Over the past 150 years, the world has seen all kinds of terrible wars, killing hundreds of millions of people and causing all sorts of hatred and ill will.
Some of these cultures get up, dust themselves off, and go on -- sometimes achieving greatness. Other cultures, sometimes with far less injustice done (if you can measure these things, which I doubt) carry grudges seemingly forever.
Even in personal relations, I've known people in the states who suffered terribly by some criminal, only to have them forgive the criminal and move on with their lives. On the other hand, there are those who suffered the same thing who carry hatred in their heart until they die.
I remember seeing a person on TV from Jerusalem. They were talking about how their great-great grandfather lived in a house but was evicted by the Israelis. And how angry they were about it all. I could see that this was really bothering them.
Hell, if I spent my time emoting over wrongs my entire ancestry both committed and suffered through, I wouldn't have much left of a life left.
Why the difference? That's above my pay grade -- hence the reason I find it so fascinating. I can unequivocally say, however, that hating someone or some culture is a fool's game that hurts the hater much more than the object of hatred. There is a terrible strain of nihilism alive in the world. So many lives wasted by it. Very sad.
Why the difference?
I suspect that if you were a native American living in shitty conditions in some reservation you would also have harbored much more grudge against these (now ancient) injustices than if you're a white American whose ancestor got killed by Apaches 200 years ago- it's easier to forgive & forget when you are the winner: after all your hypothetical self is now in no way affected by that 200 year-old injustice.
There are lots of great reasons to be angry about your current conditions _and_ those things that have gone on before. It just doesn't accomplish much. It creates a culture of anger, vengeance, victimhood, and nihilism.
I think the danger here is to confuse the issue and start talking about who really has a right to be upset or what kind of justice is demanded by current conditions. That's a completely different conversation -- one that must happen in all of these cases, but one which happens in a lot more productive manner when people forgive. Take a look at what happened in South Africa, for instance. Not a perfect resolution, but they are not spending the next 100 years in blood feuds either.
However, I'm not sure it's possible to evade that mentality unless you are able to lead at least a minimally comfortable life - or at the very least it become a lot harder the shittier your life gets.
On a more anecdotal level, as an Israeli I remember a great sense of optimism on both sides when I was a teenager in the early/mid 90s - the territories got autonomous rule, a peace treaty was signed with Jordan (2nd one between Israel and a neighboring country since Egypt a decade and a bit before) and it genuinely seemed as if peace is inevitable.
Then at some point stuff started getting bad really fast, each side only "retaliating" to the other sides actions and the vicious cycle continued to this day ("we're not the bad guys, we're just reacting to what the other side just did!").
PS this is separate from the issue of whether the land belongs to native americans, native africans, or palestinians, I just mean that getting what you were demanding to be yours makes it easier to forgive previous wrongs.
Young people just go on, catching the chances we eventually have, not thinking too much about history. For the generations that had bad luck to live under German or Soviet occupation during WW2, and then in communism, they still holds grudge (and I understand them).
We even have great poetry about this:
Czesław Miłosz "The Envoy of Mr. Cogito"
"...and do not forgive truly it is not in your power
to forgive in the name of those betrayed at dawn
beware however of unnecessary pride ..."
It's easy to forgive, when you're the winner. For people that had to live as victims for long time, when they see nobody cares anymore, it's hard.
This subject is currently highly dividing point of public debat here - two greatests parlament parties are defining their difference using this division.
If you have some plan to undo the injustice, that's one thing. But if you are suffering for several generations in a futile attempt to undo the injustice, perhaps it's time to give up and pursue some other goals.
Aside: in the case of land disputes, how did the "victims" come about the land in the first place? Even if they were truly the first humans there, does that give them some divine right to it? And what about nomads?
Some cultures still live by the stories of their elders. The education includes all the old stories. Now add a government that tried to destroy all native languages and traditions, move unprepared members to cities (90% suicide rate). Then add a rediscovering of the old history and attempts to pull themselves back up and find what it means to be in this new world. Some tribes did better, some did worse.
I suspect if a culture was based on the passing of stories from the former generation to the new, continuity breakage problems will be large. The USA isn't really that way, but some cultures inside it are. Add to that some of the rhymes we teach kids that made no sense to the parents of the now "properly" schooled children ("Jack and Jill went UP the hill to fetch a pale of water" doesn't inspire confidence you are teaching proper survival skills to a kid).
That's an interesting question.
My view is: cultures which are quick to forget the past find it easy to move on. Cultures which cling to their history, find it harder to forgive-and-forget.
Expanding on that: you have a limited amount of bandwidth in terms of attention. If your gaze is on the past, it's much harder to move forward; sort-of like it's hard to drive a car forward by looking at the rear-view mirror. On the other hand, if you force your gaze to the future, it is much easier to move forward and keep moving forward.
As someone said, "forgiveness is giving up all hope of a better past, for some hope of a better future".
The second thing worth nothing is that more ethnically diverse societies tend to have faster growing economies than more homogeneous ones, even after taking into account their less efficient governments.
... How plausible is that? Dunno. In a racially-diverse society, especially a poorly integrated one, people of different races might well tend not to treat one another in ways worthy of trust. But it's complicated: they might also be more reliable towards others of the same race. In such a society, anyway, there'd be no such thing as "the degree to which someone should actually be trusted" because it would depend on who's considering trusting whom. Not to mention, e.g., that in such a society there could be a lot of divergence between how much you "should" trust someone else for your own sake (less) and how much you "should" trust them to help fix the messed-up state of society (more), etc., etc., etc.
Some things that aren't clear to me about Putnam's work, and that seem important: In racially diverse societies, is it only inter-race levels of trust that are lower? Putnam's work, IIUC, is concerned with the USA; are things different in places where there isn't a history of slavery? or where racial diversity on something like equal terms has been going on for longer? What actually happens over time in these less-trusting more-diverse places? Is it specifically highly-visible racial diversity (black, white, ...) that is associated with these differences in trust, or do you get the same thing with religious or cultural diversity that doesn't have quite such visible markers?
Oh, I can answer one of those. According to http://abstractnonsense.wordpress.com/2006/10/09/ethnic-dive... Putnam found that intraracial trust is less in more-diverse settings, as well as interracial trust. That's a shame.
On a meta note, why is this still on the front page? This is worse than politics - any discussion of this will devolve into vague statements(in the absence of actual knowledge or data) about how one country is better than the other and then rapidly into name-calling and jingoism. I hope we can keep this type of story away from HN.
"Second, among those who aren't educated nearly well enough, I imagine that the preoccupation with day-to-day survival is far more important to them than the hatred that they are told they should feel toward a remote enemy" - For a majority of such people, day to dy survival is nothing but breathing and showing hatred towards India. How else does militancy grow and survive ? India is right next door to Pakistan, nothing remote about that.
The robb'd that smiles steals something from the thief;
He robs himself that spends a bootless grief
Religion or religious history can account for at least some of the difference.
A lot of religions explicitly teach and emphasize forgiveness, even for grave injustices . When people have an attitude that says "forgiveness is required", this can have a lasting and widespread influence. Nations with a strong history in such teachings, even if they are not particularly religious now, may retain that attitude toward forgiveness.
 A friend of mine wrote, after his sister was murdered, that he had no option but to forgive, that regardless of his emotions, his theology required it. http://darrow.faithweb.com/murder.htm
After the 1920s or so, that sort of irredentist sentiment slowly waned as it became clear that Greece was never getting any of Asia Minor back, so there was really no point in spending your life with that as your goal; might as well just learn standard modern Greek and integrate into Greek society. But I can imagine an alternate history where Pontian Greeks are living in neighboring Greece in refugee camps, considering it only a temporary location while agitating to recover their homeland.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Please stop blaming the world's problems on amorphous and complicated concepts that you only vaguely remember from PHIL101.
This is coming from an Egyptian who realizes that Israelis (and Jews) aren't so different from my Arab Muslim self.
Now, if only more people agreed.
Anyway, if you want agreement, I can offer one vote.
Details here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_India
> The name India has it's roots in Latin and not in Sanskrit
Actually, the Latinate name originates from the Sanskrit name "Sindhu" for the Indus river, as it says in the Wikipedia article you linked.
After all, it is far better to throw away endless lives than let your neighbor have what you can't have.
It wasn't just Muslims in the 30s who called for two separate states. Many Hindus did too. It's true, the most prominent Hindu in the struggle (Gandhi) wanted a single state and tried to (in theory, at least) accommodate the large Muslim minority. For those efforts he was assassinated by a religious extremist.
Of course, you hear religious extremist and you might assume it was some Muslim who thought Gandhi was too effective a voice for unity. To the contrary, it was a Hindu nationalist who thought Gandhi was a sellout to the Muslims.
This strain of Hindu nationalism that endorses the use of violence has appeared again and again. As recently as 2002 a riot occurred in which a Hindu mob murdered around a thousand Muslims.
All this isn't to say the Muslims on the subcontinent are all paragons of virtue and liberalism. They aren't. But the story the author tells is just a pleasant story, meant to appeal to the baser instincts of Wall Street Journal readers. Maybe more than that, it's a story meant to appeal to India's own self conception, where it's as pure as snow and it's those dastardly Pakistanis who've made everything terrible.
And its true our neighbor is a failed state and made everything terrible. Given a choice about living in India or any of our neighbors, everyone will choose India. Because we are pluralistic society where every religion is respected, which is not true about our neighbor!
And this article doesn't appeal India's self conception, this article speaks reality!
This is roughly what happened. The British cabinet committee had originally proposed a 3-tier federation: with the center at the top, a provincial grouping of states in the middle, and states at the bottom. There were 3 'groups': A: Hindu-majority areas of the North, West and South B: Muslim-majority areas of the North-West, C: Bengal and Assam. Jinnah and the communists had agreed to this plan, Nehru wanted to defer the decision to the Constituent Assembly. Jinnah saw this as a 'betrayal' and withdrew his support. Eventually, when this plan seemed in jeopardy, the cabinet committee proposed Partition. Jinnah accepted, Nehru disagreed. And then 'Direct Action Day' and riots happened. No looking back after that.
First, Pakistanis do define themselves primarily as 'non-Indians'. However, the view that Pakistan has somehow carved out a new identity is the past 60 years is false. 5,000 years of shared heredity, language, customs and political history don't shake off that easily. Even Pakistanis and their relationship to religion is very similar to Indian Hindus and their relationship to Hinduism. Just as there are extremist groups in Pakistan, there are extremist Hindus in India. Pakistani's are more Indian that they want to believe and vice versa - especially if you live in the West where the two groups meld together indistinguishably.
The second point I disagree with is that minorities left only Pakistan (because of communal violence). History shows that there was a reciprocal exodus of Indian Muslims to Pakistan. Communal violence is one of the defining aspects of the sub continent.
Lastly, many of the poets, philosophers and British bureaucrats did predict one thing correctly - being a minority in a Hindu majority India ultimately would have a ruinous effects on Indian Muslims - formerly some of the most educated and economically prosperous citizens of India. South Asian culture is one of rabid communalism and today Indian Muslims are less educated, less wealth and less politically represented than in any part of India's long history.
Sometimes I wonder what impact it would have had on both sides of the border if the new nation had been called "West India".
First of all: 3 of the first 11 presidents in India were Muslim. Muslims continue to do well in many spheres of life: all of the top Bollywood actors are Muslim. At one time, the richest Indian was a Muslim (he's come down a few notches because of the Ambani brothers), and he rose up through entrepreneurship and hard work.
I believe this fabrication (that Indian Muslims are worse off today) is parroted too often in Pakistan, because it reinforces the belief that creation of Pakistan was the right thing to do. Pakistani textbooks are full of such distortions, as reported in a Pakistani paper recently: http://tribune.com.pk/story/149448/our-textbooks-and-the-lie... . And here's a report [PDF] by a Pakistani NGO which goes into great detail about the anti-Hindu bias in Pakistani K-12 tectbooks: http://sdpi.org/sdpi-old/whats_new/reporton/State%20of%20Cur...
I grew up in India. And while I'll admit that there was some animosity towards Muslims, there was similar animosity towards other large groups too. This is to be expected in any poor society where people are competing for scant resources. There was no systemic bias against Muslims just because they're Muslims.
> top Bollywood actors are Muslim
How is this an indication of how good Muslims are? This is like saying most athletes in the US are black, so African Americans are doing great in America.
> "some animosity towards Muslims"
Selective memory here.
Selective memory here."
You can believe whatever you want to believe, and nothing I can say will probably change your mind, because that's the world view that was drilled into you since birth. But let me give you some more examples:
- One of the most popular shrines in my state (Rajasthan) is a Muslim shrine, that of Khwaja Sahib in Ajmer. And yet the vast majority of the visitors there are Hindu, who come to seek the blessings of a long-departed Muslim saint.
- My father was born in a tiny village. There is only 1 place of worship: the shrine of a Muslim saint. Half the village is Hindu; the other half is Muslim. But both pray in that same 1-room shrine (not at the same time, though), in their own ways. The Muslims place a "chadar" (thin fabric sheets); the Hindus burn incense and place flowers.
- In the town where my father grew up, the biggest temple and the biggest mosque share a common building wall (they are back-to-back).
And finally: every Pakistani I've met who visited India for a length of time, came away impressed at how open and free the society was. Take that for what it's worth.
As for the Bollywood actors: Bollywood is a popularity contest (unlike athletics, which is objective). It is the people who decide who's a "popular" actor, and not the actor himself. So your comparison with African-American athletes is specious.
2. Agreed that there was mass migration both ways. But consider these things. Islam is the fastest growing religion in India and Muslims make up ~15% of Indian population today, whereas in Pakistan minority population has fallen from ~15% to less than ~2% since independence.
3. Predicted correctly? How do you prove that Indian Muslims are living worse than Pakistanis? A couple of communal riots in India don't prove anything, considering how big India is. Whereas, the daily bombings, drone attacks, ethnic riots in Pakistan don't give encouraging picture about Pakistani Muslims, the very bunch for whom the country was created.
And as I said in another comment below: "Except politically and militarily, Indian Muslims have outperformed Pakistani/Bangladeshi Muslims in all fields. Just take as fundamental as literacy rate. Indian Muslims have better literacy rate (59%) than Pakistani Muslims (50-55%)." To add to that, the richest Muslim in the world is Ajim Premji, an Indian software mogul, not some oil sheikh.
Well, Wipro(Western India Vegetable Products Limited) did start out as manufacturing vegetable fats and oil among other things.
Does that count as an oil business?
I kid. :)
Our last president was not Hindu. By the way, He is one of the most celebrated intellectual in India. Some of the most popular actors/actresses in Bollywood are not Hindu. People like Azim Premji are not Hindu. I can cite many more such examples.
I have bunch of my friends who are not Hindus and asked about situation like partition once again, they always say they will choose India come what may.
The whole idea of our neighboring country is based on the myth that in Hindu majority country no other religion can flourish. On contrary, every other religion flourished in India but same cannot be said about our neighbors.
Edit: Cleaned few grammatical errors
There is no doubt that Muslims in India lag behind on developmental metrics, but I sincerely doubt this is due to any large-scale systematic discrimination against them. Sure, there is a fair bit of casual "micro-discrimination" against Muslims but that happens to a LOT of demographic groups in a huge and diverse country like India.
This might be an unpopular and politically incorrect view, but I believe that the thing that is holding back Indian Muslims and (perhaps Muslims elsewhere) is their religion. Believing that women shouldn't step out of the house alone, or that women should wear a burqa all the time or that several important formative years of a child's life should be spent studying the Quran or an insistence on studying Arabic and Urdu instead of the local language are IMHO not conducive to succeeding in a cut-throat capitalist economy. My unscientific survey of successful Muslims that I know leads me to believe that the most successful ones are not that religious.
However, the OP makes a good point that Hindu fundamentalism might be polarizing opinions in the country. Unfortunately, you can get away with being a Hindu fundamentalist in India, but being a Muslim fundamentalist mostly leads to career suicide.
The trend however has largely been reversed because of vote bank politics. The political parties today are trying to woo the Muslims (and Dalits) as best as they can. The ruling political party, Congress is viewed as pro-Muslim. The Economic liberalization has also opened up the possibilities for Indian Muslims. The corporations do not discriminate when it comes to a customer. Indian Muslims have the same access to loans and credit as the Hindus (and all other religious groups). Schools don't care about religion as long as somebody can cover the tuition fees. As an anecdote, in Bangalore majority of auto-rickshaw (three wheeler transport) drivers are uneducated Muslims. But their kids all go to English medium schools, not Madrassas.
Rural India however is still divided along communal and caste lines. Caste and religion play a huge social and economic part of the rural fabric and change there is slow. But the Muslims there are as discriminated against as the Dalits, if not more.
However, it is also true that there is some discrimination against Muslims in India. I've seen it first-hand (I'm nominally a Hindu). However, you probably hear an exaggerated version of it in Pakistan. And, we non-muslim Indians also discriminate against each other: rich vs poor, north Indians vs south Indians, native people of a state vs people from out-of-state, etc. So, the experience is not unique to Muslims.
About me: I am a liberal in world view, but a practicing Muslim. And not nationalistic, but love India and what it represents.
Brother, your note is well thought out and well meaning. The idea of a "West India" is very novel. And it appeals to me. But at the same time, I would like to give a sense to you of what its like to be an Indian Muslim of the upper class, in response to your "...being a minority in a Hindu majority India ultimately would have a ruinous effects on Indian Muslims".
On Prejudice: It will be a falsity to say, that there is no prejudice at all. As obviously India is not a utopia. But also, suffice to say, that the majority of the people (and that would naturally be more Hindus than others) one encounters in life are very secular and welcoming. And by and large India is a meritocracy. The Muslims suffer more, because of their own backward cultural mind set than anything else. For example, lots of relatives who are not doing well in life would complain about prejudice in job selections, etc. for not doing so well in life. But its very apparent to me, that the fault lies more with their attitudes towards life - not wanting to put enough hard work.
On Government/Establishment's attitude to secularism: I am actually utmost thankful, to the founding fathers of the nation like Gandhi and Nehru, that they did not cast the nation as a tit-for-tat reflection of the way Pakistan was founded. By and large, India is a secular nation, and that notion is oft repeated and maintained by media, politicians and the like. I can safely say, that being a Muslim in India is perhaps 1000 times better than being a Hindu in Pakistan.
On representation of Muslims in various domains: There are countless examples: To cite a few random people: in the business world Azim Premji (founder of Wipro) is one of the most respected. The bollywood is totally dominated by the Khans (so much so that one popular movie 'The Wednesday' had a joke on a Hindu actor belonging to the 'minority' hence needing more protection). Sports: India is Cricket Crazy, like Pakistan, and in the past few years, 2-3 Muslims have been making the 11 (which is more than the %age of Muslim population in India). And since I am randomly giving examples, I can as well cite myself (a hacker news reading, tech geek, aspiring to change the world (at least India) using programming ...think we will all agree is not any less of an aspiration than aspiring to be a movie star :-) )
In fact I would go ahead and say, that had Pakistan not being created, the position of Muslims in the region, would have been all the more stronger. Even after creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion, by and large Muslims are very welcome in a pluralistic society that India is. So what if, if the poet Iqbal, had dreamt that dream of his a bit more inclusively.
But yes, things can be better. There is a right wing here as well (liberal Americans should immediately think of GOP), and they want to pander to the extremists sentiments and every decade or so things get out of hand (most recent being Gujarat 2002). So yes, honestly, there are problems.
I think, the model for India, for establishing a just and civil society within, should be like that of the USA. America has a history of committing mistakes, Slavery and the treatment of the black people. But they came out of it so strongly within such a short period of time. Thanks partly to great people like Martin Luther King.
So India, also has a choice. Just like every nation has a choice all the time. By and large it has done very well. But it needs to keep doing well.
And lastly, I wish, you Pakistanis also all the best. Peace.
Edit: Fixed a grammar error.
British gave Autonomy to Minorities in 4th August 1932 Round Table Conference. But Gandhi manipulated, used and betrayed them.
I've heard that in some rural areas, banks do give loans on religious lines i.e. Banks in some muslim predominant areas only give loans to muslims and in some Hindu predominant areas to only hindus. Though I heard that the government is trying to curb this.
Personally, a lot of it seems to be anti-Indian propaganda. In India, our media tells us that such anti-India propaganda is quite common in Pakistani media.
(Yes, I understand the dichotomy that I am dependent on Indian media for a lot of my raw data)
In professional Mumbai or Delhi society, no one seems to care much. You are a banker, a lawyer or a programmer. For the most part, you get your job or start your business via your own professional connections. Personal and professional life is separated very much like it is in the west.
Outside of this fairly narrow circle, family/family friends/clannish identity is more or less merged with your professional identity. Want to start a business? There is a good chance you share a last name with your investors and business partners. Want a bank loan? Better be connected to the loan officer. It's also helpful if you are connected to the various government workers who's permission you will need to start your business , and you'll get better service if your supplier is your second cousin.
The value of your network is a superlinear function of it's size. If Muslims have a smaller network, they are probably disadvantaged.
 I recently met a guy who wanted to start a business selling eye tracking devices. He scrapped the idea because he needed 34 licenses.
A well-cultivated network might be valuable, but most people's extended social networks have a lot of deadwood.
Minorities getting the short end of the stick in terms of education and opportunities isn't exclusive to India (see the US - arguably the best nation on the planet for minorities that still stuggles with this), its just a more central topic because of the sub continent's partition history.
Sure there is crazy poverty across India but I haven't seen anything that shows it being greater because of a larger conspiracy against Muslims in India.
Over the years, I've observed more and more of my Pakistani friends sound hopeless when speaking about their country. This is a distinct change from a few years ago when they would speak with nothing but pride.
It's humbling and sad to look at the state of Pakistan as an outsider.
* Pilgrimage to Mecca is subsidized by Indian Goverment.
* Imam freely talks in support of terrorists.
* Every company offers prayer rooms and allows time to pray. They do not make Temples or allow hindus to take a leave for going to Temples.
* Muslims freely block national highway on eid to show the strength in the name of offering prayer.
* Muslim population is on the rise and India has got more Muslims than Pakistan.
Since I moved to the United States, I have had several Pakistani friends who voice the same opinions. There is no tension between the youth of the two countries (except during the Cricket World Cup).
The problem is that a government full of conservative, short-sighted politicians in India, and a government, influenced by religion, blinded by hatred in Pakistan can not seem to work out their differences.
Even if the consensus among Indians and Pakistanis' is to stop the fighting, not much can be done until the current regime is changed ( mostly in Pakistan ).
The US's problem is that publicly, they must support Pakistan despite having no real part in the conflict between the two nations ( further increasing tensions on both sides).
Why does "fault" matter at all? One approach to conflict resolution is to admit both parties are at fault, and to agree that they are both _equally_at_fault_.
Or.. squabble forever about who is more to blame.
What would be one of the "things" that would have to happen for this to change, even momentarily?
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
The history of armed communal militancy, both Hindu and Muslim, began with the Kashmir movement in the late 80's; this itself was a side-effect of Partition. This was the first time communal tension took on a decidedly dark tone with armed militants entering the picture. Since then, things have only become worse, with the Pakistan establishment actively supporting and arming anti-India militants and Hindu nationalists in India attempting to derail any possibility of reconciliation by repeated acts of religious intolerance. The current situation vis-a-vis Mumbai is quite pathetic, with politicians falling over each other to get a quote out; and the people of Mumbai developing a horrible sense of resigned apathy, touted regularly as 'resilience'.
What is the solution? I don't know. (War, of course, is guaranteed to always be the wrong answer). A reasonable answer, as always, is economics. If the economies of both countries improve, the resulting improved education and decrease in poverty might provide a solution. India seems to be on the right track here; Pakistan, not so much.
What is the new phenomenon of which this article is evidence?
The benchmark seems to be if it's intellectually stimulating, which this one seems to be.
India betrayed by annexing Muslim majority Kashmir and Hyderabad.
UNSC passed multiple resolutions since 1948 advising India, Pakistan & China to give Independence to Kashmir, Tibet & Aksai Chin.
Obsession with Kashmir is burning rest of the India.
India didn't betray Kashmir. The king of Kashmir (Hari Singh) was a Hindu and wanted Kashmir to be an independent country. But Pakistan wanted Kashmir, so it funded insurgents against Kashmir. When the Kashmir king couldn't face them, he sought India's military help. India agreed on the condition that Kashmir should be annexed to India.
The UN resolution says that India should conduct a free and fair election in the entire Kashmir to know what Kashmiris want (self determination). But for that, Pakistan should surrender its Pakistan-Administered-Kashmir to India and China should surrender Aksai Chin (if it has any population).
Obsession with Kashmir is burning Pakistan more than India.
Maharaja appealed to Lord Mountbatten and not to India.
In the last days of 1948, a ceasefire was agreed under UN auspices, but since the plebiscite demanded by the UN was never conducted, relations between India and Pakistan soured, and eventually led to two more wars over Kashmir in 1965 and 1999.
India also annexed Hyderabad state by sending insurgents to Hyderabad.
Pakistan is unable to live with the fact that both it's land people were once upon a time pretty much hindu.
LOL. Nice try. It is Pakistan who is obsessed with Kashmir. The founder of Pakistan, M A Jinnah, wanted to be buried in Kashmir. Every time there's talk of peace between India and Pakistan, the Pakistani government brings up Kashmir.
As far as I know, the only "burning" issues about Kashmir that the rest of India has are:
1. Why aren't there more airline flights to Kashmir?
2. Why can't I buy land and invest there?
The problem cant not be solved on this forum but the hope is Pakistan is probably breathing it's last, it will get consumed in it's own fire of hatred sooner or later.
My take: Kashmir == root cause. Fix that first, grant independence.
This is just a propaganda article from the Indians, to make Pakistanis look bad.
Now there will be propaganda articles from the Pakistanis next, to make Indians look bad.
To pass propaganda is very normal for these two third world countries, they have faught 3 wars since independence in the last 60 years and still half the population in both countries live in poverty.