Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 228

Thread: The Kashmir Problem

  1. #121
    Senior Contributor kuku's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Feb 08
    Location
    New Delhi, India, India
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post
    I listed two poverty & religious polarization. I agree with you in general.


    They are but tangentially.
    Well the issue has existed for a long time, and the only time the economy started to work better was due to different reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by pChan View Post
    So you absolutely see no benefit with a compromise?

    India's security environment(internal & external) would be vastly better with pak off its back. That is the most critical point. You don't seem to acknowledge that. An environment with trade with pak would benefit India.

    That doesn't seem to matter much either. But a piece of land (which we won't give up but share) does.
    Its not that i do not see the benefit, its just that their are things that can happen, and things that can not happen.

    India and Pakistan divide is larger than the Kashmir valley region.

    Trade can continue, even in the worse of times, even with this issue more open economic policies can be implemented within SAARC, and even with the resolution of the issue nations can continue to oppose such moves/policies.

    The thing is as i typed before there are things that will happen and things that will not..... Giving up a piece of land will just not happen, India will not negotiate on the border dispute goin on in the Siachen glacier area, Kashmir Valley is a whole different issue, the very definition of the princley state of Jammu and Kashmir is so different (between India, Pakistan and PRC) that i just do not see any solution.

    May be if dictators takes control of Indian and Pakistani government........
    Last edited by kuku; 17 Sep 09, at 18:48.
    cheers

  2. #122
    Liberté, Unité, Egalité Senior Contributor Tronic's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 04
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke Gu View Post
    Tronic,I just want to Remind you that Not all things are the fault of Pakistan。When I read the posts about it,all you guys are talking about the the mistakes of Pakistan。I don't think India have no responsibility to Kashmir。
    You presented arguments, I gave you counter-arguments, our perspective. Now, if you "feel" that not all things there are fault of Pakistan, than sure, feel free to do so. Just point out which "all things" you point to. Because the country you're batting for has given less freedoms to its held area of Kashmir, than India has given to the Kashmiris. And that is not what India says, it is what the UN says.

    Secondly, we would not even be having this discussion, had the Pakistani army not even invaded Kashmir. Lets not forget, when the Indian army entered Kashmir, the Pakistanis were already sitting at the gates of Srinagar.
    Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
    -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

  3. #123
    New Member
    Join Date
    12 Sep 09
    Posts
    22

    Kasmir Problem-1

    At the time of partition both Congress party and Muslim League had agreed to
    allow Muslim majority Princely states to join Pakistan and Hindu majority joins
    India it was also agreed by the Crown in London.However Lord Mountbatten
    the Viceroy played dirty by awarding the district of Gurdaspur with hundred percent Muslim majority to India in June 1947.Mohammad Ali Jinnah refused to
    accept the award. Mountbatten threatend to postpone Independence date
    set for August 14 for creation of Pakistan if Mr Jinnah refused to accept his
    decision about Gurdaspur.He had no choice and had to agree with a heavy heart. India now had a free passage into Kashmir and marched her army to
    consolidate their postions in order to suppress any uprising of the Muslim majority in Kashmir, when their Hindu ruler acceded to India. The Kashmiris
    revolted and asked Pakistan to free them from the Hindu ruler and help them
    join Pakistan.The Indian army was beaten by the Pashtun tribesmen who were
    later joined by Pakistan artmy. India seeing that her military defeat was at hand, appealed to the Security Council to impose cease-fire. Pakistan asked
    that plebiscite be held under UN control only then she would agree to the cease-fire. The Security Council passed the resolution both India and Pakistan
    agreed. The date was set but Indian Parliament endorsed Kashmir as the integral part of India and tripled her army in the vale of Kashmir. Having now
    fought two wars on this dispute and the Kashmiris living under Indian subjugation have not given up their desire to join Pakistan. Next we will discuss the best solution to end this problem

  4. #124
    Senior Contributor Luke Gu's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 09
    Location
    hangzhou
    Posts
    1,026
    Because the country you're batting for has given less freedoms to its held area of Kashmir, than India has given to the Kashmiris.
    It's not a reason to let Pakistan give up what she should own。
    Secondly, we would not even be having this discussion, had the Pakistani army not even invaded Kashmir. Lets not forget, when the Indian army entered Kashmir, the Pakistanis were already sitting at the gates of Srinagar.
    As I konw after Mountbatten Program coming out,
    In Kashmir, Jammu,there‘re 200,000 Muslim residents were killed by Hindus,that's why
    Muslim tribal militants invade Kashmir。And you should know it's not the goverment army。India goverment army is earlier to invade Kasimir than Pakistan。

  5. #125
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 Aug 08
    Location
    Bombay
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke Gu View Post
    As I konw after Mountbatten Program coming out In Kashmir, Jammu there‘re 200,000 Muslim residents were killed by Hindus that's why Muslim tribal militants invade Kashmir
    Luke, nothing like that happened. The "Muslim tribal militants" that you are talking about invaded to overthrow the then ruler of Kashmir and then compel the state to join Pakistan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke Gu View Post
    And you should know it's not the goverment army。India goverment army is earlier to invade Kasimir than Pakistan。
    Then, why were these tribal militants led by Pakistani officers and given full support from the Pakistani armed forces? They were acting on the orders of the Pakistani administration.

  6. #126
    Senior Contributor Luke Gu's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 09
    Location
    hangzhou
    Posts
    1,026
    Secondly, we would not even be having this discussion, had the Pakistani army not even invaded Kashmir. Lets not forget, when the Indian army entered Kashmir, the Pakistanis were already sitting at the gates of Srinagar.
    Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Before and after the withdrawal of the British from India in 1947, the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu came under pressure from both India and Pakistan to agree to accede to one of the newly independent countries. According to the instruments of accession relating to the Partition of India, the rulers of princely states were to be given the choice of acceding to either India or Pakistan. The Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, however, wanted to remain an independent principality and tried to avoid accession to either country. When British forces withdrew the state was invaded by Pashtun tribals from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

    Fearing that his forces would be unable to withstand the assault, the Maharaja asked for Indian military assistance. India set a condition that Kashmir must accede to India for it to receive assistance. Whereupon the Government of India recognized the accession of the erstwhile princely state to India, and was considered the new Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, Indian troops were sent to the state to defend it against the Pakistani forces. The legitimacy of this accession is still disputed. Due to a lack of demographic data concerning religious affiliations, it is difficult to determine whether public opinion was a factor in Hari Singh's decision.

    Pakistan was of the view that the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian Army, because it held that the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a heredity ruler, that he was merely a British appointee. There had been no such position as the "Maharaja of Kashmir" prior to British rule. Hence Pakistan decided to take action, but British-appointed Army Chief of Pakistan Douglas Gracey did not send troops to the Kashmir front and refused to obey the order to do so given by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Governor-General of Pakistan. Gracey's argument was that Indian forces occupying Kashmir represented the British Crown and hence he could not engage in a military encounter with Indian forces. Pakistan finally did manage to send troops to Kashmir but by then the Indian forces had taken control of approximately two thirds of the former principality.

  7. #127
    Senior Contributor Luke Gu's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 09
    Location
    hangzhou
    Posts
    1,026
    Pakistan also points to India's failure of not understanding its own political logic and applying it to Kashmir, by taking their opinion on the case of the accession of Junagadh as an example (that the Hindu majority state should have gone to India even though it had a Muslim ruler), that Kashmir should also rightfully and legally have become a part of Pakistan since majoirity of the people were Muslim, even though they had a Hindu ruler.
    My idea about Kashmir should belong to Pakistan comes from Junagadh ,I think India is too greedy in the territory 。
    Junagadh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    India believed that if Junagadh was permitted to accede to Pakistan, communal tension already simmering in Gujarat would worsen, and refused to accept the Nawab's choice of accession. The government pointed out that the state was 80% Hindu, and called for a plebiscite to decide the question of accession. India cut off supplies of fuel and coal to Junagadh, severed air and postal links, sent troops to the frontier, and occupied the principaliites of Mangrol and Babariawad that had acceded to India.[9]

  8. #128
    Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Jul 09
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke Gu View Post
    My idea about Kashmir should belong to Pakistan comes from Junagadh ,I think India is too greedy in the territory 。
    Junagadh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Luke,

    "Might is Right" is a very powerful maxim. India is more powerful than pak and that gives it a leverage that is reflected in the above case (without going into merits/morality which I doubt is in paks side). The question is not about territory but about how we can move past them.

  9. #129
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Aug 09
    Location
    Te Rotorua-nui-a-Kahumatamomoe
    Posts
    565
    Junagadh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I am confused, if this has to do something with Kashmir or any other state which was united with Independent India after 1947.

    Can history of United states of America help to refer with Kashmir's accession with India.

    Was there any public consensus when most of the princely states were united by different means/accessions etc post independence.

    What would be a nation's policy just after 150 years of an alien nation's rule.


    This will help i think. Encyclopaedia of Kashmir - Google Books

  10. #130
    Contributor
    Join Date
    04 Nov 06
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke Gu View Post
    It's not a reason to let Pakistan give up what she should own。
    Well if it is suppose to be "common sense" that Pak should have got Kashmir in 47 why did it attack it? Add to this how do you base your assumption that all Muslims wanted to be part of Pakistan?

    Okay for some reason they attacked.Since the issue was decided by the UN and it is again assumed that Kashmir would vote for Pakistan why didn't they remove their troops to make way for the votes?

    The point being that Pakistan wanted the control of entire state of Jammu & Kashmir. They could not do with only Muslim majority areas. Votes would mean non Muslims cannot be part of Pak.
    Then only they could control the water flow in their entirety.

    Nehru would have most probably given Kashmir to Pak if they hadn't attacked.

  11. #131
    Military Professional 667medic's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jul 05
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke Gu View Post
    My idea about Kashmir should belong to Pakistan comes from Junagadh ,I think India is too greedy in the territory 。
    Junagadh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Did you even bother to look at a map to see where Junagadh is located, it is surrounded on 3 sides by India and the population overwhelminglt voted for India in the plebiscite. If we should have a similar plebiscite in Kashmir, the pakistani army should withdraw first and they are not going to do that. Lastly, in this era might is right and a Chinese is the last person who should advice India on gifting away territory......
    Seek Save Serve Medic

  12. #132
    Senior Contributor Yusuf's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Dec 07
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    2,128
    Luke do you know that the dissent in Pakistan occupied Kashmir is brutally suppressed? Gilgit Baltistan don't want anything to do with Pakistan.

    It's Pakistan which is greedy for indian land not the other way round. And please dont talk about greed after what china dud in Tibet.

    If you don't know the ground reality here, you better don't talk.

  13. #133
    Senior Contributor Luke Gu's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 09
    Location
    hangzhou
    Posts
    1,026
    Lastly, in this era might is right and a Chinese is the last person who should advice India on gifting away territory......
    Now do what you have said has any meaning?India has occupied most of the Kashmir。I just say India should give up Kashmir at 1947.As for the present,You'd better divide the territory according to the actual line of control。 You seem angry to what I have said。Sorry,I just say what I think。And does it matter to what I say?India is stronger than Pakistan,and will be stronger than Pakistan in the future。So maybe there's one day you can capture the whole Kashmir 。It's right that "Might is Right"。
    Did you even bother to look at a map to see where Junagadh is located, it is surrounded on 3 sides by India and the population overwhelminglt voted for India in the plebiscite.
    I know,I also know the excuse why Junagadh chose to accede to Pakistan:Junagadh adjoined Pakistan by sea。

  14. #134
    Senior Contributor Luke Gu's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 09
    Location
    hangzhou
    Posts
    1,026
    Well if it is suppose to be "common sense" that Pak should have got Kashmir in 47 why did it attack it?
    Then what India have done to Junagadh ?
    India cut off supplies of fuel and coal to Junagadh, severed air and postal links, sent troops to the frontier, and occupied the principaliites of Mangrol and Babariawad that had acceded to India.
    Since the issue was decided by the UN and it is again assumed that Kashmir would vote for Pakistan why didn't they remove their troops to make way for the votes?
    Did India do it?
    Nehru would have most probably given Kashmir to Pak if they hadn't attacked.
    You also like assume。

  15. #135
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Aug 09
    Location
    Te Rotorua-nui-a-Kahumatamomoe
    Posts
    565
    its good to rotate players when the game is volleyball, i never know proxies can do the same.

    There is no need to be rational when you are not confuse. I think this thread is going to be interesting.

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
  •