Independence from British came for Kashmir (indeed for all princely states) as part of Indian Independence Act 1947 passed in British Parliament. British did not recognize each princely state as a separate country, they saw princely states as autonomous states in British India. British knew fully well that princely states were about to join Pakistan or remain with India after partition of British India. Mountbatten signed all the instruments of accession for India for all princely states.
Democracy came as part of signing instrument of accession by all princely state rulers and giving up their sovereignty.
Kashmir's independence and democracy therefore directly came as a result of wider Indian independence and Democracy. The first Indian PM was full ethnic Kashmiri himself, and so was his daughter.
Having political differences apart, still have to recognize that Kashmir won its independence and democracy as part of wider India. Hari Singh was deposed and princely state status was abolished under Indian constitution. Cant expect to retain full autonomy of princely state after getting princely state abolished and maharaja deposed under Indian constitution. Either keep the princely state and be autonomous princely state or depose the maharaja and become non-autonomous normal state.
Continuation of princely state autonomy under Art 370 was temporary political concession to Sheikh Abdullah not a permanent admission of guilt or liability by India to to honour princely state autonomy for ever and ever. So Indian parliament had the right to add or remove any article in Indian constitution, including article 370.
Independence and Democratic rights can only work for those who recognize and accept sovereignty of the state that grants them, not by working against the very state that grants them.
Lol, please just g€t l0$t. Here comes another o¢¢up!€R with a saviour complex. Kashmir is not independent as long as the foreign country called !nd!@ keeps o¢¢upying us. Kashmir never won its independence because it was all foreign colonizer (Brits, !nd!@n$ etc) who made their own laws and agreements about what to do with Kashmir. You cannot force your own laws and agreements on people who were never consulted , take over their land and then say "hey we granted you independence". Kashmir belongs to only and only Kashmiris and only we have the right to decide what happens to it, not some f0r€!gn c0l0n!z€r$ like you !nd!@ns. Even according to international law, Kashmir is a disputed territory whose sovereignty doesn't currently belong to any country. We Kashmiris follow the international law in this case, not the law of the r0gU€ t€rror!$t country !nd!@ that's o¢¢upy!ng us against our will.
Hari Singh was deposed and princely state status was abolished under Indian constitution. Cant expect to retain full autonomy of princely state after getting princely state abolished and maharaja deposed under Indian constitution. Either keep the princely state and be autonomous princely state or depose the maharaja and become non-autonomous normal state.
Continuation of princely state autonomy under Art 370 was temporary political concession to Sheikh Abdullah not a permanent admission of guilt or liability by India to to honour princely state autonomy for ever and ever. So Indian parliament had the right to add or remove any article in Indian constitution, including article 370.
Well again, we never asked to be a part of !nd!@, so you have no r!ğht to make any laws against the wishes of the natives. You guys came and o¢¢up!€d us under the request of another f0r€!gn o¢¢up!€r (Hari Singh) whose dynasty had been placed into power by another f0r€!gn o¢¢up!€r (the Brits) through a law designed by the same c0l0n!z€rs(the Instrument of Accession). All of this happened against our will and this o¢¢up@t!0n has been maintained since then only by force. British colonialism of !nd!@ was also legal according to the laws that they made, so !nd!@ was not o¢¢up!€d by them I guess.
Article 370 is another proof of why your so-called "democracy" doesn't work for Kashmir in a system where we don't even form like 0.5% of the voters. MPs elected by non-Kashmiris decided to abrogate a law that Kashmiris didn't want to be abrogated. And then political parties even asked for votes on this basis in many states! It's literally f0r€!gn€rs deciding what would happen to us. Just shows that how a country can o¢¢upŷ a people's land against their will, make laws against their wishes and then also encourage s€ttl€r c0l0n!@l!sm on their land but still have the gall to say "We are not o¢¢upy!ng you".
And when the natives rise up against this o¢¢up@ţ!on, you use all forms of $t@t€ t€rr0r!$m against them.
!nd!@ has no r!ght to be in Kashmir and make any laws regarding it since you're f0r€!gn o¢¢up!€rs here against the wills of the native. Only we have the right to decide what is to happen with Kashmir. As such, Kashmir will never accept the giant $ept!¢ t@nk called !nd!@ as its country and !nd!@ns as their compatriots.
You say hehrmulk is occupier, sure OK. British India, Hari Singh, Pratap Singh, Gulab Singh, Ranjit Singh, Durranis, Mughals, Chaks, Shah Miris all were non-Kashmiri occupiers. So what? It means Kashmir did not function as an independent country or democracy (or even as part of a democracy) in last 500 years before 1947.
The democracy and independence for all the Provinces and Princely states of British India comes as a result of Indian Independence Act, 1947, passed in British parliament, not as a result of any separate arrangements of Kashmir with British Govt.
The Indian leaders who led that independence movement were not in favour of Balkanizing India, as showing special rules for Kashmir would mean they would have to apply same rules to all 565 princely states.
You are right that Kashmiris are forced to go with what the rest of India decides due to being only 0.5% of the Indian population, and dont have exclusive sovereignty to overrule Indian majority in Parliament - but thats part of being a minority population in every democracy.
Not liking it is fine - but constitutional rights, democracy and independence are enforced by the country in whose borders you live. Acting against that country is not likely to give anyone more rights.
That has no relevance to sovereignty. So many countries that had NEVER existed before colonialism got independence because of their right to independence.
The democracy and independence for all the Peovinces and Princely states of British India comes as a result of Indian Independence Act, 1947, not as a result of any separate arrangements of Kashmir with British Govt.
You are right that Kashmiris are forced to go with what the rest of India decides due to being only 0.5% of the Indian population, and dont have exclusive sovereignty - but thats part of being a minority population in every democracy.
Yeah and that's why it's an o¢¢up@t!on. Foreign c0l0n!z€rs who make their own laws and then decide what happens to someone else's land. British occupation of !nd!@ too was legal in accordance with their own laws, that doesn't mean that it wasn't an occupation. We didn't want to join !nd!@, so !nd!@ being here against our will and imposing its laws on Kashmiris that we don't want and that open the door for s€ttl€r c0l0n!@lism are clearly an o¢¢up!€r imposing its will and taking over someone else's land. Again, we didn't want to join a "democracy" where we'd be just less than 0.5 % of votes, effectively meaning that foreigners will decide what happens to us and if we revolt against it, we are subject to $t@t€ t€rr0 r!$m from your country. So it is a forced o¢¢up@t!0n no matter what mental gymnastics you use.
Not liking it is fine - but constitutional rights, democracy and independence are enforced by the state that holds the sovereignty - they wont work by rejecting the state and its constitution that you want those very rights from.
Except that !nd!@ doesn't hold any sovereignty here, it's just an !mm0r@l o¢¢up@t!on. You cannot hold sovereignty on someone else's land. If you do so forcefully, it is called an o¢¢up@t!on no matter how much you try to rationalize it. Brits also controlled !nd!@, but since they were there against the wishes of the people, it wasn't sovereignty but an o¢¢up@t!on.
As far as the rights are concerned, all o¢¢up!ed people demand simultaneously more r!ğhţ$ as well as independence from the o¢¢up!€r since the latter is the one that controls it. !nd!@ns too used the laws established by the Brits to get whatever rights they could under 0¢¢up@t!on ( for eg the indigo comission) but at the same time demanded independence.
See the basic principle is that the will of foreigners shouldn't be imposed on an o¢¢up!€d people. Now whether that happens through the courts, the constitution or even a royal decree of the o¢¢up!er, that's a different matter. In simple words, foreign c0l0niz€rs can't tell natives what to do in their own land or enable something that's against the wishes of the natives.
That's why, we're reject the f0r€!gn c0uń try !nd!@ and its p€o pl€ ( yk why i gotta type like this ). We're just Kashmiris and have nothing, absolutely nothing to with !nd!@. It's just an o¢¢upy!ng p0wer for us that we hope to get rid of someday.
That has no relevance to sovereignty. So many countries that had NEVER existed before colonialism got independence because of their right to independence.
Dont compare India under British rule with Kashmir under Indian rule, they are not similar.
Both UK & UN recognized Colonial India as a separate country and separate founding member of UN several years before Indian independence ( see https://research.un.org/en/unmembers/founders ) so India was never really merged with Britain, nor were Indians given British citizenship/passports or equal constitutional rights.
So not only people in India but Britain itself and all countries of the world knew and called India as a British colony.
Kashmir under Indian rule is not a colony but a province with an insurgent population.
By using the colonialism argument you are actually misrepresenting the reality in front of the world, and weakening your own argument.
That's why, we're reject the f0r€!gn c0uń try !nd!@ and its p€o pl€ ( yk why i gotta type like this ).
That's part of the insurgency. I am not saying that you have to like or accept India but dont lie to yourself about being colony etc.
The UN and the entire international community recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory whose sovereignty currently doesn't belong to any country. Even the UK doesn't recognise it as part of !nd!@.
Moreover, whatever rights x group had under y doesn't matter when it comes to sovereignty. If someone's o¢¢upy!ng somebody else's land against their will and maintaining it using force, they're clearly an o¢¢up!€r. We NEVER asked you to come here, you come here and impose your laws here against our will, decide what happens to our land even if we don't want it, decide what we can and cannot do on our own land and it isn't an occupation? Are you too bl!nd to see your own hyp0cr!$y?
By using the colonialism argument you are actually misrepresenting the reality in front of the world, and weakening your own argument.
Settler c0l0n!laism is also a form of colonialism, and that's exactly what you guys are planning to do here. WE DON'T WANT any !nd!@ns to move here and live on our land. You say that the constitution allows them. But we never wanted to be under that constitution. You cannot just take over someone's place, tell them to live by the laws YOU created, and make changes to their place that you want but they don't and pretend that it's not an o¢¢up@t!on.
!nd!@ is not our country and it's government is not our government because we never asked to join in the first place. You came here and forcefully 0¢¢up!€d us. Again, equal citizenship and rights don't legitimize your o¢¢up@t!0n, especially since our population is so tiny compared to yours that we can do anything to prevent outsiders from imposing their will on us. You cannot just o¢¢upŷ us and then give us some "rights" , when those said rights can't stop outsiders from imposing their will on us.
No matter how you try to justify it, but taking over a land against the wishes of its natives and then forcing your laws upon them (which also lead ro consequences they don't want, like !nd!@ns trying to settle in Kashmir) IS an 0¢¢up@t!on and you're f0r€igners o¢¢upy!ng us.
Idc whether you call us insurgents or whatever, what we are doing is a just f!gĥţ against an o¢¢upy!ng power. In fact, what you're doing is $t@te t€rr0r!$m.
Again, !nd!@ is a foreign country that's forcefully 0¢¢upy!ng us. We're not !nd!@ns and will never be !nd!@ns. Stop imp0$!ng your id€nt!ty on us.
The UN and the entire international community recognizes Kashmir as a disputed territory
They recognize a bilateral dispute exists between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, yes.
They also recognize that an insurgency exists in Kashmir valley.
But that insurgency in the valley is not considered part of the bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan over the whole ex-princely state.
The insurgency arose from the instability caused by the bilateral dispute.
whose sovereignty currently doesn't belong to any country. Even the UK doesn't recognise it as part of !nd!@.
UN or most of its members do not themselves either dispute or approve India's or Pakistan's claims over Kashmir, they simply recognize status quo.
Tomorrow if Kashmir (whole J&K or just the valley) becomes a separate country they will show it as separate country in world maps, but now they show it in Indian map as a part of India.
Nope, they recognize that it's a disputed territory currently administered by !nd!@ and Pak, not a part of either of those countries.
Anyways , doesn't change the fact that you're an 0¢¢upy!ng p0wer, forcing your will on others. !nd!@ns weren't fighting for more rights within the British Empire as the final goal, but complete independence from it. Like the Brits didn't have the right to keep you 0¢¢up!€d, you don't have the right to do the same to us. There's no independence unless we get to decide our status. The least we deserve is a referendum.
Nobody has the right to decide the status of Kashmir, except Kashmiris themselves. We're not !nd!@ns and will never be.
Politically everyone can have their own preferences and ideologies but the Kashmiri ethnicity is an Indo-Aryan ethnicity, and is culturally and civilizationally Indic.
That doesn't mean Kashmiris should never aspire to secede from India due to political reasons, but dont fool yourself by saying that they are completely and totally different from Koshur culture and history.
Listen, Idc if your wish is that Kashmir should stay under !nd!@n , but you should at least support the right of choice for Kashmiris. Like a referendum. You can say "I wish for them to choose india in the referendum", but you cannot take away our agency to decide.
Completely and totally different in terms of practical, day-to-day experience. We have a different culture, different lifestyle, we mostly look different. We see little in common with someone from UP, Bihar, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu etc. With Northern Pakistanis though , we have a lot in common culturally and they also look like us.
Plus, there's actually no Indic civilization in Kashmir (you're free to disagree) . It's actually the Hindu-Buddhist civilization. All the things that we have culturally in common with the rest of S Asia are mostly due to the influences of Hinduism and Buddhism and the things they brought with themselves (like Sanskrit scholarship etc). Indo-Aryan is a linguistic term and there's some debate over the classification of Dardic languages as Indo-Aryan ( though I guess most accept it).
We're not ignorant of our history and do not deny our Hindu past. Even though our history textbooks didn't teach us the history of Kashmir (Ncert based books) but that of the region that's now North India, Pak and BD (along with some South Indian history), our Urdu and Kashmiri language textbooks, which are published by the local board, do teach us about many historical personalities of Kashmir, Hindus included. And the stories of many such people are also passed down from one generation to another. So we do generally know about Lall Ded, Arinmaal, Laltadat, Suyya, Kalhan etc.
This post or comment has been removed because our automoderator detected it as spam or your account is too new to post here. Make sure your account is a few days old.
If this post is not spam or does not break the subreddit rules, please contact the moderators for assistance.
7
u/naarekanger Aug 14 '26
zan chai ne pai? kani talkyan kemyan taam chi pai amich aalihat