What defines a nation's core traits? The leader, the elite, the army that occupies it, or all the people?
In pre-Enlightenment Europe, the ruling Count, Prince, or King got to decide whether the land he ruled, and the people on it, were Catholic or Protestant. The people weren't consulted, and if they protested the decision of their ruler, they usually were slaughtered. The King claimed legitimacy bestowed on him by God (whichever God he fancied), and the people did as they were told. Or else.
I define Kashmir as Muslim, because 80% of the population is Muslim. The fact that the unelected leader in 1948, and the army that has occupied it since, are not Muslim, does not change that.
When Christian England conquered India, did that make India a Christian nation?
The fact that the person who controlled Kashmir in 1948 was of a different religion than 80% of the population, and the fact that religion was the crucial dividing line when British India was partitioned, this is what has caused 50 years of trouble (so far). Did that leader have the consent and approval of the people he ruled? Were the people of Kashmir consulted, on whether they wanted to be part of India, or Pakistan, or independent? No, none of this was done. Hence, a half-century of bloodshed. |
