir should have been Pak's b) Pak's actually attacked Kashmir to occupy it by force using tribal forces (Kabalis for e.g.), which made the decision easier for the rulers of Kashmir to access to Ind c) In order to drive the Pak forces out, Ind's PM went to UN rather than choosing to just drive the forces out - which has created the current problem d) Therefore, even POK or Azad Kashmir as you would like to term is Ind's .... please see the video in the link #24 (Which is from POK) * Under the rules of referendum - Pak was supposed to drive its army, other forces and people out of Kashmir, but it did not do that (Please read UN resolution on Kashmir - not ISI's version) therefore violating UN resolution * On top of this, it also gave a part of POK to China (unilaterally) as if POK belongs to Pak. POK consists of Azad Kashmir as well as Gilgit-Balistan regions * Finally, Pak tried to change the demographics of Kashmir by driving out Kashmir Pandits (Hindus) out of the region through militancy Before you want to discuss Kashmir, pls remember that it is officially been accessed to India. As for referendum, Pak has not withdrawn its forces and people out of POK and it has also tried to change the demographics of the region. Additionally, it gave away parts of land belonging to Kashmiris (and officially Ind's) to China PS Balochistan is not an internal matter of Pakistan as it is claimed to be forcefully occupied by Pakistan. Therefore making Balochistan an unfinished agenda of pre-independence Balochi nationalists support the claim that the ruler of the Khan of Kalat, Mir Ahmad Yar Khan, was coerced by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the first governor-general of Pakistan, to sign the document of accession. Critics dispute such claims as unrealistic and contrary to popular support for Jinnah, as the Khan of Kalat ruled even after Jinnah's death with the support of the government. However, the Khan was not an absolute monarch; he was required to act under the provisions of the Rawaj (Kalat's constitution). The incorporation of the Khanate resulted in a few anti-Pakistani rallies and meetings in certain areas of the Khanate. To subdue anti-Pakistani sentiment, the Army of Pakistan was placed on alert. The Government of Pakistan decided to take complete control of the administration of the Khanate of Kalat on April 15, [1948. The Agent to the Governor General (A.G.G.) in Kalat conveyed Jinnah's orders that the Khanate would revert to its previous status as it had existed under British rule. In April 1948, several political leaders from Kalat, including Mohammad Amin Khosa and Abdul Samad Achakzai, were arrested. The pro-Congress Anjuman-i-Watan Party, headed by Samad Achakzai, was declared unlawful.
Shivaji bhonsle Posted May 31, 2015 Author Posted May 31, 2015 ^^. There is no use in educating these Pakistanis bro. The only way to make them fall in line is to play Baluchistan card.
KeyboardWarrior Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 jPyI1yv3NsM TlEULrwfvxc Fi6lLjnEpq8 yGfWjWpPNjM QC5SAkM2_Kc cLEzrSceaUQ ZYkk91pUzrE _d1YG04xTWE WGIh00EHNiY IX1hAQt-DWI QGYQP8pxD-8 L2hDUJ_Uyvk arundhati roy, a Brave Lady .... :hatsoff:
zen Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 l5R5Q53a4Ms Facts: Ind's population = 1.25B Pak's population = 182M Suppose, there are 100M bad people in each country, so bad people as a % of total population: Ind = 8% (less than 10%) Pak = 55% In an Ind-Pak argument: Ind - "Pak is bad" Pak - "Ind is equally bad" Ind - "There is no comparison as less than 10% of our population is bad, vs. Pak's 55%" Pak - "Both Pak and Ind have 100M bad people each, therefore they are equally bad" Ind - :facepalm: :blink: :wall: Pak - :two_thumbs_up: :yayo: :potstir: (we can compete with Ind) :P
zen Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 50P-UKLrHrg Demonstrations against Pak's illegal occupation in POK
Kalia_Test Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 50P-UKLrHrg Demonstrations against Pak's illegal occupation in POK Excellent video...TFS :two_thumbs_up: Majority in POK want to be part of India as we are tolerant, progressive and secular...:two_thumbs_up:
Muloghonto Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 Kashmir is not the internal matter of India. With a 75% Muslim majority Kashmir should have never been India's. Period. False. Kashmir was a princely state, the Princely states had FULL CONTROL over whether they wanted to join India, Pakistan or remain independent. Demographics factored ONLY on British crown lands, not on lands which were princely state vassals of the British Empire. Since the ruler of Kashmir exercised his legal right to join India, legally, Kashmir is 100% India's internal matter. Full stop, there is no questioning the legal basis of India's claim to Kashmir. Pakistan has no legal basis to claim Kashmir because the demographic scenario is NOT APPLICABLE for the princely states according to the instrument of accession that both Nehru and Jinnah agreed upon.
Muloghonto Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 Indians can try as much as they like to portray the Balochistan badly but it will never reach the level the Kashmir situation is at. only because Baluchistan does not have a foreign party with a border interfering in it. If Iran was to Pakistan what Pakistan is to India, Baluchistan would've been independent a long time ago.
Muloghonto Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 Mate I've met many many Kashmiris from Azad Kashmir here in the UK and they are all proud Pakistanis. In fact majority of the Pakistanis you would meet in the UK are from Mirpur. And there are far more genuine examples of Kashmris wanting freedom from India than Balochis from Pakistan. And I don't want an argument on Kashmir now please, the argument would go nowhere. All I know is that with a 75% Muslim Majority Kashmir should have always been Pakistan's. Why weren't the people of Kashmir allowed to decide who they wanna be with? Its a no brainer they would have gone with Pakistan. Its not hard to choose between being a minority in a country and being a majority in a country. This is simplified nonsense. In 1947, the Pashtuns wanted to be part of India, not part of Pakistan and only accepted to be part of Pakistan because unlike retarded Pakistani politicians, A.G.Khan realized that having a large Indian enclave between Pakistan and Afghanistan would be a recipe for disaster. Check the political records, the Pashtuns, who were traditionally Sunni, opposed formation of Pakistan. So there goes your communalist BS theory that 'if you are a certain religion, you will chose to be with the majority than be a minority in another country'. There are plenty of examples of religious minorities who prefer being minorities in their nation than majority in another nation. The simple reason is, unlike you and your fanatics from the desert religion, people care about nationalism just as much, if not more, than they care about religion.
zen Posted June 1, 2015 Posted June 1, 2015 There appears to be a cycle where after every few decades the world's borders change. In India too, we have had many changes for e.g. Goa was annexed to Ind and Sikkim joined Ind too. Internally, new states are being created - recent example of which is Telangana. In 2014, we saw Crimea and Sevastopol being annexed to Russia. In 2011, South Sudan became an independent state. Earlier too we have seen many events which reshaped international borders including WW1, WW2, German unification, Soviet break up, etc. The next major change in international borders could be brought by Balochistan becoming an independent country. bbPB2gn1HAI ^ A US Congressman supports independent Balochistan PS And what is interesting is that the entry/exit points in Pak of Pakistan-China's proposed economic corridor are in Pak occupied lands, i.e. POK and Balochistan
zen Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 How Kashmiri Pandits were discriminated against in Kashmir: H2R2yCrWw58 "a 30 days notice was given - convert or leave or die"
Recommended Posts