Kashmir: Of kings and Nizams,
Worswick: the way I understand the Kashmir situation is that Hindu king of Kashmir was given an opportunity either to join India or Pakistan at the time of independence,the guy hesitated a bit but then fearing annexation by Pakistan chose to join the Indian Union,Kashmir thus becoming an official state of India.No sooner had this happened Pakistan attacked Kashmir and occupied approx 1/3 of Kashmir thus creating the now infamous predicament.
It shouldn't matter whether the King was Hindu,Muslim,Sikh,Christian or whatever,but what matters is he was the King and he joined the Union. Whether the King ruled over a majority of Muslims is also irrelevant as such was the case in many instances through out history,particularly in reference to India and the Moguls,so all this talk about muslim majority or hindu majority is nonsense to me.
This being the case (at least as I know it) I fail to see what kind of legitimate claim Pakistan or anyone else has over Kashmir.If anything they should return the occupied portion of Kashmir to India,like any 'good muslim' would have,and call it a day and that is the solution.
Playing the 'muslim-card' is just a non-issue as India has more muslims than the rest of Arab and muslim world put toghether,so what is that tell you?
Oh my god,what am I doing trying to teach a historian history,<gg> hardly,I thought I just bounce of my ideas off of you and see what your opinions are. Also do correct me if my reasoning and facts are flawed,would you please.
Ps: yes I heard about Nizam of Hydrebad and the rest of the lot,very interesting history,a gold mine for historians to say the least,I wish I knew more though.
Oh if you are not tired already with all the India links I sent you here is one more. <gg> Oh by the way we love our software guys,they are 'kewl' as the kids would say.
webpage.com |
