Do you think Kashmiris should be given azaadi (sovereignty)?

Participation in election is no indication that they want to be part of India. Even if they don't participate in election India will not give it up, and so people thought that participation in election is the more beneficial than not participation. India also knew that if election is called then some people or the other will contest and system will continue there. No where in the world would could you see total boycott of election. Because there are always elements here and there who wants to think only for themselves. Have you been to Kashmir? I have been there and the environment is not India friendly. Army and Kashmiris always hate each other. At slight pretext army will thrash them; similarly they will also stone army at any reason. If more than 50% of Kashmiris want to be part of India why don't India organise a pleibiscite and show to the whole world once and for all that majority Kashmiris themselves choose to be part of India. Alas! We fear that the vote counting will go against us. So we forcefully keep them with India. Kashmiris in general do not want to be part of Pakistan either. They want azaadi.

I fully agree with you. Infact they (Kashmiris) are very much interested in remaining with India. They had turned out in good numbers for voting during the number of elections and that was done inspite of clear threats by the terrorist groups not to vote during the elections.

I think around 40% of people that live in J&k are Hindus. I wonder why would a non-muslim would not want to be a part of secular India!And i dont think all muslims there would want aazadi either. I wasn't aware that the environment there is not india friendly! China does the same thing,or even worse to Tibet but they wont allow anybody in the world to even talk about liberation of Tibet.

1. Just as India wanted freedom from British rule so much so Kashmiri independentist wanted freedom from India. Mirwaiz or Geelani are real Kashmiris; anyone who doubt they could be Pakistani have not read ABC of Kashmir problem. Do we ask whether Omar Abdullah or Mehbooba Mufti is a Kashmiri? 2. All the killings done so far are not being 'labelled' as Pakistani agents even once by Indian govt. 3. India liberated Bangladesh by defeating Pakistan army. Did we say we should not intervene because it's internal matter? We don't have moral right to tell Pakistan to keep its hand off since we started it in 1971.

My question is whether it's fair to conquer and force a region to be part of Indian Union? If it's unfair for the British to conquer and force India to be part of the British empire how can we justify Indian Union conquering a nation/kingdom to be part of the union? Whether it's punjab or Kashmir if most people don't want to be part of Indian Union we cannot justify killing them and forcing them to be part of Indian union. If every state wants to be independent then India would not exist; but that's your problem. How could you kill people just because you want your political ambition fulfilled? Let Kashmiri settle their problem. If they want azaadi let them have it; if they want to remain as part of Pakistan or India or China let them decide. Pakistan had to fight India on because India was killing Kashmiris. And Pakistan tried to save them from being massacred.

1) Muslim Pashtun Durrani Empire was ruling Kashmir in 18th century. Sikh ruler Ranjeet Singh conquered it in the year 1819. It 1846 it belonged to East India Company and they sold it to Gulab Singh Raja of Jammu. He remained Maharaja of Jammu and Kashimir until the partition. Later after independence all princily states became part of India. Those who revolved were conquered as Nizam of Hyderabad. In Jammu region the majority is not Muslim population. On what ground are they seeking independence. Punjab too wanted to be an independent state, and call itself Khalistan. India did not allow this to happen. If every state would want ot have its own identity then where India would be. Kashimiri demand is not justified. 2) Out of total Kashmir India controls 43%, Pakistan is controlling 37% and China controls 20%. Pakistan calls Kashmir a disputed territory. He is calling only the part controlled by India as a disputed territory. He is not calling the 37% territory controlled by Pakistan and 20% territory controlled by China as a disputed territory. If Pakistan wants that the final status of territory controlled by India the Kashmiris alone should determine that what about the territory controlled by them and China. Who would determine their final status? 3) India had to interfere in East Pakistan because refugees in large numbers were infiltrating into India. Only way it could be stopped was by making Bangala Desh Independent. Why Pakistan had to to fight three wars over Kashmir: in 1947, 1965, and 1999. Why it had to get involved in several skirmishes over the Siachen Glacier?

YOu have mentioned that many non-combatants have been killed. But it is due to these terrorists and they have lost their lieves. The terrorists people and some separatists groups have been instigating the innocent people of Kashmir to oppose the Indian rule. In such situation, if the mob is trying to destroy the public peace, then the armed forces have to use force and in the process the innocent people may be killed. But for that thing the action of Armed forces there in Kashmir should not be blamed.

The innocent people are not fools to be brainwashed by any party easily. People are educated and they can think for themselves, either this way or that way. If you think that opposing India is brainwashing why can't we use the same argument that accepting India is brainwashing. I think whatever kashmiris have arrived at we have to respect their position though we may disagree with it. The question is not about disturbing public peace. Where is the public peace if entire public is against 'peace' as defined by us Indian? Let's not fool ourselves by saying that only a handful brainwashed Kashmiri are involved; it's the bulk of the Kashmiris. I have been to Kashmir and the mood of general public is not pro-India. Somewhere things have gone wrong!

I think these questions are extremely important. I don't think they are being forced by any external entity to demand freedom. I think Kashmiris in general want freedom. When I had gone to Kashmir that's the environment I sensed. Regarding Kashmiri pandits being forced to leave their motherland, it's not at all fair on the part of the mujahiddin to drive them away. I think Kashmiri pundits should be allowed to return to the valley.

Kashmiris want azaadi and other people are supporting their cause. The Bangladeshis wanted freedom from Pakistan, and we helped Bangladesh get independence by defeating Pakistani army. Did we do wrong there then? Well, I think we did a good job by helping Bangladeshis achieve their political aspiration!

But if Gandhiji is around, I think, he would say just as Indian did not want to be under the British rule so much so that if Kashmiris do not want to be under Indian rule they should be given freedom. If we call Gandhiji as truly the father of our nation his philosophy of being fair and honest should be practised too.