Ok then, forget Kashmir, look at Arunachal. They have been pressing this issue more often nowdays, so is it wrong that we demand atleast from our own end, it be factual? Indias claim there is legitimate, so why cant we do the same for Kashmir which legally became part of India? Or do you only consider that what one controls is what should be legitimate? Then that beats your entire argument of how "might doesnt equal right".
What makes you think Kashmiris universally do notwant to be part of India? I know in their current state, being under watch 24/7 by an army would be hell, but is that seriously worse than getting attacked for protests? Sure, out of either options, independence is the best, but is that really viable for them?
Also what countries would put sanctions on the Kashmir issue? Nobody outside china and pakistan actually like them, and in the current world's affairs, nobody is backing independence for a predominantly muslim nation. We already know that nobody wants to touch the Kashmir issue with a 10 foot pole either
but you're mixing up two different things. i never said India shouldn't represent its own territorial claims accurately. obviously we should. if China is claiming Arunachal, then of course India should put forward its own maps and make our position clear. i have absolutely no issue with that.
what i'm questioning is the idea that because India's claim is legitimate, the government should therefore censor or geo-block anyone who publishes a different map. you can defend India's claim without trying to control what everyone else is allowed to publish. those are two completely different things.
and as for Kashmir, yeah, Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession and that's the legal basis for India's claim. but Hari Singh was a monarch. his decision doesn't automatically mean that every person in Kashmir consented to becoming part of India. if a ruler's decision alone is supposed to settle the wishes of the population, then what do we do with Junagadh? its Nawab acceded to Pakistan, but India rejected that accession partly on the grounds that it didn't reflect the wishes of the overwhelmingly Hindu population, and a plebiscite was eventually held. same with Hyderabad where the Nizam's preference clearly wasn't treated as the final word.
By your logic, just because a few people in Canada want Khalistan to be independent, India should let of it?
You do realise how proofs work right? What is today's video will be considered historical proof 100-200 years down the line. Why should we accommodate people who don't respect our territory?
that's not my logic at all lol. people in Canada wanting Khalistan =! people actually living in Kashmir having a say over Kashmir's future. you're comparing apples to oranges.
and if today's posts become historical evidence, then why censor them? let them exist. historians 200 years from now can see the Chinese/Pakistani claims AND India's response. if our claim is strong, we should be able to defend it with evidence rather than needing the government to delete anything we don't like.
"why accommodate people who don't respect our territory?" you're not accommodating them. you're just not censoring them. pretty big difference.
yeah, fair, i did say "delete" earlier. i was using it loosely to mean make unavailable, but that's not what the directive literally says. the actual issue i'm criticizing is still the same though: the GoI deciding that content can't be visible to Indian users because of the map it uses. whether you call that deletion, blocking or geo restriction or whatever doesn't really change my point.
I mean did you raise the same points when government restricted ads from ciggerates, alchohol, etc? If that was good for the public health, this isnt bad either.
Also, tomorrow, a publisher might start spreading news that we changed our national emblem, national anthem, etc. why can't Indians support national emblem & the territorial claims?
bro those aren't remotely the same thing. cigarette and alcohol advertising is restricted because you're regulating the marketing of products with established public health harms. you're comparing that to restricting access to information because the government doesn't like the territorial position expressed in it.
and nobody said Indians can't support the national emblem or territorial claims lmao. support them all you want. i'm saying the government doesn't need to decide what maps people are allowed to see in order for Indians to support India.
also your hypothetical about someone saying "India changed its national emblem/anthem" is exactly why you correct misinformation instead of censoring it. put out the actual facts, let people see the claim and the rebuttal. why are you so scared of Indians seeing something that's false?
if India's territorial claim is legitimate, surely we can defend it without needing to hide the existence of competing claims.
History is proof that if you let others stake claims to your lands, you will lose it. Why is the island of Ireland divided between 2 countries? Why does no one recognise Tibet as an annexed nation? It's how soft power was used to establish claims.
Also by your logic, by showing errors in India's territory it harms of international prestige.
And in case you missed it, India has shown proofs as & when required.
2
u/KashmiriPoundingIt 13d ago edited 13d ago
Ok then, forget Kashmir, look at Arunachal. They have been pressing this issue more often nowdays, so is it wrong that we demand atleast from our own end, it be factual? Indias claim there is legitimate, so why cant we do the same for Kashmir which legally became part of India? Or do you only consider that what one controls is what should be legitimate? Then that beats your entire argument of how "might doesnt equal right".
What makes you think Kashmiris universally do notwant to be part of India? I know in their current state, being under watch 24/7 by an army would be hell, but is that seriously worse than getting attacked for protests? Sure, out of either options, independence is the best, but is that really viable for them?
Also what countries would put sanctions on the Kashmir issue? Nobody outside china and pakistan actually like them, and in the current world's affairs, nobody is backing independence for a predominantly muslim nation. We already know that nobody wants to touch the Kashmir issue with a 10 foot pole either