Prof Srinath Raghavan talks on the history and current status of the state of Kashmir, especially after the abrogation of Article 370, at Manthan Samvaad 2019.
I am so happy to listen to these brilliant minds at Manthan but I m afraid the way this country is going my generation would be the last one to witness these brilliant people. How the soul is dead and citizens have become spineless, my beloved country would be devastated.
@@anirudh_dh anyone who calls out lies isn't your third grade bhakt. i callout anyone who lies i busted this false narrative in this comment section but i cant find that comment anymore I'm guessing this channel felt threatened n deleted that comment, so here is one that Aarti did twitter.com/AartiTikoo/status/1183603862260707328?s=19
@chanakya 26 well if there is more about Sangh than what we hear and see day in and day out, why don't you tell !! To get you started here is a clue "Akhand Bharat" and a sanghi role models pragyas and sadhvis and as for behaviour "cowardice" .. you can carry on from here
Mr . Raghavn should be invited address to parliament as a expert historian to open the minds of parliamentarians regarding historical facts of Article 370 , and it's importance . Because historical changes needs thorough historical knowledge , which many parliamentarians may be lacking , and any decision taken in half knowledge may prove danger .
That would be equivalent to lecturing to a group of roudy street urchins😂. Sorry, don't take it otherwise, looking at current state of affairs in Parliament 😢
Well my argument is why at the first hand hindus/indian write off north western province/pakistan all nonsense is published and spread about british being the sole perpetrators of hindu muslim violence j sai deepak in his book has been very clear this issue starts in 13 th century by ibn taymiyyah and barelvi being the scintillating bright derivative of his eduction which led to this divide india was one and always will be just by changing the demographic doesn’t leads to change in verdicts
Some facts seemingly overlooked or downplayed by the speaker: 1) The instrument of accession signed by other 365 princely states is almost identical to the 'Instrument of Accession' signed by then ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Harisingh. The same is stressed by former Chief Justice of India Justice AS Anand in his book on the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. All the princely states have learned to live in equality and so must the state of Jammu and Kashmir. 2) The speaker tried to portray as though asymmetric federalism is the fundamental nature of India Constitution. On the contrary, symmetric federalism, equality before law for all citizens as well as equality between states and secularism are the fundamental characteristics of the Indian Constitution. No other state in the Union of India has got the privilege of being allowed to have a separate constitution. 3) The speaker opined that the people of Jammu and Kashmir were not guaranteed fundamental rights because the 'progressive' leaders of Jammu and Kashmir saw problem in right to property. What prevented them to have formally adopted all the rest of the fundamental rights ? In what way is lack of constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights is a virtue or desirable feature to be allowed to continue? 4) The speaker downplayed or overlooked the problems faced by Dalits in Jammu and Kashmir. Was it not fact that certain category of state subjects in Jammu and Kashmir were legally eligible only for sweeper or sanitation related jobs and no other jobs under the government of Jammu and Kashmir? Such medieval provisions in vogue until recently are not in tune with modern and contemporary standards of justice and humanism. 5) Pakistan is a key player is deterioration of peace and security in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and the radicalization of significant section of Kashmir valley.
~@10:34, Dr. Raghavan can be heard saying: "Contrary to all these claims about saying ‘oh if Vallabhai Patel had been dealing with Kashmir, the entire state would have been ours,’ he was actually at this point of time ready to trade off Kashmir for Hyderabad." And rightly so. Hyderabad is, as you all know, is squarely in the middle of, heart of India and that was, to him, the most important issue to be dealt with. Not Kashmir. And in fact, this is not a secret. On 11th of November 1947, when the Indian army moved into Junagadh, Vallabhai Patel went and made a public speech, where he mentions the same point... he says "we told that Pakistanis that if you can give us Hyderabad, we are willing to give you Kashmir." So that should put rest to some of this sort of a notion currently prevailing, that the problem of Kashmir basically would have never happened if people like, you know, Vallabhai Patel were in-charge. Actually that is not at all the case. The context was different." [almost verbatim] Some facts Dr. Raghavan did not include in his talk: 1. On Oct 26 1947, as per Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, Patel reportedly said “Look here Generals, Kashmir must be defended at all costs and come what may, resources or no resources...” [Sengupta, Hindol (2018). The Man Who Saved India Sardar Patel and his Idea of India. Penguin] 2. On Jan 03 1948, in his speech, he can be heard saying: “लेकिन हमने एक बात साफ कही, कि काश्मीर कि एक [कसु? unclear] ज़मीन हम छोड़ने वाले नहीं हैं, कभी नहीं ।” [3:14-22 in ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_3HFNqforiM.html] Is it not interesting that while Dr. Raghavan finds it necessary to include in his talk that "Nehru himself was very averse to taking the issue upto United Nations" (sic.; @~12:00) [he does not cite any reference for this in his talk though], he does not deem it necessary to include those points when Patel had reportedly/recorded to have expressed India's determination about not giving up Kashmir and actions to that effect? Dr. Raghavan's pursuit for a 'balanced' narrative, even if one were to grant that intention to him, does not seem to manifest itself in light of points he did not include which he could so easily have. Surely, if he is citing from Vallabhai Patel's "collected speeches" (~11:04-06), he should have read Patel's other speeches too. If he read only a few speeches and not all, that is selective in perhaps an inadvertent way. Given the stature that is attributed to Dr. Raghavan, is it not more plausible that he must have read all the speeches and then chose to 'selectively' include the points that he did?
@~15:59, Dr. Raghavan can be heard saying: "...it is worth pointing out, that contrary to what is being claimed today, Sardar Patel was actually the architect of article 370" Hindol Sengupta: 'No, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was not the architect of Article 370' medium.com/@hindolsengupta/no-sardar-vallabhbhai-patel-was-not-the-architect-of-article-370-975b3c5e0d8a
Any real student of Strategy might perhaps be more than just a little surprised in Dr. Raghavan invoking Patel’s (supposed) Hyderabad-Kashmir barter proposal [I use supposed because he does not cite the exact source in his speech] (henceforth A) instead of Junagadh-Kashmir barter proposal (henceforth, B) as some sort of an indicator of him not caring deeply for any part of Bharata, in this case, Kashmir. For an Indian patriot’s point-of-view, who might have not wanted to lose any of these three, which option provides a better chance to save all three, especially when, according to Dr. Raghavan himself, Jinnah is supposed to have said Hyderabad Nizam had wanted to be independent (@~10:06 onwards, Dr. Raghavan can be heard clearly saying “...as far as Hyderabad is concerned, he wants to be independent...”). If [B] {which, according to Dr. Raghavan himself, was proposed by Pakistan (refer to the ~20 seconds that start @~9:51 "Mohammed Ali Jinnah...actually shoots it down. He said there is no need for referendum of any kind. He says let's just exchange Junagadh for Kashmir.")} had prevailed, India would have lost either Kashmir or Junagadh. In positing [A] (if he actually did) as against (B), was it still not Patel demonstrating strategic negotiating smarts because by tagging Kashmir to Hyderabad, Patel not only saved Junagadh but also made Kashmir conditional on something Pakistan had the least chance of taking: Hyderabad?
@@meghkalyanasundaram8720 Why Patel , almost all leaders of India 'have expressed India's determination about not giving up Kashmir' after the accession. What they said before the loss of territory to Pakistan is far more interesting ( & relevant). Prof Raghavan is explaining what is not generally known & hence need to be told.
Excellent talk, but aren't you conveniently avoiding : 1) The United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 - the 'three sequential and conditional steps' laid out by the resolution ? 2) Displacement of Kashmiri Hindus - what about their state and status ? Roger Cohen of New York Times said "Modi will not turn back from his elimination of Kashmir’s autonomy. That phase of Indian history is over". What do you think?
How does UN resolution disproves the narrative of Prof Raghavan? He obviously cannot cover everything about Kashmir in a 45 min lecture. You could have asked your question, if any on those UN resolutions. Pakistan dragged its feet from implementing those sequential steps because it was afraid to loose the referendum (due to influence of Sheikh's faith in Nehru over Jinnah) & thereby lose what it had illegally occupied.
@@RRDARGAD This is not a 'debate' of how 370 has wronged Kashmir, for the professor to pitch and pander to please a particular audience. If UN resolution 47 has any bearing on "Kashmir - the state and the status", then it should be discussed to dispel any doubts about its violation. Displaced Kashmiri Hindus - not even a mention about their state and status :( Unless he has a solution to proffer, as a historian, as a professor and as a scholar, he has responsibility to present a more balanced perspective, methinks...
@@swarsur Blame it on Manthan organizers who invited the Professor, (instead of you who wants to decide what the debate is/ should be). This speaker chose to speak his thoughts on history of article 370.
In addition to what Srinath said, allow me to reminf you that Patel didnt have a finalised stance on Kashmir. It changed aftet the 1947 war. Also, while we may criticise Modi for the abrogation, the future mostly depends on what the government does after this move. That could make or break the situation.
37:00 Wonder what Srinath Raghavan's assessment is of the current situation in Kashmir in 2024, will he stick to his skepticism regarding the ability of the Government to improve Kashmir, is it still "tall order" or is it somewhat better now ?
@@ankurverma2630 bhai ye liberals sochte hain ki sirf yahi sab kuch samajhte hain. Main bhi IIT passout hoon, i have deep knowledge in this issue. Har cheez me "POLITICIAL CORRECTNESS" dekhoge to chutiya reh jaoge. Apne aap ko dekho aur china ko dekho. Kitna gazab use kiya nationalism ko. Aur develop kr liya country ko aur hum chutiyon ki trah in sab cheezon pr lad rhe hain.
Keep it Short Not that they couldn’t but they were looking for a way to do with less resistance. BJP never thinks just acts and as the English proverb Haste makes Waste.
No where land was acquired by the state without compensation to rightful owners thanks to article 370.Minorities' rights as envisaged in the constitution were not applicable to J&K, thanks to art. 370 because the minorities in this case happened to be Hindus, Citizen rights of refugees of partition were denied thanks to article 370 and 35. Women were denied property rights if they married outside the State. The speaker is oblivious to the role of Pakistan, throughout the history in fomenting trouble which necessitated all the measures taken by Central Government from time to time.
The nullification of the articles doesn't decrease the seperatists movement, rather increases it. We are fuelling the minds of Kashmiris to rebellion against the Indian state. There are people calling out educated historians as urban naxals and left wingers; call me a conservative or whatever you feel like, i still can't wrap my head around how this move will integrate the people of the Kashmir valley with India.
Ok..let's start with your contention "we r fuelling the minds of Kashmiris to rebellion against the Indian state". Now what if I argue that we are fuelling the minds to rebel not by abrogating their 'special right' (Art 370) but by other way round? And that other way is by systematically injecting (over the ages) the 'ill founded' notion of perpetual segregation by the "India"; by injecting the perception that each and every move of the Central govt is meant to decimate the Kashmiri awam. For instance, in the wake of Abrogation of Art 370 itself, it was widely circulated, even in some responsible media platform itself, that the Central govt is up on decimating the Muslim populace just like the Jews were decimated by Hitler!...and importantly that was the call from Mohd Geelani - founding member of the separatist element. The responsible Indian media gave full publicity to that view as it has been over the years. Now that's where the main problem lies but we are reluctant to even take note of that. My contention is that we are so blinded by colourations from both sides --if one is 'liberatandu', 'sickular' one side than he/she is 'andh bhakt' on the other--- that we fail to notice the nuances of most issues. I strongly believe that we can pick up the nuances by juxtaposing a particular narrative with its counter narrative. For instance on Kashmir issue itself the one counter narrative that has been 'systemically eliminated' (at least in my view) is the account by Mr. Jagmohan who was serving as the Governor at the peak of insurgency. Now that is akin to akin to ground reporting of an event and that too by a 'constituional head of a state' but in the end he is being descredited by mere ill-founded supposition that he was totally biased and was responsible for the blood bath. And we have duly discarded him riding on that projection. Now that's where we blundered and that's how a particular narrative gets branded as the 'absolute truth' and that's how we form fragmented opinions every time
just some confusion, if someone can elaborate or clarify for me, around 10:00 - if jinnah was saying just give us kashmir for junagarh and let hyderabad deal with GoI separately, why was Sardar Patel seeking to exchange kashmir for hyderabad(which jinnah had already given up on)?
Jinnah felt Junagarh could be sacrificed for Kashmir, and that Hyderabad should be an independent princely state since that is what it wanted. Patel said that Kashmir could be given up if India's claim to Hyderabad was recognized. Jinnah hadn't given up Hyderabad at this point of time. He was stuck on the principle that princely states would decide their accession to India or Pakistan based on whatever the ruler signed, whereas the Indian position was that princely states would accede to India or Pakistan based on the will of the majority.
Succinct arguments, well delivered. Appreciate his scholarship. Actions become history, good or bad, then an opportunist leader use history to shape future of people, good or bad, to suit his own ends.
What I am going to write is open to be labelled as a fact or fiction, however a great fiction that promises an equitable and justice driven future must be accounted for and given its share of breeding hopefulness. The speaker has very rightfully put superb insights about where he based his historical context from. The question we must mull over is : With continuance of being chosen as Member of Parliament, the Kashmir based politicians somehow embodied all negative characters of select corrupt and unwilling practice to just continue to rule by summarizing their role as juggernaut, where actually they could not manage to do many things due to system, governance and will power constraint. Just like in other states of India, the issue in Kashmir polity is deep rooted and it has its own dynamism of issues and different viewpoint clashed hard. Unfortunately, democratic set up of any kind amplifies that power of majority can play with constitution, it's essence, drive a major change among the ideals of the land and it's aspirations, in short, it can prepare a visionary picture for people who want to see it and become part of the change. The speaker has said, his job and study is to deal with history. He must not worry as we all respect his concern and we promise him that he will get the opportunity to dwell on the future of Kashmir as a subject of past and he will be able to, with the support of various citizens of our nation, examine whether the Future genuinely has created an apt history that we all can be proud of in relation to Kashmir and other diversed state and it's potential future fears of being dominated by a national party. As sensible people, building consensus is important among people by consultation. History decides who is it's caretaker and it's saviour, decisions will be cut open and ripped apart to be debated openly and this democracy will allow us all to view the closed future. We have learned, basis on what is all being told to us from all factions. Without being judgemental or prejudiced, I can easily concede to the truth that India was partitioned on Religious ground and Kashmiris still feel that since they are a Muslim majority state with respect to their laws related to ownership of property, they have the 1st right to the bounties of Kashmir. The fear of Outsider interference is what we all can understand, and we hope that our errors in history and right decisions of an unspoken history and role of our dedicated political figures were good, let us take for example, their decisions were based on their own democratic visions to become a big player in politics and governance. The occasional romance with holding plebsicite and then on the contrary, showing the willingness to bring a massive change via central governance and delivering corruption less society free of any established prejudice, shall get it's chance to become a solid reality, if genuine intention is shown by the today's establishment. The military, diplomacy, local political engagement and most importantly forging direct people to people contact and convincing them to feel that the heart beat of the nation is in full support of the land as currently it does not deserve to be inflicted with massive betrayal of objective and terrorized life. History is written by the narrative one wants to serve, a decision taken very recently is explained in thousands of ways. Therefore, the people and their thought that drove some decisions during the course of partitioning and Integration of India simultaneously, may be questioned as it affected life of generations, but it is also imperative to genuinely move from a web of issues to unlocking the web by creating a new way of viewing things. Trust us, that our fine outlook towards humanity and forgiving nature will guide India to make better decision and generate an equitable and just future for all it's inhabitants. The objective here is to end Animosity and allow the various thoughts to come in open and discuss more on the lines of simple citizenry rights and obligations and what kind of society we want to become. A Religion centric where we find solace in the shoulder of the similarly believing people or we want to allow the entire Diaspora of India that comprises of beautiful cultures and language and customs to have the opportunity to combine with the fragrance of Kashmir people and their humane character that has remain unexplored till now by subjugation of their already locked and limited exposure to the rest of India and the consistent modification of their Idea about what Life really means, is it just to fight and oppose and allow history, present and Tomorrow to haunt them, or to face and talk to the present that has the capacity of better intention wrapped in nothing but is a determination to smile and live together in the storms of tomorrow that's is being marketed more than the existential plan warrants. I support the pinch of speakers belief where he is willing to accommodate his questions of today based on the past and present happening and his composure to wait and see how new decision will be taken to drive solution and peace and trust among the people, where many believe it is tough nut to crack, and I believe that during the present pompous mood that India has gained it's best chance to create an ideal understanding and convergence of view to work for a bright future, it is important that negativity also shall have it's fair say to motivate the goodness of intent and execution to create great atmosphere and a fear free life.
Will my fellow indian brothers and sisters finally agree we have wronged kashmiris throughout history and that the latest move was a nail in the coffin. How can we be proud n happy of such a mess ?
Yes unbias brother... Ur definitely right.. How can people justify things on lies and cheats.. Their is no place for truth and facts...in today's world.? Don't we will be accountable before lord for cheating people and telling wrong things to citizens...? Is their no one who can stand with oppressed and tell the power that u r WRONG?
No, I will not agree with you. It was the other way round. We, the Hindus, especially of Kashmir, have been terribly wronged. And I am happy with how the situation is now.
@@rambhaiyadav464 that's sadism hero . Deriving pleasure out of other people's suffering . What else can be expected from you ! The "whataboutry" gang .
@@rambhaiyadav464 well just because one party suffered doesn't make it right to burn down the world, rather one can use that moral debt for future political negotiations but if one do the same as other which we the Hindus are doing, then there is no difference between a regular jihadi and the lynchers
He may be historically accurate, but his assertions on illegal termination of Article 370 can be well challanged by an interview of The Wire with Harish Salve. Must watch!
Then you must watch Faizan Mustafa's interview by Katan Thapar. And another one by Ravish Kumar. Faizan is the VC of NALSAR and is a legal luminary who spells it out section by section about the illegality. Abrogation will be eventually struck down by SC but not by the current incumbents.
Amazing intellectual srinath raghwan in the tradition of Sri k.m.panikkaar when india actually helped china to take over Tibet.Now let india approach UN to hold plebiscite in kashmir under shri raghwan as plebiscite administrator.
Being a Bengali, i can say this much that investments didn't come here because of various other reasons. But Bengalis can go to any other state and work. Any other person can come here and buy land. In Kashmir, that wasn't possible before Aug 5. You will send ur people to other states for education or employment,but won't allow any other state people to come to your place to do anything z bullshit
I was thinking of sharing the link in my whatsapp story but don't think anyone would listen it. Two reasons - it is in english and second they are happy with 370 abrogation for the reasons propagated by the Godi media. They do not wish to check the facts. Their andh bhakti is superior above everything else. Sometimes I think bjp has hit the right chord coz this is just what majority wanted.
You can bring a horse to the river, you can't make it drink. The biggest fault of Congress is this, that they didn't let democracy deepen in Indian hearts and brains. That they kept people fairly uneducated, and now it is coming to haunt us all. Education - The Key!
Kashmir issue is not black and white as the speeker wants us to beleive, Its a very complex problem running for several decades actively supported by our " friendly" neighbour in the name of religion. He conveiently igonores those aspects and selectively picks few historical events to prove his point. No solution other than predicting that this wont work. Is he promoting independence for Kashmir, would that solve problem . Scare mongering comments comparing TN & kashmir shows the true intention of the speaker. Blame the current regime but no alternate solutions proposed .
Whenever you say truth that is against them . You are termed as anti national leftist or librandu or psedu secular God save this country from Modi, paid media Modi bhakt and bjp it cell
If you delve a bit deeper, you will find that the opposition is also the same. They just call you Bhakt, IT cell and RSS if you concur with Modi on one thing and oppose him on a hundred. It is not exclusive to the right wing.
@@rutvikrs I don't think so Modi before taking any decision modi doesn't consider the view point of the other people. The National media projects Modi's and bjp view point as public view point they never consider public opinion or opposition opinion. After withdrawal of article 370 the media never showed the opinion of the Kashmiri people. The media, Modi and bjp often projects those people as anti national leftist or librandu who oppose bjp decision. The same thing happened at the time of demonetization which was a disaster.
Amazing intellectual srinath raghwan in the the tradition of k.m.pannikkar when India actually helped china to take control of Tibet.Now let India approach UN to hold plebiscite in kashmir n recommend Sri raghwan as plebiscite administrator.
In course of time, Kashmir valley will stabilize & achieve peace after India pays a heavy price. History will debate, who had a better solution, Vajpayee or Modi. In which approach, India would have paid a lighter penalty or got better results. Vajpayee-Musharraf had envisaged converting LOC into international border and autonomy for BOTH sides of the LOC. Now I see no chance of any autonomy in POK, which is already part of Chinese Road & Belt initiative. Also there is no chance of normal relations with Pakistan- a situation which China will continue to exploit. A decision does not become right just because it is popular. In fact many right decisions are most unpopular & only visionary leaders can think of working on them. Modi formula is justified at least for Ladakh & Jammu since it is in line with aspirations of locals.
You'd think in this course of time, they'd let the people have some communication? While Modi sits in his office and Sitharaman spews out horseshit, J and K still don't have communication or internet facilities after well over 2 months of dissolution of article 370.
@@s.akhtar2440 I respect your views. ORF data shows, Kashmir situation deteriorated rapidly after 2014. Javed Akhtar said this on Pakistani TV- In India, Islamic & Hindu fanaticism sustain each other. You cannot get rid of either without getting rid of the other.
Mr Raghwan says sardar patel was the architect of article 370 and everyone belives him without cross checking the facts... It's a pity. Article 370 was drafted by N Gopalaswami Ayyangar. Secondly, he very cleverly hides the fact that sardar patel actually changed his thoughts about kashmir when md Jinah accepted accession of junagarh, which was against the will of hindu majority princely state.
At 37 min timer, he says that whether Kashmiris should decide whether to stay with India or not. I believe that decision has been taken by the majority educated youth who are studying or working in various States. While the non educated ones are working for pakistani "peacefuls" committing human rights abuse. I feel the choice z rather simple
@@HotModel4U while you continue to live before 1947, i don't. Take a survey among Kashmiris( hindu pandits,valmikis,shias,Buddhists included) and ask them whether they feel safer in India or Pakistan
player5692 Well let’s hope so. But for the fact of the matter is kashmir will turn out to be a battle ground after this. You don’t lock someone up in their home and tell them that it is for their own benefit. Kashmir is not India or Pakistan. It is Kashmir itself.
Just proves that no leader/politician of India or Kashmir really worked for the benefit of the Kashmiri people, they all screwed the Kashmiri populace continuously and consistently, for their own political ambitions and to pamper their egos. And that laws and constitution never came in the way of these leaders doing so. This is an ongoing saga. Kashmir is an orphan with many parents claiming rights to bring it up.
The first blunder in dealing with kashmir issue was dismissal and arrest of sheik abdullah in 1953. Since then article 370 had been systematically diluted with its fatal blow on it in 1975 Indira Gandhi-sheik abdullah pact. 1987 elections in Jammu and Kashmir was another watershed movement in Kashmir which was directly responsible for insurgency in the state. People who stood for elections took to arms
You should read Gen. Sinha's book on '47 Kasmir war & negotiation for a perspective on why India didn't pursue military goals. And see FM Manekshaw's interview to his grand nephew "A life lived.." to see Patel's views on Kashmir. He was called by Mountbatten to report on Kashmir situation of '47 in presence of Nehru and Patel
This guy is very quick to quote facts and documents but when he says the Kashmiris rejected the Indian constitution because they did not find it progressive enough he basically asks us to take a leap of faith and believe his BS..why is there no document or material quoted to buttress this claim? I find it hard to believe right to property was the only thing blocking them from adapting the Indian constitution
Pundits were asked to leave by the governor jagmohan of bjp on 2nd day of his office via radio as they were beign targeted by terrorist.They thought they could solve the terror problem in months. Easy solution to a difficult problem. Like demo it failed as well.Still today no one were able to solve the terror problem and make them resettle there.if today same principle were to be applied there, they will have to announce all the non kashmiris to leave the place since they are targeted .That's how you solve a problem or this is just another such easy and a stupid method to solve a complex problem ? similar idea of their if other govt had applied in mumbai things would never have changed in mumbai or in other naksali parts of india where people with arms use to targets civilians in broad day light.
Are you saying Mr. Srinath Raghavan that the insurgency was entirely indigenous and Pakistan had nothing to do with it ? Where is insurgency now ? And what is your take on Kashmir's development post revocation of Art 370 ? All your arguments seem hollow 5 years hence.
Correct me if I am mistaken, the speake seems to imply that full autonomy, with no linkage to India or Pakistan would be what the Kashmir people want and that only would be beneficial for them. That would mean Kashmir has to become a nation by itself. If that happens, how long do you think it will survive, without being overrun by Pakistan, assuming India is not interested in doing that.
By granting autonomy , Kashmir doesn't become independent nation. Defence, foreign affairs & communication still remains with India. There is no question of overrun by Pakistan.
@@amzargar 'Full autonomy, with no linkage to India or Pakistan' would imply Independence as a separate Nation. Just like the Brits gave India and Pakistan independence, India and Pakistan can now agree to give Kashmir the same ?
It's prolly in the Sardar Patel Correspondence (SPC)- abridged editions of which are available on Amazon. I also think it's available on the Internet Archive, though not in a reader-friendly format. You can check there.
I would suggest the man to read Stalin's book on the question of nationality. You are very correct.. But tell me what would you do if you had deal with an India as its leader. Would you not like the rule of law to be applied to be applied consistently to all its states. The argument might not very democratic but it's the way history of man has worked. I admire your wisdom but don't narrow it down to the funnel which only filters arguments. Think about the problem from the context of an Ashoka who had pillars erected as far as Afganistan declaring his sovereignty over the land and the rule of law
Fact check: Maharaja of J&K signed same Instrument of Accession that was signed by other 500+ princely states. It was literally photocopy of it. So question is why should J&K be allowed it's Islamic jamuriyat if other 500+ states gave up thiers?
Mr Historian didnt talk about 1 extremely important point & that is about "FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS" in the constitution of JKL that is not In congruence with Fundamental rights of Indians constitution! Also the rights of minorities. This is due to article 370!
Speaker makes a foolery of himself comparing TN wd Kashmir. Has TN mothers sacrificed 40000 sons like their Kashmiri counterparts? If such a thing would have happened,then maybe that "future government" would have taken such a step
It seems you are unaware of the seccesionist movement of Tamil Nadu right since Independence, the Dravida Movement and all and the Sri Lanka connection which now is over. LTTE and other militant terrorist organizations terrorized TN much like LeT, JKLFand Jaish-e-Muhammad in kashmir.
@@musharrafaamir6861 i am somewhat aware of it. But that didn't run for 72 years. And currently,2 if the south cities serve as the I.T capitals of India. They did that without any special law
I wanna correct you sir .. Before Sheikh Abdullah went out of the jail after 11 years spend behind bars ...The Jammu and Kashmir has its own Prime Minister first Sheikh Abdullah then Ghulam Bakshi
Someone please tell this "historian" that Kashmir consists Kashmir valley, Jammu and Lakakh. The Muslim majority Kashmir valley is mere 10%(by area) of whole of J&K. Rest 90% of J&K(by area) is non-Muslim majority. (Jammu is Hindu majority and Ladakh is Buddhist majority) 90% of the state is full happy and patriotic to stay with India.
Before speaking rubbing search on Google and search yourself how far you are from reality... Else if 90 per has no issue with abrogation then why is blockade in whole sttae...
For those who are saying that my above statement is incorrect please listen to this video from 1:40 minutes. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eVdLKY0c5PU.html
The fundamental problem with this historian is that he thinks kashmir's history starts from 1947. The is where that larger context of oppression of what was the native population of kashmir, it's culture is lost.
Important facts have been conveniently hidden or twisted to show a different view ... some of the key points mentioned in this lecture need to be scrutinized
Tamils are not same as Kashmiris. Tamils are all over India and in each spectrum of the nation. They may not like the central government but they love the nation. They don't look for separatism... Only want to avoid imposition, which has not been a huge problem, because that's the demand with many many other states, and considered valid. Also Tamils have always been in central government, that too at high posts. Bad Comparison.
So many falsehoods and loopholes in his speech. I'll bust some of them but first, let's look at what Ambedkar had to say Article 370- You wish India should protect your borders, she should build roads in your area, she should supply you food grains, and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But the Government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal, would be a treacherous thing against the interests of India and I, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it. --Babasaheb Ambedkar to Sheik Abdullah Secondly, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was not the architect Article 370, it is N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, an ex-Prime Minister of Kashmir whom Nehru brought in to draw the relevant clauses and articles. Nehru was himself a Kashmiri Pandit and together this duo was allegedly biased towards Kashmir. They gave Sheikh Abdullah almost everything he wanted. And Patel had to accept it because of the persistence of Nehru. And Importantly, Pakistan’s troops were at the gate the get of Kashmir trying to force Maharaja of Kashmir to join Pakistan. So the Instrument of Accession has been made with A370 being a temporary clause and yes, Patel was a part of it. After this Accession, Pakistan declared war against India in October 1947 where India protected its Kashmiri Valley and Pakistan got Gilgit-Baltistan. Lastly, Hyderabad was never traded with Pakistan for Kashmir. Our Military under Partel had to annex Hyderabad from Nizam with Operation Polo when he refused to join Hyderabad to India and launched increasing Communal violence against Hindus in Telangana. Fearing a Hindu civil uprising in his own kingdom, the Nizam allowed Razvi to set up a voluntary militia of Muslims called the 'Razakars'. The Razakars - who numbered up to 200,000 at the height of the conflict - swore to uphold Islamic domination in Hyderabad and the Deccan plateau. According to an account by Mohammed Hyder, a civil servant in Osmanabad district, a variety of armed militant groups, including Razakars and Deendars and ethnic militias of Pathans and Arabs claimed to be defending the Islamic faith and made claims on the land. "From the beginning of 1948, the Razakars had extended their activities from Hyderabad city into the towns and rural areas, murdering Hindus, abducting women, pillaging houses and fields, and looting non-Muslim property in a widespread reign of terror."[34][35] "Some women became victims of rape and kidnapping by Razakars. Thousands went to jail and braved the cruelties perpetrated by the oppressive administration. Due to the activities of the Razakars, thousands of Hindus had to flee from the state and take shelter in various camps" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Hyderabad#Communal_violence_before_the_operation
Your own loaded RSS sources on Wikipedia do not address what he is very clearly saying about the lies. And your lies won't cover it over. Don't become a nation of liars, where everything is subjective and can be restated to suit a Nationalist agenda. It will destroy your own movement from the inside.
If you wanna hear that part, check out the podcast on the channel The seen and the unseen (video about 370) it'll clear most doubts on a factual and opinion basis.
@@devarana1108 These followers of peaceful religion want Shari'a where they are in majority. But when they were are in minority they play victim card and demand secularism.
Sheikh Abdullah was imprisoned by his boyfriend Nehru bec Abdullah had come closer to Pakistan and he wanted to create a Islamic State ruled by Islamic laws rather than secular Indian laws. For example he wanted Maharaja(hindu word) should be called Sadar e Riyaasat. He also wanted PM of J&K be called Wazer e Azam. So we can see there was an effort to make J&K more Islamic.
If so article 370 diluted and with no teeth,then why when kashmiri pundits thrown out , till date they are not incorporated in there mother land. He said correctly the essence of the article 370 was dying slowly because in name of separate Constitution only one family wanted to rule kashmir so govt I guess slowly diluted and it's essence were buried post kashmiri pundit eviction.... This data also can be verified . When we share narrative please share from both sides how an rule was misused by an family and taking away or diluting it help an country which is still a democracy in its spirit as it is still not ruled by one man or one family... As far information shared on its history I am thankful.
As a historian and intellectual, how can you justify and validate your talk and posturing, given the following? "A succession of Hindu dynasties ruled Kashmir until 1346, when it came under Muslim rule. The Muslim period lasted nearly five centuries, ending when Kashmir was annexed to the Sikh kingdom of the Punjab in 1819 and then to the Dogra kingdom of Jammu in 1846". However you do your math or history, there was 13 plus centuries of Hindu rule, 5 centuries of muslim rule, followed by Sikh and Dogra rule. Even plain simple math goes with the Hindus...Then there is history, culture, values, religion, philosophy - the Hindu side is arguably far superior... I know it is fashionable to condemn Hindutva, but what shall I call your pitch - Ahindutva or Ahindufatwa ? ;-)
Yup, you're just coping mate. No one gives a dam who was living there thousand years ago. All that matters is who's the majority now and what do they want. And we all know what the answer to that question is.
Are you aware of the Maharaja had already set in place what later took the shape of Article 35A? Try reading the history of Kashmir from 1920s to 1930s with a focus on immigrants in the state and the response of the Maharaja.
Yeah, we are not intolerant but he is bloody naxal and he should have recited complete history of kashmir esp. The whatsapp forward one before making any points
You read the Whole history of Kashmir and there is no mention of exodus of Kashmiri Pandits and Pakistan is only mentioned twice! WOW! Seeks all ur own personal agenda behind the opinion
Exodus of kashmiri pandit took place on jan,1990 at the time PM was VP singh of JD govt, JD was ally of BJP, which (JD) officially merged with BJP in 2013 headed by subramaniyam swami. So why blame congress, what was jd govt under vp singh doing.? Is VP singh not mainly and indirectly responsible.?
@@tombentick5748 BJP was not in PM position so could not stop the exodus. Even if they were in power, does it justify the act of Kashmiris? You are asking what did they do at that time? Well, they are doing it now. So, stop complaining.
