ITT: Us and Indianons negotiate methods to give us Kashmir

OH NO NO NO NO

Attached: IMG_20190414_162027.jpg (715x582, 100K)

shut up ccp puppet state
delete this

winnie the pooh

Dr Naik, in which chapter of quran is it prohibited to give land to Maoists?

Why do Indian tech channels put titles in English but don't speak English in the video?
Like this: youtube.com/watch?v=TY_504wnbqU

How about we start a desi European union in South-Asia? India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan can be the members.

Attached: 1556371909239.png (288x292, 124K)

How but you give us back Pakistan? That land belongs to us.

*about

Pakistan belong to turkics, go back to your dirty rivers.

No.

Objectively the people of Kashmir are Muslim. The Indians should give up their claim, considering this region was never under any historical Hindustani influence. Hell, they were even closer to China (if you count Tibet as China) than India in history, considering the history of cross cultural exchange between the two regions, specifically with regards to religion. Kashmir has always had a very unique mix of old south/central afghan Shia AND Sunni Islam synchronizing interestingly with Tibetan Buddhism. Unfortunately because of India, Pakistan and Kashmir being under Brish control, india retardedly believes Kashmir is Indian clay, literally solely for the reason that the British colony which controlled these entities was called “british India” or “the British Raj.” What Indiatards like to forget is that while Raj is a traditionally Hindu name for king (or kingdom), the British did not differentiate between the Hindu and Muslim citizens of the colony, they were all just “Indians” colloquially. Just because they were called that does not mean that the modern state of India has a claim to all the Raj’s old clay. Of course though, Indians are insects and have no concept of historical nuance, and their retardation will likely cause ww3.

tl;dr Kashmir is Pakistan if not its own independent entity. End of story.

Attached: goa.jpg (600x863, 411K)

Just because the people are Muslim doesn't mean that land belongs to them. Nearly all of South Asia was under Hindu rule before Islam was even a thing and yes that means Kashmir and Pakistan also belongs to Hindus.

You guys were not ever united beyond petty kingdoms.

By that logic then India also has claim over most of Indonesia as well as the Cham region of Vietnam. Prior to colonialism there was no one unified Bharat/Hindustani entity, rather you had Islamic shahdoms and Hindu kingdoms constantly warring with one another. If you want to talk about pre-Islam though, you could say that India should just straight up give up its sovereignty because back in those days the Hindus had no concept, let alone a western concept, of a “nation state” with territorial claims. If you want to do that, fine by me, but you’d have to disband your millitary and donate your whole treasury to charity.

indian irrendentism isn't based on a common state or polity.

its based on the culture being broadly related across the subcontinent.

indo-aryan languages (or languages incredibly influenced by sanskrit)
vedic or at least dharmic religions
described in ancient texts as aryavarta or bharatvarsha and contrasted with mlecchas.

>What is mauryan empire

Attached: gibraltar-is-end-chinas-occupation-in-gibraltar-serbia-baltic-sea-3312918.png (500x398, 120K)

>Prior to colonialism there was no one unified Bharat/Hindustani
there was a notion of the Samrat being the emperor of all india.

also there was a notion of india that excluded places like indonesia and even south india, which was aryavarta and 'bharat'. it was more of a part of the world than a polity, but it was based on common culture that could be contrasted with cultures foreign to it.

>By that logic then India also has claim over most of Indonesia as well as the Cham region of Vietnam
Yes it does
>back in those days the Hindus had no concept, let alone a western concept, of a “nation state” with territorial claims
Mauryan empire existed though

But does that concept translate to western-style irradentalism? I mean clearly the Indians think so, but practically it really doesn’t. The definitions of these borders of this “bharat” entity were always fuzzy, as were many concepts of nationhood back then. When you say it was considered a “part of the world” this simply does not translate into modern western notions of sovereign statehood. Indians do not understand this

This empire, like most in that time, did not have solid western notions of borders. Also the Mughals and various other Islamic centered empires existed much more recently, so you have no argument.

well i mean ireland thinks that it should have northern ireland back despite there never being a historical concept of such a state.

italy is a made up thing because rome wasn't like italy. the holy roman empire doesn't really fit with germany's self definition as a state. what the hell are any of the countries in africa?

yes states are arbitrary and india isn't exceptional in this. pakistan's existence is just as arbitrary as india's claim over its territories.

The difference being that India had the concept of statehood imposed upon it whereas western countries organically created this concept and applied it to themselves. History shows time and time again that the imposition of western notions upon nonwestern entities results in total and complete mayhem. Ireland and the UK are not locked in a nuclear arms contest over north Ireland are they?

sorry but this is arbitrary. ireland did not impose statehood on itself. nor did iceland, nor did estonia or finland. nor did any of these countries have a hand in creating statehood.

also who is it that you mean by 'western countries' that organically created this concept and applied to themselves - surely you are referring to individual people - please name them.

>not locked in a nuclear arms contest
no but there were regular bombing campaigns and there is the constant threat of bombs and shooting in the UK because of this issue.

>western notions upon nonwestern entities
i don't even know what a western is.
andorra probably had nothing to do with the creation of democracy or free speech - why is andorra able to handle such concepts but allegedly non-western countries like japan and south korea unable to?

there are so many presuppositions in your post i don't even know what you are talking about remotely.

Just give India Jammu and Ladakh, and give the rest to Pakistan.

india doesnt want to give anything away because it means they can be invaded through the kashmir valley or osmething and it opens a pandoras box of land exchange.

Honestly, that pandora's box needs to be opened. India's borders are as arbitrary as in subsaharan Africa.

India cannot give you Kashmir because it is illegal to give away territory according to the Indian constitution.

Also a major river goes through Kashmir. Water is the oil of the future.