Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 228

Thread: The Kashmir Problem

  1. #61
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,164

    Reply to PChan

    You seem to think that the Kashmir problem is the handiwork of the "some jihadists" and as soon as they are placated in some way (like "joint admin") the whole Kashmir problem will go away, along with institutional terrorism arising out of that.

    You also seem to think that minus jihadists and the Kashmir issue, Pakistan would have a peachy relationship with India. Can I ask you how you come to your conclusion?

    The reason the rest of us differ is because of the words and actions of the Pakistani establishment (GOP/ PA/ ISI) and media.

    I am not saying that good relations are not possible. They certainly are, even without solving the Kashmir issue. A good example is the the 2004 cricket tour. But for that the GOP consciously need to promote that or at least stop being a barrier. Let me ask you this, why do they consistently refuse to allow Indian cultural imports (movies, tv shows etc.) into their country, while we welcome theirs with open arms (pakistani drama, singers, bands, actors)? Is it becuase the Pakistani establishment cannot risk an escalation of goodwill for India?

    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post
    I believe what you are really trying to say is pak will always be antagonistic to India untill they conquer it. That would put their mindset on par with al-qaeda type jihadists/radicalism. The nation still has a middle class and they seem to use violence only to gain leverage in kashmir.
    What power exactly does this "midle class" hold? They certainly do not seem ot be able to affect either the actions of their establishment or their religious leaders. The masses are still too entrapped in religion and feudalism anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post
    How this resolution is framed is also very important. One that takes into account changes in pak society, accepting mfn status & economic integration. For that the "moderates" should call the shots in pak. Lots of problems there.
    And any solution that we has out with non-moderates is doomed to failure because they are certainly not geoing to keep their end of the bargain. Please note that they themselves tried to "solve" the TTP problem through the Nizam-e-Adl framework. How did that turn out?

    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post
    This is where we differ. You believe that PA uses jihadists to achieve their goals - true but more than that its the jihadists who use PA/pak for their own motives. The PA/ISI did more harm to pak than India could ever hope to - what does that statement tell u & who wins - jihadists.
    Your point being? PA/ISI fomented/ nurtured the jihadists for use against Indian and USSR.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  2. #62
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,164
    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post
    The crux of the matter is...

    India's plan is simple force pak to convert LOC to border. And pak thinks they can bleed us & kick us out of kashmir. Do you think they can bleed us out of kashmir? You would say Hell No!!!. In the same vein if you ask them do you think you would accept LOC as border they are bound to say - Hell No.
    India's plan is to get back the part of Kashmir that they have kept. Why do you think our maps show that we have all of Kashmir? The proposal of converting the LOC to an IB is in itself a climbdown.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  3. #63
    Patron
    Join Date
    13 Jul 09
    Posts
    214
    Pchan,

    Things stand like this..India controls all the water today both to Pakistan and India.why would they want to give Pakistan joint control?What actually does India gain? Kashmir happiness compared to giving up control over the entire water sources?You idea is laughable.

    India does not want POK...it is worthless territory.

    As I said before,India can keep this up forever,Pakistan can't.They don't have the resources.

  4. #64
    Senior Contributor Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    01 Aug 07
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post
    I no longer have anything to discuss with you guys. I hope more south asians (or atleast the next generation) do come to see the folly of not reconciling.
    pChan: After this ^ I thought you were gone, but since you are sticking around, let me give a second-hand opinion from a source requested. I am sure you will get more detailed response eventually. Meanwhile:

    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post
    My point is get over the territory mindset. Terrorism in India can at best be reduced by better internal security infrastructure. Even with peace you would still have nuts blowing up things but not having an entire state nuture these nuts will make a huge difference. Though thats not the primary reason behind this argument. India's enemy is poverty, religious polarization & host of others factors that are endemic to india. Compromise in kashmir will only help in mitigating the above two problems by fostering trade & lessening tensions. Most of the comments here are against the very idea being suggested. When you are against the very idea of some sort of sovereignty dilution in that territory whats the point in discussing specifics that you so seem to crave.

    I wonder how palatable this idea is to military folks in this board.
    The Indian military is a mission-oriented organization - its primary mission is security of the country from external threats, secondarily to assist other governmental agencies in responding to internal threats and emergencies. With regard to the situation in Kashmir: it narrowly means cutting off flow of arms and men into India on a daily basis, and broadly it means to be ever ready and present as an instrument of strategic policymaking in case the flow ever threatens to turn into flood. When the focus on that mission is distracted, it is bad for the force and bad for the country.

    From a purely military perspective, Jammu&Kashmir as a whole is strategically desirable for India to have. On its whole it represents India's link to Central Asia, and also an alternative link to China. It is worth pursuing for political, economic, cultural and other reasons. As the military sees it, the country as a whole is undecided on what it wants do with the links, so the military does what it paid to do - be prepared - and no more, no less.

    Operationally also the whole territory is desirable: The road links between Ladhak and Jammu are subject to extremities in winter that roads in the Valley are not subject to, so if those two are to be defended it makes sense to defend this as well. Operationally the insurgency there is a headache that has many types of implications (messed up training cycles, junior officer attrition etc.) - but that is mainly a problem of strategic indecision and of the Home Ministry's tardiness in raising a permanent and dedicated force along the lines of Assam Rifles.

  5. #65
    Senior Contributor Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    01 Aug 07
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke Gu View Post
    And who said we do not have a strong moral platform to stand on? Kashmir is our land, period.
    Your idea really like Chinese on land dispute。
    You mean Indian people are like the Chinese government? Yes, they are in some ways. I believe there are Indian court cases pending on inter-family and intra-family land disputes dating back from 1880s (some may be even older in reality, the courts in question lost many records in 1880s so they had to be refiled). However they are both unlike Chinese people, I believe - as private land ownership (therefore disputes) was banned for the Chinese for quite some time until recently.

  6. #66
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    29 Mar 08
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,050
    After reading tons of exchanges between Pakistani and Indian internet warriors (and your prime ministers), and tons of pictures about the two countries, I realize that you two people deserve each other.

    Did it ever occur to you that Pakistan and India are actually twin sisters?




    Quote Originally Posted by calass View Post
    Pchan,

    Things stand like this..India controls all the water today both to Pakistan and India.why would they want to give Pakistan joint control?What actually does India gain? Kashmir happiness compared to giving up control over the entire water sources?You idea is laughable.

    India does not want POK...it is worthless territory.

    As I said before,India can keep this up forever,Pakistan can't.They don't have the resources.

  7. #67
    Senior Contributor Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    01 Aug 07
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by calass View Post
    India does not want POK...it is worthless territory.
    Grapes are sour? Or do you not see the obvious strategic and political toll the lack of control is exacting? (Guess who links up there? And who should be linking up there?) How about economic, since that seems to be India's claim to fame these days? Some Indians were planning on paying, what, $200 million or more per annum to Paks for a pipeline through a tango-ridden Baluchistan and Sindh. What about the huge opportunity costs India is paying for its al-lie-ance with Iran today?

  8. #68
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,164
    Quote Originally Posted by cdude View Post
    After reading tons of exchanges between Pakistani and Indian internet warriors (and your prime ministers), and tons of pictures about the two countries, I realize that you two people deserve each other.

    Did it ever occur to you that Pakistan and India are actually twin sisters?
    No...
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  9. #69
    Patron
    Join Date
    13 Jul 09
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Cactus View Post
    Grapes are sour? Or do you not see the obvious strategic and political toll the lack of control is exacting? (Guess who links up there? And who should be linking up there?) How about economic, since that seems to be India's claim to fame these days? Some Indians were planning on paying, what, $200 million or more per annum to Paks for a pipeline through a tango-ridden Baluchistan and Sindh. What about the huge opportunity costs India is paying for its al-lie-ance with Iran today?
    I realize that having POK would cut China from Pakistan and give India a link to Afghanistan and central Asia..all true but if there is a comparison between the desirability of IOK to POK..then I think you will find that IOK wins out big time.

    Plus it is not like India could get POK without it's people.Why have another headache with that?

  10. #70
    Patron
    Join Date
    13 Jul 09
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by cdude View Post
    After reading tons of exchanges between Pakistani and Indian internet warriors (and your prime ministers), and tons of pictures about the two countries, I realize that you two people deserve each other.

    Did it ever occur to you that Pakistan and India are actually twin sisters?
    Nope there is nothing common between Pakistan and India not anymore.

  11. #71
    Regular
    Join Date
    04 Oct 08
    Location
    Land of Seven Sisters
    Posts
    132
    3. China may be emboldened in seeking joint admin in arunachal pradesh.
    * People of arunachal pradesh/tawang still seem to abhor the Chinese (due to Tibetan oppression??). I don't see the equation on that front changing.

    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post
    Only the kashmir valley not the rest of J&K (like Ladakh or Jammu).
    I hope Arunachal Pradesh discussion is off by now.

    I think Status Quo would be the best option, but it is not the solution, the problem is in their ideology, until and unless the ideology is changed, they are not going to lay down their arms, today Kashmir tomorrow rest of the world.

  12. #72
    Regular
    Join Date
    04 Oct 08
    Location
    Land of Seven Sisters
    Posts
    132

    to pChan

    What I mean is both India & pakistan have a stake in that territory. I am quoting the following points from some pak forum....... It may serve as some form of a template.
    Bad idea.
    The proposal put forward if accepted would be the most idiotic decision ever taken by GoI, making J&K the epicenter of world terrorism and opening the gateways for Jihadi to roam freely in India.



    Kashmir problem is not just a boarder issue, its much bigger, India is telling them from a long time 'you change your mindset we are ready to discuss any issue, including borders disputes too.



    I see successful entities like EU, I see china doing business with taiwan & US and I can see clearly that Indian interest lies in shared prosperity with all nations of SA. Get over the notion that India can subdue Pak by force and achieve peace.

    Dismissing the idea of compromise on kashmir as "outlandish" or "unworkable" is just a recipe for perpetual conflict. I see a derision for pakistan and a desire for her failure here. Its a nation deeply in trouble with a failed leadership with misplaced priorities and its people are paying the price yet its gdp still grows & all hope is not lost. The thing is by not coming to a resolution in Kashmir India is pulling a pakistan on its subjects. And the notion that India can be safe with a failed pak is just delusional (hint: more terrorism). You have nothing to offer except perpetual cold war-ish conflict or war/annihilation of a large number of people. As for the cold war atleast the west fought for something worth fighting for - freedom from communist slavery. Look at us we are fighting over a piece of territory and we don't even have a strong moral platform to stand on. And we all know what perpetual conflict means - more blood & more human suffering. Hey but in exchange we do have kashmir valley under compleeeetee control.

    I throw canada & you throw tibet. I feel the root of the problem in south asia is subservience of human rights/value for human life to parochially defined territorial objectives of nation states. The siachen madness stands out in that regard. Yup dismiss me as a peacenik but to me all this is just common-sense.

    The europeans learned to live together peacefully after the devastation of WWII, luckily for them the nuclear age had just begin at the end of the war. If it comes to war we may not be so lucky given the nature of south asian cities. After all that devastation we may probably see less smug comments in here & maybe the compromise suggested here won't look outlandish afterall.
    The more you try to simplify it and it gets more complicated, I think every case is different and it is not that nobody have ever thought and tried it, but the problem is that it is not going successful. Why? here the complicity begins...

  13. #73
    Senior Contributor Luke Gu's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 09
    Location
    hangzhou
    Posts
    1,026
    You mean Indian people are like the Chinese government?
    No,not the Chinese government,is Chinese。the Chinese government is too weak on land dispute in most Chinese views。
    I believe there are Indian court cases pending on inter-family and intra-family land disputes dating back from 1880s (some may be even older in reality, the courts in question lost many records in 1880s so they had to be refiled). However they are both unlike Chinese people, I believe - as private land ownership (therefore disputes) was banned for the Chinese for quite some time until recently.
    I don't know what you really what to tell me。

  14. #74
    Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Jul 09
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Cactus View Post
    pChan: After this ^ I thought you were gone, but since you are sticking around, let me give a second-hand opinion from a source requested. I am sure you will get more detailed response eventually. Meanwhile:
    I was responding to a couple of posters & had pointed them in the header. The discussion had degenerated to talk of "kumbaya" & "campfires" and I did not want to continue that in the thread as it may turn off other posters. Thats why I indicated I no longer have anything to discuss with those posters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cactus View Post
    The Indian military is a mission-oriented organization - its primary mission is security of the country from external threats, secondarily to assist other governmental agencies in responding to internal threats and emergencies. With regard to the situation in Kashmir: it narrowly means cutting off flow of arms and men into India on a daily basis, and broadly it means to be ever ready and present as an instrument of strategic policymaking in case the flow ever threatens to turn into flood. When the focus on that mission is distracted, it is bad for the force and bad for the country.

    From a purely military perspective, Jammu&Kashmir as a whole is strategically desirable for India to have. On its whole it represents India's link to Central Asia, and also an alternative link to China. It is worth pursuing for political, economic, cultural and other reasons. As the military sees it, the country as a whole is undecided on what it wants do with the links, so the military does what it paid to do - be prepared - and no more, no less.

    Operationally also the whole territory is desirable: The road links between Ladhak and Jammu are subject to extremities in winter that roads in the Valley are not subject to, so if those two are to be defended it makes sense to defend this as well. Operationally the insurgency there is a headache that has many types of implications (messed up training cycles, junior officer attrition etc.) - but that is mainly a problem of strategic indecision and of the Home Ministry's tardiness in raising a permanent and dedicated force along the lines of Assam Rifles.
    Thanks for your insights sir. While I agree with the proximity of the territory to CAR. I don't see how it can serve as a link untill we get pakistan or china off our back. China has insatiable appetite for CAR resources & is unlikely to give India access.

    Assuming hypothetically that some compromise has been worked out with pakistan where both have influence over the valley. The indian military would still have access to those road links in the valley. I have never studied military perspectives much & I would defer to more informed opinions in this board.

  15. #75
    Senior Contributor Luke Gu's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 09
    Location
    hangzhou
    Posts
    1,026
    Kashmir problem is not just a boarder issue, its much bigger, India is telling them from a long time 'you change your mindset we are ready to discuss any issue, including borders disputes too.
    Can you tell me why they refuse to discuss the issue?
    they are not going to lay down their arms, today Kashmir tomorrow rest of the world.
    Hey ,Do not be too exaggerated!Are you talking about Islamic Jihad or Pak goverment?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •