[QUOTE=EMR;12647921] It was you EMR equating Empire in 1961 with the Romans!!

Yes EMR the people of Kashmir deserve to live their lives in freedom from terrorist incursions. With freedom to work and make a living.
They do rule their own State with their own Constitution.
They have complete liberty to live where they want, do what they want, educate their daughters, and travel where they want.

They will have the freedom to vote in the coming election, let us see the result.

What diversion ? You mentioned the thread topic.

You are diverting now, if you want to discuss Assam---start a new thread.

[QUOTE=Bipat;12647925][QUOTE=EMR;12647921]

It was you EMR equating Empire in 1961 with the Romans!!

Yes EMR the people of Kashmir deserve to live their lives in freedom from terrorist incursions. With freedom to work and make a living.
They do rule their own State with their own Constitution.
They have complete liberty to live where they want, do what they want, educate their daughters, and travel where they want.

They will have the freedom to vote in the coming election, let us see the result.

What diversion ? You mentioned the thread topic.

You are diverting now, if you want to discuss Assam---start a new thread.[/QUOTE
​​​​​Please explain then the 40.000 plus deaths in kashmir the majority at the hands of the Indian occupiers using your logic as that definition
Usual diversion, pathetic diversion tactics from you.

EMR yet again you have messed up the quote.
Both 'sides' accuse the other of causing the deaths over the last 70 years.
Certainly there was ethnic cleansing of 100s thousands of Pandits. The wars, the Indian army and the Daily incursions over the border of terrorists all at fault.

What you have to realise is, that for decades Kashmir has been a major tourist destination for both international and domestic.
The people are in charge with their own CMs and a separate Constitution.
So many travel into southern States during winter. For trade.

The separatists and those who want independence or change are estimated about a third of the population.

The daily violence is mainly at the very remote borders.

The last CM- Mufti Mohammed Sayeed was a more effective leader than his daughter Mehbooba (PD Party.)

I mess up quotes but your reason, logic and responses suggest that you are " messed up " when it comes to having a debate,
Who killed who is a matter of fact, not opinion. as confirmed by Amnesty International, the U.N. etc
Are you suggedting that the lives of Pandits , not the 1000s lost as you suggest ,are worth more than the tens thousands of Muslims..
Pandits are just a much a victim of the Indian incursion as anyone else.

A few points----
Gathering evidence of numbers and who killed who in wars and border violence is not an exact science.
There are different estimates of the Pandit population and you will obviously choose a lower figure because of your views.

There has been no "incursion" from India only an exodus into India. This has been going on over the centuries with incursion from the north.

The Indian army are there to keep the peace, whether they do it in a positive or negative way is a different topic.

The lives of every Kashmiri citizen is of equal importance -----it is important that they can live their lives in peace, earn a living and be educated.

I suppose you realise that the Pulwama terrorist attack has virtually ended this years tourist income for so many ordinary Kashmiri citizens. How will they manage???

The separatist movement and terrorism prevents this.

(There are also restrictions on separatists by the Pakistan Government in the Pakistan operated part of Kashmir.) Neither Pakistan or India wants independence for Kashmir as it would be likely that China would move straight in.

For the future a lot depends on the survival (literally) of the new PM Imran Khan and his ability to control the army and the control of terrorism.

USA looking into the use of the planes.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/intern...ent-in-kashmir

I have not quoted any figure for Pandit deaths
It ranges between 800 - 1300 ( Indian sources )..
40,000 deaths majority muskims some estimates double that since 1989.
Counless more in the years running up to that since 1947,.
Keeping the peace is shooting down men women and children demonstrators in your world.
The actions of Dyer and that of the army in Kashmir are not that far apart,.
Kashmir will be a place of death and hostility until the end of time ..
You can find a year by year event by event analysis of the tragedy that is Kashmir..
I discovered that the K in Pakistan stands for Kashmir.
That the Hindhu ruler and ruling classes had oppressed and denied rights to the Muslim majority ( rather like the Portuguese in Goa )
Extreme Hindhu groups from outside ( RSS and others ) were involved in the intercommunal violence in which Muslims were the majority of the thousands who died..
That a plebiscite was one of the conditions when agreeing to annexation.
That Nehru delayed the plebiscite threatening to refuse one because of Pakistan's alliance with the USA..
In the early 50s the Nehru government renaged on its promise to hold a plebiscite., stating that Kashmir was permanently part of India.
India has never had any intention of giving the people's of Kashmir the right to self determination , from times of relative peace in the 50s to the current situation...

[QUOTE=Bipat;12647829] Thee is nothing inherently wrong with considering whether British rule was a net benefit or a net disadvantage to India- simply a historical fact the British rule happened, and one can only sift through the evidence using logic to arrive at a more probable point of view. Your subjective view ( as if geographical distance from whence the ruler came), or that their race mattered as to whether there as a net benefit, or sheer nonsense unsupported by the evidence, or lack of consideration what happened before British rule, makes it hard for you to deal with objective comment. I do not have to be a supporter of Nazi Germany to recognize the accomplishments of advances in rocket technology made under the Nazi regime. Praising the historical achievement of ruling a territory these size of India with so few British civil servants doesn't mean not recognizing negative aspects of British rule.Believing that India before British rule hardly showed any indication intellectually, economically or politically of being at the verge of a takeoff to engender a modern industrial and technological revolution let alone political structure, is not anti-Indian, just a review of the circumstances. India has a rich cultural history and in ancient some significant achievements, no one denies that.

Because some people might use the word 'rescue' or 'liberated' ( a somewhat laughable use of the English language) isn't evidence- the German foreign office put out White Papers justifying incursions and occupations of areas of ethnic German minorities using similar language- and like you justified the use of force to invade neighboring territories. And this issue is quite different than debating whether Indian rule afterwards a net benefit or not. Somehow in the philosophical studies a logic course missing- if you start with looking up deductive vs inductive reasoning that might be a good start.And the whole subject arose when when EMR and I pointed out that the use of force to achieve political ends has been as much part of Indian history as that of other nations, and Indians themselves or their neighbors have at different times also invaded parts of India and rules by force. Somehow through incredible mental gymnastics you struggle with responding to facts. .

I quite agree with you that the majority of the people of Goa probably had more affinity culturally and ethnically with the neighbors than Metropolitan Portugal, nor have I commented much on Indian rule in the post 1961 period compared to Portuguese rule in the 1950's.And I have no reason to disbelieve your observations that it would be hardly likely the majority of all of Kashmir wouldn't vote today to be part of. But my point is India uses force to take over territory and apparently as a matter of policy seeks to avoid referendums on what the actual inhabitants want- and in essence no different than other imperial powers.

[QUOTE=morpeth;12648183] Morpeth I am not going to discuss further the British Raj----countless books have been written on the subject ------although there are still millions of Indian people who remember it, it will soon be 'just' history for all.

1) For you the words 'liberated' and 'rescue' may be laughable, for those affected they are not. I disagree with you that 'justification' is not important.

You equate the 'invasion' of neighbouring territories with that of invading and ruling a territory on the other side of the world.

The former, there may or may not be justification; whether or not there is or is not is open to debate on each territory concerned. China and Tibet for example. China and activities on the Indian border at this present time.
Whether India is at fault or not depends on each territory in question you cannot have an overall view of all such events.

I have said that I do not know the details of Hyderabad. (A relative who was before retirement, a senior academic there, was part of the group we were due to share the trip to Kashmir with, so as we have cancelled it will be some time before I can discuss the matter with him).

Which brings to Kashmir-----what is never brought out in foreign views ---is the relationship of Nehru with Muslim community, his father had numerous Muslim 'concubines!' so Nehru had a number of Muslim half-brothers. The talk was at the time, for those who favoured a different PM, was that he was anti-Hindu-------Gandhi disagreed---all this, is 'water under the bridge'.

2) Goa I disagree totally with your view because I DO have knowledge----not just 'book reading'.
"Probably" !---"More affinity culturally and ethnically with their neighbours" is probably an all time understatement!!!!! They were the same communities, same families as those outside the borders.

The justification of force in the year 1962 after all negotiations had failed was surely a 'liberation' rather than an invasion.
At that stage other Indian people didn't move into Goa, the inhabitants just continued as they were but in charge of their own affairs-----they were then independent so a referendum regarding this was not really an issue.

[QUOTE=Bipat;12648208] If Nehru was anti Hindhu and therefore pro Muslim why did he refuse, renage on the of granting of self determination to Kashmir..
I suspect your views come from folk memory and anti congress gossip rather than any facts..
Just imagine how much more blood would have been spilt in India if a Hindu hardliner , a Modi of that time rather than Nehru had been the nation's leader..
There are extreme Hindhu views challenging his ancestry ,religion which have parralels with the racist claims, ancestry etc against Obama in the US..
Why Don,t you look up the annexation of Hydrabad , it is part of the recorded history of India you seem to be allergic to..
What you will find is evidence that the ruler of Hydrabad was in discussion with Portugal to either buy or take over administration of Goa, giving Hydrabad access to the sea.

[QUOTE=EMR;12648212] 1) I didn't say Nehru was anti-Hindu, that was the 'gossip' of the time. It was a view of those surrounding the political leaders of the time and reported in newspapers-----
-EMR there were local newspapers!!!! I have seen myself reprints of the cartoons about Nehru and Edwina!!!

EMR, Nehru's fathers' activities were well known. We have all the books/ writings of Nehru--collected by OH. Nehru was not particularly religious in any way.

You always call Modi a "Hindu hardliner"-----what actually is your definition of a Hindu hardliner????

2) I am not particularly interested in the history of Hyderabad. I have read brief details. Present day Hyderabad/Telangana is more important.

3) Access to the coast was and is always important. That was why our particular town had a large contingent of British soldiers., for defence. Although the port wasn't used for major trade.

My point to Morpeth was that the people of Goa and those over the borders (including our town) were the same communities/families etc. So there was no incursion by 'India' the Goan people just took over managing their own lives.

[QUOTE=Bipat;12648257] You know my views, religion has no place in politics.
I have heard Indians refer to the BJP as Hindhu fanatics..
The record of the BJP and Modi in supporting the activities of religious extremists is well known.
The BBC ran a story on Newsnight not so long ago, that you took exception to.
Of course you will not be interested in Hydrabad in facts, in recorded history.

[QUOTE=EMR;12648258] Whatever your views EMR-----religion is important in India.
Whatever critics say about the BJP they are the party the majority voted for!!
Although the corruption and long history of nepotism of the Congress party is also a reason.
I presume you know that just before the last election Rahul did a major 'temple tour' ----???? hypocrisy or what?

Some BJP people are extremists----I do not believe that Modi supports them. I know you will try to dispute this. (The BBC as I told you is biased ----if you really knew anything about Indian politics and news you would agree.) Modi has introduced the equality laws.
I know you will refer to the RSS----again, if you knew anything of their actual history you would understand the great amount of social work they did in the past.
(The shorts up to the armpits uniform has been modernised!) They were really in many ways similar to the 'scouting' movement.
(They have been a problem for Modi by trying to oppose his reforms---just as the extreme right wing in the UK oppose Theresa May.)


I told you I have briefly read the FACTS about Hyderabad history -----not in the depth to have detailed discussions, so I accept whatever Morpeth says.

EMR you keep repeating the words "recorded history", History is recorded according to the person recording it. Historians have multiple different views about any incident or happening---apart from specific 'dates' there is disagreement about most events and times in history.

[QUOTE=Bipat;12648279] So events that did happen in your mind did not happen if someone disagrees with the vast majority.
Please give an example from the period of British rule to support your argument
Unlike you I am always prepared to learn something new.
The film of Modi smiling and patting the back of a BJP extremist associated with " cow killings " in the recent election campaign was invented by a " biased " BBC in your mind.
You do realise how that makes you look..

[QUOTE=Bipat;12648208] Morpeth I am not going to discuss further the British Raj----countless books have been written on the subject ------although there are still millions of Indian people who remember it, it will soon be 'just' history for all.



There are also British people and other nationalities with experience there at the time.

1) For you the words 'liberated' and 'rescue' may be laughable, for those affected they are not. I disagree with you that 'justification' is not important.



You can’t be serious that the inhabitants of Goa were so maltreated in comparison to their Indian neighbors in any material way to say they need to be ‘rescued’. Again language seems to be an issue- I was discussing undeniable fact that India invaded Goa with force- and specifically, and repeatedly, notwithstanding international law, I wasn’t discussing whether justified or not.




You equate the 'invasion' of neighboring territories with that of invading and ruling a territory on the other side of the world.



As would anyone! If geographical distance the only criteria for judging the merits of an occupying force, you are fairly consistent with the foreign policy of Nazi German or Putin’s Russia.

The former, there may or may not be justification; whether or not there is or is not is open to debate on each territory concerned. China and Tibet for example. China and activities on the Indian border at this present time.
Whether India is at fault or not depends on each territory in question you cannot have an overall view of all such events.



I actually agree that each of the territories India forcefully took over had some dissimilarities of circumstance however again, you make up an argument to argue against because you are reluctant to face simple facts (a) India used armed force (b) and is no different than the British or other countries that have used armed force.




Which brings to Kashmir-----what is never brought out in foreign views ---is the relationship of Nehru with Muslim community, his father had numerous Muslim 'concubines!' so Nehru had a number of Muslim half-brothers. The talk was at the time, for those who favored a different PM, was that he was anti-Hindu-------Gandhi disagreed---all this, is 'water under the bridge'.



Interesting trivia to be sure.



2) Goa I disagree totally with your view because I DO have knowledge----not just 'book reading'.



Since you have personal knowledge you know India by force of arms took over Goa, and contrary to international law and UN charter (which as far as I know India signed).

I don’t know why simple facts are so difficult for you.


"Probably”!---"More affinity culturally and ethnically with their neighbors" is probably an all-time understatement!!!!! They were the same communities, same families as those outside the borders.



That I try to be as precise as I can and not make wild assertions without evidence, that seemed an appropriate word.

The justification of force in the year 1962 after all negotiations had failed was surely a 'liberation' rather than an invasion.



You really should buy a dictionary. For example can a country invade to liberate of course? Is there anything to show Goa wasn’t invaded- not one shred of logic or earning in the English language. And since India steadfastly refused to hold a referendum that also casts in doubt it was ‘liberated’.





At that stage other Indian people didn't move into Goa, the inhabitants just continued as they were but in charge of their own affairs-----they were then independent so a referendum regarding this was not really an issue.



Absurd! How can Goa be independent when India became the sovereign power? With all due respect a dictionary would be helpful.

[QUOTE=Bipat;12648279] Bipat there are different histories t is true but they are not all equally valid or probable or equally supported by evidence- and scholars continually advancing our knowledge.especially as new evidence appears. When you quote opinions without evidence to support them or worse evidence that is available directly contradicts that evidence it propaganda based on polemics - not too dissimilar to histories published in Germany under Hitler or Russia under Stalin.

You are so focused on an anti-British anti Portugal .narrative you then ignore facts and raise arguments that have nothing to do with the original topic being discussed.You have now confirmed in several places that a big sin of the British Empire was the distance from India , as if the same Empire if next door would have less sin attached to it.