And who said we do not have a strong moral platform to stand on? Kashmir is our land, period.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Kashmir Problem
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by pChan View PostSo to summarize pakistan wants water security. A joint admin in the valley & on that basis a mechanism to ensure their water security could be looked at as an option.
Why they want it? Because the water also flows through Indian Punjab as well.That is what they want to control.
You need to read more about Pakistan's obsession about "Mughal rule in India".
The joint admin solution means both nations have a say in kashmir. I think it addresses the issue you raise.
The jihadis will oppose any solution short of ascension of kashmir to pak. Its upto pakistan & India to see how they get around that. It will not work if both nations are not serious & I believe that pakistan needs to do significantly more to rein down the influence these elements have on its society ( do consider the fact that pak uses LET primarily as a strategic bet against india in kashmir). But thats what talks are for. I don't think its possible currently but atleast in the future.......
Why would PA ever de-arm the jihadits when it made India reach a solution over kashmir(as per you joint admin)?
Can you imagine the PR value of defeating Russians,blooding Americans and snatching Kashmir from India for the jihadits?
The fight is more than just Kashmir.Last edited by n21; 11 Sep 09,, 16:32.
Comment
-
So many silly arguements, so little time
Originally posted by pChan View PostMy 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.
Originally posted by pChan View PostIndia'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.
India's economic problems of poverty and other have zilch to do with Kashmir. The Kashmir problem has intensified since the mid'80s. India's economic climbup started around the early nineties. A stead y worsening of the Kashmir situation throughout the nineties has had little effect on the Indian economy, which is stifled by other factors such as govt. over-regulations, bureaucracy etc.
Social polarization also correlates strongly with economic polarization"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
Comment
-
Originally posted by pChan View PostI am not sure I am getting what you are saying. I don't believe Jammu & ladakh being with India would mean too much of a problem for pak. Border adjustments will be restricted to the valley. The rest of LOC should become the border.
UN resolutions are null and void due to the shifts in population.
The state comprises of teritorry which is with India, Pakistan and PRC.
All three of these states do not want to discuss the issue on grounds which make them loose administrative powers over the land they control, and there is no reason for them to think otherwise.
I guess as they say there is solutions of this situation except May be:
-People who live under the control of these three nations (well mostly two) accept the ground reality, and nations stop lending support to any armed or unarmed sepratist movements.
-Long drawn out battle between two parties in which the military capability of one of them (to administer the region under their control) is completly wiped out.
Comment
-
People who live under the control of these three nations (well mostly two) accept the ground reality, and nations stop lending support to any armed or unarmed sepratist movements.
A stead y worsening of the Kashmir situation throughout the nineties has had little effect on the Indian economy, which is stifled by other factors such as govt
Comment
-
So many silly arguement, so little time - part II
Originally posted by pChan View PostNo it won't solve all that but it does make life easier. Better economic integration is always correlated with lessening poverty. I disagree with the assessment that pakistan problem does not affect religious polarization in India. As always nothing will be "solved" but things should get better. And no nobody is handing over kashmir.
Why not do something at our end to help change that.
And talking about handing over Kashmir - you are talking about letting Pakistan administer Kashmir through a "joint management" system which you refuse to give specific of. How is this not handing over Kashmir?
Originally posted by pChan View PostOk you talk about compromise with china.
Sure china is more pragmatic than pakistan after all they still do business with us in-spite of border disputes.
Originally posted by pChan View PostSo to summarize pakistan wants water security. A joint admin in the valley & on that basis a mechanism to ensure their water security could be looked at as an option.
Originally posted by pChan View PostThe jihadis will oppose any solution short of ascension of kashmir to pak. Its upto pakistan & India to see how they get around that.
Originally posted by pChan View PostI am not a kid. Don't equate disagreement with immaturity. There is a considerable exhaustion in pakistan regarding this conflict. Going by your logic the problem will be solved either if pak disintegrates or if it climbs down & agrees LOC as border.
Originally posted by pChan View PostEven with saner heads in islamabad conversion of LOC to border is a long shot. I see nothing wrong with India negotiating in a position of strength. Maybe not under present circumstances but I do believe some "climb down" from the existing position could solve this problem. Kashmir is not given on a platter it could be used as a bargaining chip to bring normalcy. A lot of stars have to align though.
Here is the crux of the ridiculousness of your suggestions: you want to give a troublemaker whatever they want simply because resisting is too much pain. Its like telling a person being raped to relax and enjoy itLast edited by antimony; 11 Sep 09,, 18:14."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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Luke Gu View PostThis idea is the most pragmatic,but hardest to be Accepted 。
Originally posted by Luke Gu View PostWhat about the Kashmir situation?"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
Comment
-
Please explain, and please don't rehas PChan's arguements
To summarize, Pakistan forst wants Kashmir and then wants to break up the rest of India
Comment
-
Originally posted by kuku View PostThats like telling a guy with a slit throat that his problem is that his shirt is all red with blood.
I yield on the poverty point may be I shouldn't have phrased the debate on economic development. India is doing fine what I wanted to say was compromise in kashmir will increase prosperity though it seems not to the extent that may make a difference in Indian strategic thinking (or so I feel).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Luke Gu View PostDo you want to have a war with Pak now?If not ,you can't get the whole Kashmir territory,I think PChan have expressed it clearly。
Originally posted by Luke Gu View Postwhat basis do you have about this idea。India and Pak become enemy because of Kashmir 。If you can solve it,what's the motive that Pak break up the rest of India,revenge India break up Pak?
Cheak out the link to Wall Street Journal that Ghototkacha gave."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
Comment
-
I am not willing to give up what we have now without a fight. If Pakistan wants a war over the rest of Kashmir (the part we have) they are welcome to one. Please recall they they did try that in Kargil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by n21 View PostThey already have water security. India has never blocked water to Pak in the past 60 years. Not even during wars.
Originally posted by n21 View PostWhy they want it? Because the water also flows through Indian Punjab as well.That is what they want to control.
You need to read more about Pakistan's obsession about "Mughal rule in India".
As I said,Kashmir is not the issue. It wont be stopped by joint admin.
Originally posted by n21 View PostHmm.. were the Afghan mujahidin de-armed after the Afghan war?
Why would PA ever de-arm the jihadits when it made India reach a solution over kashmir(as per you joint admin)?
Can you imagine the PR value of defeating Russians,blooding Americans and snatching Kashmir from India for the jihadits?
Originally posted by n21 View PostThe fight is more than just Kashmir.Last edited by pChan; 11 Sep 09,, 19:59.
Comment
-
Originally posted by antimony View PostSo let's talk economics. India has repeatedly tried to drive boost intercountry trade and has even granted Pakistan MFN status. What has been the Pakistani reasponse? And do realize, this hurts not only Indian businesses, but also Pakistani ones. Pakistani businesses cannot ship their products freely to India or take advantage of lower prices raw materials from India if they choose to do so. You had mentioned EU sometimes back. European nations did not cede territory, they simply opened up trade. We have not been able to convince Pakistan to do that. And not that we have not tried, but each time we did, they responded back with something sinister. The Lahore agreemetn was followed by Kargil and the parliamentary attacks, in case you have forgotten.
Originally posted by antimony View PostAnd talking about handing over Kashmir - you are talking about letting Pakistan administer Kashmir through a "joint management" system which you refuse to give specific of. How is this not handing over Kashmir?
Originally posted by antimony View PostBlow them to hell and back.
Originally posted by antimony View PostSo you refuse to accept a stuatus quo solution (LOC ==border) saying that that would mean an unacceptable climbdown for Pakistan. But you advocate a climb down for India not only from the claim of the entire Kashmir territory (which is the current posture), but also from the current status quo (LOC == border). You want India to climb down all the way to "joint administration" of Kashmir or in other words, hand it over to Pakistan on a plate.
Originally posted by antimony View PostHere is the crux of the ridiculousness of your suggestions: you want to give a troublemaker whatever they want simply because resisting is too much pain. Its like telling a person being raped to relax and enjoy it
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.
You see where I am going with this. A compromise is a bridge between these two views. All that talk about climbing down,national legitimacy, doing a mughal, NA/jammu/ladakh just clouds the issue IMHO.
Comment
Comment