#pahalgam terror attack

The terrorists told the wives of the dead hindus to go and “tell modi” well hear from our women now, terrorist fucks.

India led targeted attacks limited to the compounds of known terrorist organizations, which have from decades relentlessly attacked *innocent Indian civilians* and we had done NOTHING for years. We had silently digested it time and time again. THIS was not a declaration of war. This was retaliation for the Pahalgam terror attack, which was carried out by Pakistani state backed radical islamist terror outfits. Before whinning about morality on online platforms, go ask your government why they have been hosting *known* terrorists and backing their terror attacks since time immemorial in *your* own damned backyards.

And to the dumber Westerners supporting these nonsensical hypocrites in the reblogs, the compounds we have bombed are backed by the terror organization responsible for 99% of every attack carried out in Indian and European soil along with the 9/11 attacks. You are welcome. CIA wouldn't have been able to even *find* where Bin Laden was holed up in, without the help of Indian intelligence. Ungrateful shitheaded dicks.

Kashmir doesn’t “belong” to Hindus, Muslims, or any religion — it belongs to its people. The indigenous, regardless of what religion they follow today. Conversion doesn’t erase indigeneity. Cultural belonging is rooted in land, language, and memory — not who you pray to. But that is a concept difficult to grasp for you.

Kashmiri Pandits’ lack of return is not the fault of Kashmiri Muslims. It is the fault of the Indian government, which has used their displacement as a political pawn for decades. The state did nothing for their safe resettlement, didn’t provide real rehabilitation, and still continues to use their pain to fuel communal hate instead of solutions. And fools like you fall for it.

Anyway, free kashmir <3

Wow, it's impressive how much misinformation can fit into a single ask—your understanding of Kashmir's history seems to be as shallow as a puddle in the sun.

lets start, shall we?

“Having religious sites in a region does not give your state or your religion ownership over it.”

In many cases, the very establishment and maintenance of a religious site have been acts of statecraft. For example, the 2008 transfer of 99 acres of forest land to the Amarnath Shrine Board wasn’t just a religious accommodation—it was a political decision by both the Indian Union and the J&K government to assert authority over that part of the Valley. Religious institutions often hold de facto governing power over adjacent land and resources (roads, policing, revenue), effectively exercising territorial control even if they aren’t “sovereign” in name. Religious sites can and do establish historical and even legal ties to a community. The existence of a temple isn’t merely “cultural fluff.” In many pre-modern polities, state authority was deeply bound up with patronage of shrines. The Shankaracharya Temple atop Takht-e-Suleiman, for example, dates back to at least the 9th century and was rebuilt by Hindu and Buddhist rulers—evidence that Kashmir’s sovereign identity was inseparable from its Hindu heritage long before Islam arrived. When princely Jammu & Kashmir acceded to India in 1947, the Instrument of Accession specifically guaranteed protection of all existing religious institutions. That document invokes the region’s plural but historically Hindu-rooted polity, not a blank slate. Kashmir’s dynastic history wasn’t exclusively “multi-faith coexistence.”

From the Karkota dynasty (c. 625–855 CE) through the Lohara kingdom (1003–1320 CE), Kashmir was ruled by Hindu monarchs whose geneses and governance were tied to Shaivism and other Hindu sects. The Rajatarangini (12th century chronicle) records dozens of Hindu kings and their endowments to temples—this isn’t a footnote but the core of Kashmir’s classical statehood. While Buddhists and later Muslims certainly contributed to the rich tapestry, that doesn’t negate the fact that Kashmir’s political structures, coinage, land grants (the Shasana inscriptions), and legal codes were shaped by and for a Hindu-majority ruling class for centuries.

2. “By that logic, the Vatican would own half of Europe.”

This comparison fails on two counts. Firstly, the Vatican is a sovereign city-state under the 1929 Lateran Treaty, with internationally recognized borders and extraterritorial rights over multiple basilicas in Italy. Its legal status is unique and does entail actual political jurisdiction—unlike any Hindu temple in Kashmir, which remains under Indian civil law. Second, equating a tiny city-state’s special treaty guarantees with a religious shrine’s cultural importance ignores centuries of regional power struggles over Kashmir.

3. “The claim that Kashmir ‘belongs to Hindus’ because of Amarnath or Shankaracharya temple is rooted in theocratic ethno-nationalist agenda, not history.”

Historical sources show Shaivism was the dominant faith of the early Kashmiri polity. The 8th-century Rajatarangini chronicles rulers patronizing Shiva worship; Queen Suryamati’s 11th-century gifts to Amarnath are recorded in multiple texts. These aren’t modern “ethno-nationalist” fabrications but genuine markers of an ancient Hindu state in the Valley

4. Conversion does alter a community’s indigenous stake when it’s imposed or incentivized politically. True indigeneity is rooted not only in birthplace but in the uninterrupted practice and institutions of a people. While individual conversions are personal, mass conversions under state patronage (e.g., Mughal land-revenue exemptions for converts) did reshape the demographic and institutional landscape, often at the expense of pre-existing Hindu institutions. Erasing the continuity of a faith community does weaken its claim on the public sphere—look at how many old Hindu shrines in the Valley were repurposed or fell to ruin after the medieval conversions. That loss of visible heritage undercuts your blasphemous idea that “conversion doesn’t erase indigeneity.” The demographic shift from ~6 percent Pandit population pre-1947 to under 1 percent today is no mere footnote—it reflects a transformation in who “belongs” in the Valley.

5. “Kashmiri Pandits’ lack of return is not the fault of Kashmiri Muslims. It is the fault of the Indian government…”

The 1990 exodus of roughly 300,000 Pandits was driven by targeted assassinations and mosque announcements from terrorist groups (JKLF, Hizbul Mujahideen) demanding their departure—actions directly by Kashmiri Muslims, not New Delhi While the Indian state’s resettlement package has been inadequate, you cannot erase the fact that Pandits fled under threat from local Islamist terrorists, nor that property-destruction and intimidation were carried out at the village level by Kashmiri insurgents. Kashmiri Pandits’ exile was driven by militant Islamist violence, not benign state indifference alone. In 1989–1990, Kashmiri Pandits were systematically targeted: homes marked with “P” for “Pandit,” public threats from JKLF and Hizbul Mujahideen, dozens of murders—this is well-documented. While the Indian government certainly botched the security response, the proximate cause of the mass flight was organized communal violence by militant groups, overwhelmingly deriving from the Muslim-majority side. Even today, many Pandits refuse to return precisely because the local power structure remains dominated by the same families and networks that either tacitly supported or actively condoned those 1990 purges. You cannot absolve those actors of responsibility simply by pointing at New Delhi.

6. Blaming only New Delhi for the Kashmiri Pandit displacement ignores the agency of local communities. Local Kashmiri Muslim leaders and civil society had opportunities to shelter and publicly protect Pandit neighbors but largely stayed silent or sided with the terrorists. That collective failure fueled the exodus. True reconciliation requires acknowledging both the state’s failures and the grassroots complicity. Your one-sided “it’s all Delhi’s fault” narrative only deepens the wound.

7. “Free Kashmir <3” “Freeing” any region implies a new sovereignty. But no Kashmir-wide plebiscite has ever been held; two-thirds of the Valley’s voters championed staying with India in the 1951 and 1975 assemblies. Pushing “independence” without democratic mandate simply replaces one form of rule with another-often more violent-and ignores the wishes of millions of Kashmiris who identify as Indian citizens. “Free Kashmir” slogans too often align with Pakistan-backed terrorism, not genuine self-determination. Genuine independence movements prize pluralism; Pakistan’s track record in its own territories (Balochistan, Sindh) and its support for jihadi groups in the Valley make it clear that “Azadi” framed by Islamabad would strip Kashmiri Hindus, Sikhs, even moderate Muslims of basic rights.

Real freedom would be one that guarantees security for every Kashmiri, not just the majority faith. Touting “free Kashmir” without that nuance only signals alignment with forces that intimidated Pandits in 1990—and still do.

The Bottom line is:

Historical sovereignty in Kashmir was deeply tied to Hindu kings and temples.

Demographic change via enforced or incentivized conversion did impact the Hindu community’s stake.

1990’s Pandit exodus was driven first by local Islamist militancy, secondarily compounded by Delhi’s inadequate security.

True Kashmiri freedom must protect minorities—any movement that doesn’t is no ally of pluralism but of the very extremism that drove Pandits out.

It's clear you’re more invested in fueling division than understanding history—maybe try reading up on Kashmir’s actual past before you spout off next time. And i mean some real history, not the version you’ve been fed to suit your narrow agenda.

I’ve always believed in peace. I still do. I don’t dream of war. I don’t find glory in bloodshed. And I certainly don’t believe revenge heals grief. But what happens when the very peace you’re protecting is the reason you keep losing your people? What happens when the other side doesn’t believe in peace at all?

This blog isn’t written out of hatred. It’s written out of heartbreak, confusion, and the raw frustration of watching the same pattern play on loop - a terrorist attack, innocent lives lost, silence from the world, and once again, India is told to be “mature,” “calm,” and “restrained.”

How many Pulwamas? How many Pahalgams? How many coffins wrapped in our tricolour will it take before the world understands that peace without accountability is just a pause before the next tragedy?

India has tried. Again and again. Diplomatic talks, bilateral agreements, backchannel negotiations, and yet, terrorist camps continue to thrive across the border. How long are we expected to act like it’s not happening? And more importantly, why must we always be the ones trying?

Yes, I am anti-war. Yes, I believe in dialogue. But don’t confuse that with weakness. Because defending your people is not the opposite of peace ,it is the very foundation of it. What India did with Operation Sindoor wasn’t about revenge. It was about drawing a line , a line that should’ve been drawn long ago.

And let's address the said "diplomatic peace mediation" : the hypocrisy of international response. IMF loans flowing into a country that has harboured, sheltered, and at times even celebrated known terrorists. Social media giants gag Indian voices calling out terrorism, but conveniently stay silent when the hate flows the other way. Neutrality? Really? Or is it just comfortable indifference?

No, I don’t hate Pakistani civilians. I never will. But I will not pretend that both sides are equally innocent. I will not chant "peace" if it comes at the cost of more Indian blood. Because that’s not peace. That’s surrender.

India has done enough. Now, India is doing what it must. And if the world won’t understand that , maybe it never really cared.

I write this as someone who aches every time a soldier doesn’t return home. As someone who still wants peace , but not the kind that requires us to die for it.

Pak propaganda machine is in full swing but so is Indian govt. Hasn't pak lied enough times about... Everything already? Just wait and let truth reveal itself, all these tumblr and twitter overnight south asian history experts (formally overnight middle eastern history experts) hadn't heard of our conflict until yesterday.

Best way to attack India is to attack Hinduism and vise versa that's why it hurts when facts are twisted and slurs are hurled at us as Hindus and as Indians.