|
|
|
|
|
by sid6376
3954 days ago
|
|
The agreement of accession was basically signed under duress by a Hindu ruler of a primarily Muslim state in 1947 when he was being attacked by Pakistani tribal lords. Our prime minister basically said - "Sign the agreement of accession or I am not protecting you". I don't think that agreement means anything. You might disagree but lets present facts as they were. The story of Kashmir is full of broken promises by the Indian government and people. So before we call it an integral part of India, lets at least own our mistakes. Lets remove AFSPA in Kashmir. Lets hold the bloody referendum. Lets at least grant them more autonomy. But thats not gonna happen. Any government which grants more autonomy to Kashmir will be voted out and hence they will not do it. |
|
You correctly call into question the agreement signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir, but I could just as easily ask about every other territory that's a part of the Union of India. Why should the writ of New Delhi run to places where the people are ethnically, linguistically and culturally different, such as Tamil Nadu? After all, at no point did Tamils accede to the Union and they have suffered discrimination before - such as when Delhi tried to impose Hindi on a Tamil-speaking population in 1965. Do Tamils deserve special privileges then? No, that's absurd.
To clarify, I think Article 370 that grants Kashmir special status should be scrapped, because they don't deserve special treatment. Apart from that, I think a referendum should be held there. I don't think it will bury the issue (look at Scotland), but it will mollify most people who live there for some time.