Відео

@@adalhussain558 I have 4 answers, 1.Considering Jinnah's concept(Pakistani concept)(which you seem to have based your question on):If India was divided strictly into a Muslim India and Hindu India,considering relegion as the most principle unifying factor in the subcontinent,then rightfully both sides do not care about anything else other than relegion when it comes to the border and we would have had 2 different peaceful countries optimally with people predominantly no longer hating each other and good co-operation.In such a scenario Pakistan is accepted,And India is just the Hindu version of Pakistan (all other relegions are also ignored in such a concept) 2.The Indian idea:Pakistan's justification with or without kashmir in itself is an insult to the idea of India,The foundational concept of India,one which is still entertained by the government and most of the populace is not a 'Hindu homeland'!,The subcontinent much like Europe is very pluralistic,every state or province of modern India and Pakistan have their own languages,sometimes multiple etc.etc India was meant to be a Union of Indic societies beyond relegion,caste, ethnicity and tribe.Therefore,India can never accept Pakistan's foundation as accepting Pakistan is the equivalent of refusing itself.In such a case an Independent Kashmir valley is much less of an issue to India than the endorsement of Pakistani ideas.Like why did Muslims need a seperate homeland for themselves in The Subcontinent?what was the issue with being part of a nation in which their spritual beliefs are not majority of the population?Like were Punjabi,Bengali,Sindhi and other muslims and Hindus who lived side by side more different from each other than they were to a Pashtun,Nagamese or Tamil?Isn't the very desire for Pakistan a communal ambition for Domination?add to that very significant numbers of muslims across the subcontinent opposed this and many even in the lands of modern Pakistan resonated more with the idea of a unified India than that of a seperate 'Muslim' Homeland 3.For them:Kashmir valley was predominantly Muslim but it was not part of the Indian national movement as strongly as other places,and by extension not part of a movement for a Muslim India,Pakistan A democratic independent state was the want of the populace in the valley,not Pakistan .Outside the valley:The population outside is about as significant as inside though the outside part makes like 80 percent of the conflict zone.The people of Jammu were dominantly Dogra and add to that Indian far right national movements were very active there and Joining Pakistan,let alone being seperate from India was not something anyone there would be ready for .In Gilgit yes they themselves joined Pakistan,but Ladakh was definitely not pro Pakistan and Baltistan was not a certain supportet of Pakistan.Many thought the Princely state would be partitioned in itself.At the same time such conflicted opinions between the populace did not exist in Hyderabad or Junagadh.The Population was overwhelmingly supportive of Indian rule than that of The Nizam.And to be honest yes there were many muslims who did not resonate with the idea of India. 4.Messy truth:Though the founding concept of India is still relevant,most Indians do not care,common people have very little to care about borders politics and ideology and in reality even some of the most nationalistic Indians are not free of the communal madness dominating and cursing our union in many ways ,this is also the case with Pakistan,despite a fully free muslim homeland,a ridiculous majority by relegion of 'muslims',Pakistan is very much held back,also affected by the communal madness of the british era that still dominates politics,dosen't like almost every province of Pakistan have a significant separatism or terrorism problem?Like the very reason our medias are the masters of communal sensitivity and hatred is due to our own very political irresponsibility,we have let communal emotions dominate our subcontinent's politics for 2 centuries at this point,Is it even possible to imagine politics in the US or Europe being much more about the genetic or religious difference between the voters than actual issues,and here in this subcontinent we have no lack of issues.At the end of the day States are prudential creations and not products of emotion,mixing relegion with politics is nonsensical as Governments are not choosen to guide the voters to God.States are bodies which must ensure developement,progress and safety of its citizens.In a logical way,the solution for Kashmir conflict is obvious,whatever we rant at the end of the day Kashmir dispute is solely based on its *strategic value* , and thus the conflict is not the source of hate,rather hate is the source of the conflict,the lack of trust between the nation's and its people is the source of conflict and Kashmir is just one of the hyped symptoms of this century long circus.If the nation's are willing to co-operate,do you think it really matters in whose hands the Kashmir valley is?Alsace Lorraine is with France and Germany does not make a fuss about it,The long hatred and conflict between the Germans and French was not because of Alsace Lorraine rather Alsace Lorraine was the result of imperial ambitions that conflict,mistrust and hatred.South Asia is one of the poorest regions in the world,though many may not realise,The Indo-Pakistani conflict is one of the major reasons of this lack of straight growth here.The lack of rational society.

@@farhan0083 yess

sorry, I will change the captions

ya

For your kind Information India never captured Aksai Chin Because of Karakoram Ranges India creating Forward post only in 1960s and Capture Depsang Plains But we Intrude more into Aksai chin Because to Protect the Sinkiang Tibet Highway 1962 war Broke out which Hailed Indian Advances but Eventually China Retreated 20kms from Actual Mac Mohan Line and Ladakh Source - Wikipidea and Chinese Documentary about Sino Indian War zh.m.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%B0%E8%BE%B9%E5%A2%83%E6%88%98%E4%BA%89

Mizoram used to be a region directly under british rule,and was part of the Assam province,Such provinces with direct british rule were either going to Pakistan or India based on votes and relegious population,the Assam province went to India so did Mizoram along with it.

@@bharathball wait, did Mizoram ever gave consent i.e votes or referendum to stay with India

@@thehorde4868 No,no part of India before Sikkim had any such referendum

@@bharathball I'm talking about Mizorama, was there ever a referendum or votes among the people to join India?

Me Also Bro

contact me if u want 1 kg aata

Stay hungry if you want to bikhari😂😂😂

​@@munnigangwar9413We have beef no problem.

C'mon you pll don't have to continue the fight which Britishers brought us into.. we are the same people, We share a comman history and culture let's don't let religious lines devide us. There are happily living muslims in India, and Muslims in pak. Hate is political but love is natural.. i have heard old people describing how Hindus muslims and Sikh kids used to play together.. And their families used to celebrate all the festivals together but this partision was ugly and I wish thing like this won't happen anywhere else

😛😛😛😛😛

Kashmir is much smaller than ii looks

save? uh Gilgit Baltistani ppl are the most pro Pakistani u can find out in whole of Pakistan