That’s because you’re trying to find definitive, binary answers to a problem that is much more complex. I’ve replied to all your questions, but if you’re still unclear about my stance or thoughts, feel free to ask specific questions and I’ll clarify.
Edit: Also, what the fuck am I supposed to do if I talk/write like that? I was born before ChatGPT, so maybe ChatGPT is wreckministeresque.
I am not trying to find binaries or anything like that because I just don’t know what you are getting at. Like
So, if a region of Kashmir is to be integrated into India, it’s only fair that it follows the same laws as the rest of the states. Whether it concerns the resettlement of Kashmiri Pandits or land acquisition by non-Muslims, the same rules should apply uniformly across the country.
What are you trying to say here? Sending Hindu settlers to Kashmir is following “the same laws as the rest of the states”? Or the opposite? Your line of reasoning does not make sense to me.
Not actively sending Hindus, but keeping the option open for people of any religion to buy property in India-administered Kashmir, just as it functions in every other Indian state. Since Article 370 has been abrogated, it is only fair that Kashmir be treated like any other Indian state. Of course, this raises concerns about gentrification, but that is an inevitable phenomenon in our capitalistic reality. As I mentioned earlier, an autonomous Kashmir would be the ideal scenario for the region. However, historically, Kashmir’s autonomy has often served as a means for Pakistan to pursue its expansionist ambitions.
1947: India and Pakistan gain independence from Great Britain. The ruler of Kashmir initially decides to remain independent, choosing not to become a part of either Pakistan or India. After militants from Pakistan invade, he signs a letter acceding to India. Pakistan does not recognize the letter as a legal document, sparking war. In 1949, the two countries agree to withdraw all troops behind a mutually agreed ceasefire line, later known as the Line of Control.
1965: India and Pakistan go to war again over Kashmir. The clash did not resolve the dispute over the territory.
1999: India and Pakistan fight a limited border conflict in Kashmir, after armed invaders from Pakistan cross the Line of Control in the town of Kargil.
Pakistan has always been a theistic nation with expansionist ambitions; however, it lacks the might and resources to fulfill them. The 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War was a clear example of its aggressive stance; it was denied a united Islamic nation by the very Muslims of Bangladesh. A similar form of aggression has been experienced by the Kashmiri Muslims for decades. There’s a reason why the Kashmiris chose to elect a pro-India government in the 2024 election, even after the abrogation of Article 370.
Moreover, Kashmir has never been a Muslim-only region. The Mughal invasion, like the arrival of Islam, was a relatively recent development in the context of Kashmir’s long and rich history. I’m not sure if you’re already familiar with the region’s history, but in case you’re not, I recommend the following articles:
Hindus have always been part of Kashmir’s demographic fabric, and they remain so to this day. However, there have been efforts by Islamic fundamentalists to alter that balance, leading to the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits, the most persecuted non-Muslim community in the region. Therefore, claiming that the government is trying to change the region’s ethnic makeup seems somewhat misguided. And to be clear, this is not a statement about Muslims being bad or Hindus being good; that’s a reductive and pointless debate. This is ultimately a matter of power structures.
That’s because you’re trying to find definitive, binary answers to a problem that is much more complex. I’ve replied to all your questions, but if you’re still unclear about my stance or thoughts, feel free to ask specific questions and I’ll clarify.
Edit: Also, what the fuck am I supposed to do if I talk/write like that? I was born before ChatGPT, so maybe ChatGPT is wreckministeresque.
I am not trying to find binaries or anything like that because I just don’t know what you are getting at. Like
What are you trying to say here? Sending Hindu settlers to Kashmir is following “the same laws as the rest of the states”? Or the opposite? Your line of reasoning does not make sense to me.
Not actively sending Hindus, but keeping the option open for people of any religion to buy property in India-administered Kashmir, just as it functions in every other Indian state. Since Article 370 has been abrogated, it is only fair that Kashmir be treated like any other Indian state. Of course, this raises concerns about gentrification, but that is an inevitable phenomenon in our capitalistic reality. As I mentioned earlier, an autonomous Kashmir would be the ideal scenario for the region. However, historically, Kashmir’s autonomy has often served as a means for Pakistan to pursue its expansionist ambitions.
Source
Pakistan has always been a theistic nation with expansionist ambitions; however, it lacks the might and resources to fulfill them. The 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War was a clear example of its aggressive stance; it was denied a united Islamic nation by the very Muslims of Bangladesh. A similar form of aggression has been experienced by the Kashmiri Muslims for decades. There’s a reason why the Kashmiris chose to elect a pro-India government in the 2024 election, even after the abrogation of Article 370.
Moreover, Kashmir has never been a Muslim-only region. The Mughal invasion, like the arrival of Islam, was a relatively recent development in the context of Kashmir’s long and rich history. I’m not sure if you’re already familiar with the region’s history, but in case you’re not, I recommend the following articles:
A detailed account of the annexation of Kashmir by the Mughal rulers by Khalid Bashir Ahmad, a Kashmiri author.
An article on the original inhabitants of Kashmir.
Hindus have always been part of Kashmir’s demographic fabric, and they remain so to this day. However, there have been efforts by Islamic fundamentalists to alter that balance, leading to the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits, the most persecuted non-Muslim community in the region. Therefore, claiming that the government is trying to change the region’s ethnic makeup seems somewhat misguided. And to be clear, this is not a statement about Muslims being bad or Hindus being good; that’s a reductive and pointless debate. This is ultimately a matter of power structures.