F
FalconSlayersDFI
Guest
Believe me it was after 26/11 I literally start despising them . It has far deeper effect on Indians then Kargil.
What kind of people kill innocents while waiting for trains on railways station.
Latest Thread
Believe me it was after 26/11 I literally start despising them . It has far deeper effect on Indians then Kargil.
What kind of people kill innocents while waiting for trains on railways station.
I used to work from 6:00 am to 3:00pm shift so slept at 9:00pm on 26th Nov. and when I reached office on 27th my team in wisconsine messaged me and asked are you OK , I said what happen then they informed me and then i saw news .Yes, I was at a pub called Henry Tham's which was literally 200 meters from the Taj and would probably have gone there. Had also dropped an American friend to Chabad House a few times. Was absolutely nuts.
Maej kasheer
6. Yes, Nehru made a statement in Lal Chowk that people of Kashmir can decide their future thru a plebiscite. Lest we forget, that promise was made when Pakistan housed the highest number of Muslims in South Asia and was also a secular state that Jinnah had said it would be.
So this is what he said -Context of such speeches is very important:
Nehru’s First Speech On Kashmir
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, last week, commented that had Sardar Patel been in the driving seat, “entire Kashmir would have been ours”, has triggered a lot of discussion and debate. In this backdrop, the first public broadcast by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, is a...kashmirlife.net
@Waz has asked me a question in a locked thread
This is what he typed (in italics). The reply is below.
What do you mean "how many elections Balochis have voted in", they've voted in every election every other Pakistani has voted in.
Why are you bringing in nuclear proliferation and Bin Ladin into this? We're discussing Kashmir here, stop diverting the topic.
We care for the Kashmiris. Ok let's say you're right about them being crocodile tears, that's still a hell of a lot better when we have chief minister's in India saying their men should "take" Kashmiri brides, alongside the disgusting social media trends of desperate so called men on how they are coming for Kashmiri girls.
If Azad Kashmir is disputed then hold the vote for the whole region and let's decide this. But you you know how the result will go, hence since Nehru's passing it's never been talked about.
I mean -
1. How many total chances have Balochis had to vote in elections? And let's compare that to the number of chances Kashmiris have had. I haven't looked at the numbers but it is safe to assume, Kashmiris have had a much greater freedom to exercise their democratic rights than Balochis and indeed any other Pakistanis.
2. The point of bringing Bin Laden and proliferation into the discussion is to establish the credentials of Pakistan as a state which can't possibly be trusted to keep its word.
3. Why did Pak not immediately evacuate PoK to enable holding a vote under UN auspices?
4. After Pak ensured there was a demographic change in the Valley due to the exodus of Pandits, after Pak injected religion into the issue, it now wants to hold a plebiscite.
5. When India had offered much of the Valley to Pak during the Swaran Singh Bhutto talks prior to 1965, why did Pak insist on getting Buddhist majority Ladakh too?
6. Yes, Nehru made a statement in Lal Chowk that people of Kashmir can decide their future thru a plebiscite. Lest we forget, that promise was made when Pakistan housed the highest number of Muslims in South Asia and was also a secular state that Jinnah had said it would be.
Now given that Pandits have been driven out of the Valley and the sizeable population of Buddhists and Hindus in J&K (but not in Valley), why would anyone agree to a plebiscite which would automatically render these people as second class citizens?
Wonder if his biggest fan @Kaptaan agrees.
Apt,Pakistan wanted plebiscite only when they ensured that demography has been changed and islamisation of kashmir has followed.@Waz has asked me a question in a locked thread
This is what he typed (in italics). The reply is below.
What do you mean "how many elections Balochis have voted in", they've voted in every election every other Pakistani has voted in.
Why are you bringing in nuclear proliferation and Bin Ladin into this? We're discussing Kashmir here, stop diverting the topic.
We care for the Kashmiris. Ok let's say you're right about them being crocodile tears, that's still a hell of a lot better when we have chief minister's in India saying their men should "take" Kashmiri brides, alongside the disgusting social media trends of desperate so called men on how they are coming for Kashmiri girls.
If Azad Kashmir is disputed then hold the vote for the whole region and let's decide this. But you you know how the result will go, hence since Nehru's passing it's never been talked about.
I mean -
1. How many total chances have Balochis had to vote in elections? And let's compare that to the number of chances Kashmiris have had. I haven't looked at the numbers but it is safe to assume, Kashmiris have had a much greater freedom to exercise their democratic rights than Balochis and indeed any other Pakistanis.
2. The point of bringing Bin Laden and proliferation into the discussion is to establish the credentials of Pakistan as a state which can't possibly be trusted to keep its word.
3. Why did Pak not immediately evacuate PoK to enable holding a vote under UN auspices?
4. After Pak ensured there was a demographic change in the Valley due to the exodus of Pandits, after Pak injected religion into the issue, it now wants to hold a plebiscite.
5. When India had offered much of the Valley to Pak during the Swaran Singh Bhutto talks prior to 1965, why did Pak insist on getting Buddhist majority Ladakh too?
6. Yes, Nehru made a statement in Lal Chowk that people of Kashmir can decide their future thru a plebiscite. Lest we forget, that promise was made when Pakistan housed the highest number of Muslims in South Asia and was also a secular state that Jinnah had said it would be.
Now given that Pandits have been driven out of the Valley and the sizeable population of Buddhists and Hindus in J&K (but not in Valley), why would anyone agree to a plebiscite which would automatically render these people as second class citizens?
Exactly. When Islamization doesn't work, then it is "Direct Action Day".Apt,Pakistan wanted plebiscite only when they ensured that demography has been changed and islamisation of kashmir has followed.
So this is what he said -
"And here let me make clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a State to either Dominion, die decision must be made by the people of that State. It was in accordance with this policy that we added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir."
Nothing else?
Apt,Pakistan wanted plebiscite only when they ensured that demography has been changed and islamisation of kashmir has followed.
@Waz has asked me a question in a locked thread
This is what he typed (in italics). The reply is below.
What do you mean "how many elections Balochis have voted in", they've voted in every election every other Pakistani has voted in.
Why are you bringing in nuclear proliferation and Bin Ladin into this? We're discussing Kashmir here, stop diverting the topic.
We care for the Kashmiris. Ok let's say you're right about them being crocodile tears, that's still a hell of a lot better when we have chief minister's in India saying their men should "take" Kashmiri brides, alongside the disgusting social media trends of desperate so called men on how they are coming for Kashmiri girls.
If Azad Kashmir is disputed then hold the vote for the whole region and let's decide this. But you you know how the result will go, hence since Nehru's passing it's never been talked about.
I mean -
1. How many total chances have Balochis had to vote in elections? And let's compare that to the number of chances Kashmiris have had. I haven't looked at the numbers but it is safe to assume, Kashmiris have had a much greater freedom to exercise their democratic rights than Balochis and indeed any other Pakistanis.
2. The point of bringing Bin Laden and proliferation into the discussion is to establish the credentials of Pakistan as a state which can't possibly be trusted to keep its word.
3. Why did Pak not immediately evacuate PoK to enable holding a vote under UN auspices?
4. After Pak ensured there was a demographic change in the Valley due to the exodus of Pandits, after Pak injected religion into the issue, it now wants to hold a plebiscite.
5. When India had offered much of the Valley to Pak during the Swaran Singh Bhutto talks prior to 1965, why did Pak insist on getting Buddhist majority Ladakh too?
6. Yes, Nehru made a statement in Lal Chowk that people of Kashmir can decide their future thru a plebiscite. Lest we forget, that promise was made when Pakistan housed the highest number of Muslims in South Asia and was also a secular state that Jinnah had said it would be.
Now given that Pandits have been driven out of the Valley and the sizeable population of Buddhists and Hindus in J&K (but not in Valley), why would anyone agree to a plebiscite which would automatically render these people as second class citizens?
Excellent interview. He has been doing very good.