India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute
Aparna Pande December 17, 2006
#427 Posted by bjkumar on February 22, 2007 8:15:16 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#426 Posted by okhla99 on December 31, 2006 7:39:51 am
Mantobhai,
Came across this gem on the ``Failed State`` board. Aap bhi naa, kabhi kabhi...
<<< #31 by Mantolives on May 7, 2006 12:25pm PT
Also I think we need to see the news from Washington collectively...
I believe that these reports + Richard Boucher`s statements a month firmly indicate that Musharraf`s regime is about to lose US backers... and that would mean the end to this government within the next six to 10 months... >>>
Maybe you would now want to revise your prediction.
Happy New Year all....
#422 Posted by majumdar on December 28, 2006 8:50:49 pm
Manto mian,
(Kerala has several Muslim Majority districts that by Congress` logic should have gone to Pakistan. )
Only one as a matter of fact and that is Mallapuram. And incidentaly Mallapuram was only a sub-division and was raised to the state of a district I believe only in 1980s as an act of appeasement by one of the state govt.
(As for Gurdaspur.... we are talking 1947 and not post 1974.)
But if Maulana Urstruly (pbuh) is to believed in Allah`s Constitution, they are not Muslims and surely Allah`s Constitution, which is timeless, should supersede Pakistani Constitution on any matter of faith at any point of time, a principle which I guess was recognised in 1974.
Regards
(Kerala has several Muslim Majority districts that by Congress` logic should have gone to Pakistan. )
Only one as a matter of fact and that is Mallapuram. And incidentaly Mallapuram was only a sub-division and was raised to the state of a district I believe only in 1980s as an act of appeasement by one of the state govt.
(As for Gurdaspur.... we are talking 1947 and not post 1974.)
But if Maulana Urstruly (pbuh) is to believed in Allah`s Constitution, they are not Muslims and surely Allah`s Constitution, which is timeless, should supersede Pakistani Constitution on any matter of faith at any point of time, a principle which I guess was recognised in 1974.
Regards
#420 Posted by arjun2 on December 28, 2006 7:50:22 am
#416 by Mantolives on December 28, 2006 5:40am PT
The guy who assumes too much erroneously suggested that there is some sort of bar against a Non-muslim becoming the COAS in Pakistan...
In the Pakistan Army, legally any Pakistani citizen regardless of religion, caste, creed and now gender can become the Chief of the Army Staff.
Of course...there`s also no explicit law on the books banning pigs from flying....
The guy who assumes too much erroneously suggested that there is some sort of bar against a Non-muslim becoming the COAS in Pakistan...
In the Pakistan Army, legally any Pakistani citizen regardless of religion, caste, creed and now gender can become the Chief of the Army Staff.
Of course...there`s also no explicit law on the books banning pigs from flying....
#419 Posted by MantoLives on December 28, 2006 6:29:23 am
Majumdar mian,
Kerala has several Muslim Majority districts that by Congress` logic should have gone to Pakistan.
As for Gurdaspur.... we are talking 1947 and not post 1974. It is a settled principle of law that pending disputes are settled according to the laws enforced during then and we know that in 1947 Ahmadis were ardent Muslim Leaguers and accepted as Muslims by the then Pakistani interim constitution.
Kerala has several Muslim Majority districts that by Congress` logic should have gone to Pakistan.
As for Gurdaspur.... we are talking 1947 and not post 1974. It is a settled principle of law that pending disputes are settled according to the laws enforced during then and we know that in 1947 Ahmadis were ardent Muslim Leaguers and accepted as Muslims by the then Pakistani interim constitution.
#418 Posted by majumdar on December 28, 2006 6:06:16 am
Manto mian,
(besides how many Non-Christians have become the CinC of the US Armed Forces and/or the Chief Executive of the US. )
But quite a few religious minority figures have become C-in-C and President/PM of a non-secular, non-democratic nation next door to your country.
Hmmm, you have again raised the partition of a country versus partition of state argument.
(In other words all Muslim majority districts in modern day India- especially since most of them had voted for Muslim League- should have gone to Pakistan as well. )
They did except of course J&K, one distt. in WB (I think Maldah) and Gurdaspur, although the Muslim majority in the last distt. depends on whether a certain sect is considered Muslim or not. Sattarbhai thinks yes, Maulana Urstruly (pbuh), Raziabi and the Pakistani Constt. say no.
Have to rush home else would have discussed in greater details.
Regards
(besides how many Non-Christians have become the CinC of the US Armed Forces and/or the Chief Executive of the US. )
But quite a few religious minority figures have become C-in-C and President/PM of a non-secular, non-democratic nation next door to your country.
Hmmm, you have again raised the partition of a country versus partition of state argument.
(In other words all Muslim majority districts in modern day India- especially since most of them had voted for Muslim League- should have gone to Pakistan as well. )
They did except of course J&K, one distt. in WB (I think Maldah) and Gurdaspur, although the Muslim majority in the last distt. depends on whether a certain sect is considered Muslim or not. Sattarbhai thinks yes, Maulana Urstruly (pbuh), Raziabi and the Pakistani Constt. say no.
Have to rush home else would have discussed in greater details.
Regards
#417 Posted by bjkumar on December 28, 2006 6:00:34 am
Here is a close-up view of the Pakistani Constitution!
Let the MANTO read its fine print - most people simply notice what it was used for!
#416 Posted by MantoLives on December 28, 2006 5:40:03 am
The guy who assumes too much erroneously suggested that there is some sort of bar against a Non-muslim becoming the COAS in Pakistan...
In the Pakistan Army, legally any Pakistani citizen regardless of religion, caste, creed and now gender can become the Chief of the Army Staff.
Infact legally all secular offices - barring the President of the Republic- are open to all citizens of Pakistan without any discrimination of faith, caste, creed or gender... but since the President o the Republic is more often than not the COAS... one could say that it is open to all Non-Muslims who might become the COAS. (I personally think that it would be great if we got rid of the Muslim President clause..)
Ofcourse... in reality, the chances of a Non-Muslim becoming the COAS or Prime Minister of Pakistan are quite bleak... but then we never know... besides how many Non-Christians have become the CinC of the US Armed Forces and/or the Chief Executive of the US.
In the Pakistan Army, legally any Pakistani citizen regardless of religion, caste, creed and now gender can become the Chief of the Army Staff.
Infact legally all secular offices - barring the President of the Republic- are open to all citizens of Pakistan without any discrimination of faith, caste, creed or gender... but since the President o the Republic is more often than not the COAS... one could say that it is open to all Non-Muslims who might become the COAS. (I personally think that it would be great if we got rid of the Muslim President clause..)
Ofcourse... in reality, the chances of a Non-Muslim becoming the COAS or Prime Minister of Pakistan are quite bleak... but then we never know... besides how many Non-Christians have become the CinC of the US Armed Forces and/or the Chief Executive of the US.
#415 Posted by MantoLives on December 28, 2006 5:22:33 am
Partition of Bengal and Punjab ... a response:
If a group and in our case a minority (which formed natural majorities at certain extremities in our case) with a particular set of characteristics - language or religious beliefs or race or any combination thereof, having bent over backwards to appease another stronger group - in our case the majority- chooses to go its own way, those particular set of characteristics that defined them as a group in the first way need not be called a ``trump`` card. (At other places the weaker and the stronger group may not be minority or majority and it would still be legitimate) Instead one ought to look at those circumstances - all of which I have mentioned on several occasions- that led to such a situation.
In our particular case, though the Two Nation Theory was forwarded for a possible consociationalist solution to the intractable question of identity politics, the salient nitty gritty of the solution i.e. Pakistan based on re-arranging provinces in separate federations within or without one confederation.
Now... by rejecting the confederation, the Congress closed the door on cooperation and by arguing for the partition of provinces, the Congress in fact used the very two nation theory it had abused so much with a malafide intent to cause maximum damage to the new state. Then by insisting on making East Bengal a part of the Pakistan State instead of allowing undivided Bengal go its own way, the Congress infact accepted that it had been lying to the people all along and that all of its programme was based on hypocrisy.
So why was it wrong other than this you ask- hypocrisy is after all not something new to Congress?
1. By the logic that was applied by the Congress to divide Punjab and Bengal (instead of accepting Provinces as natural administrative constituent units) should then have been carried forward to all districts of British India. In other words all Muslim majority districts in modern day India- especially since most of them had voted for Muslim League- should have gone to Pakistan as well.
2. However since the Pakistan Demand was Muslim League`s demand which had proved itself the legitimate representative body of an over whelming majority of the Muslims of South Asia and their demand was completely based on the premise that provinces were constituent units, the vivisection of Punjab and Bengal went against the grain of common sense.
3. Dividing Punjab and Bengal was seen as highly dangerous by all commentators of the time and Muslim League had pleaded against it on merit. Mind you was not the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan that caused the wide scale bloodshed. It was this decision to arbitrarily strip West Pakistan of Eastern Punjab and the former East Pakistan Modern Day Bangladesh of Western Bengal in 1947 that had caused the violence.
This is precisely why the Indian government argued in 1947-48 that partition violence was merely ``disturbances`` despite Pakistan`s vociferous protests in the UN.
If a group and in our case a minority (which formed natural majorities at certain extremities in our case) with a particular set of characteristics - language or religious beliefs or race or any combination thereof, having bent over backwards to appease another stronger group - in our case the majority- chooses to go its own way, those particular set of characteristics that defined them as a group in the first way need not be called a ``trump`` card. (At other places the weaker and the stronger group may not be minority or majority and it would still be legitimate) Instead one ought to look at those circumstances - all of which I have mentioned on several occasions- that led to such a situation.
In our particular case, though the Two Nation Theory was forwarded for a possible consociationalist solution to the intractable question of identity politics, the salient nitty gritty of the solution i.e. Pakistan based on re-arranging provinces in separate federations within or without one confederation.
Now... by rejecting the confederation, the Congress closed the door on cooperation and by arguing for the partition of provinces, the Congress in fact used the very two nation theory it had abused so much with a malafide intent to cause maximum damage to the new state. Then by insisting on making East Bengal a part of the Pakistan State instead of allowing undivided Bengal go its own way, the Congress infact accepted that it had been lying to the people all along and that all of its programme was based on hypocrisy.
So why was it wrong other than this you ask- hypocrisy is after all not something new to Congress?
1. By the logic that was applied by the Congress to divide Punjab and Bengal (instead of accepting Provinces as natural administrative constituent units) should then have been carried forward to all districts of British India. In other words all Muslim majority districts in modern day India- especially since most of them had voted for Muslim League- should have gone to Pakistan as well.
2. However since the Pakistan Demand was Muslim League`s demand which had proved itself the legitimate representative body of an over whelming majority of the Muslims of South Asia and their demand was completely based on the premise that provinces were constituent units, the vivisection of Punjab and Bengal went against the grain of common sense.
3. Dividing Punjab and Bengal was seen as highly dangerous by all commentators of the time and Muslim League had pleaded against it on merit. Mind you was not the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan that caused the wide scale bloodshed. It was this decision to arbitrarily strip West Pakistan of Eastern Punjab and the former East Pakistan Modern Day Bangladesh of Western Bengal in 1947 that had caused the violence.
This is precisely why the Indian government argued in 1947-48 that partition violence was merely ``disturbances`` despite Pakistan`s vociferous protests in the UN.
#421 Posted by VRV on December 28, 2006 9:12:41 am
Re: # 415
Partition of Bengal and Punjab ... a response:
``If a group and in our case a minority (which formed natural majorities at certain extremities in our case) with a particular set of characteristics - language or religious beliefs or race or any combination thereof, having bent over backwards to appease another stronger group - in our case the majority- chooses to go its own way, those particular set of characteristics that defined them as a group in the first way need not be called a ``trump`` card. (At other places the weaker and the stronger group may not be minority or majority and it would still be legitimate) Instead one ought to look at those circumstances - all of which I have mentioned on several occasions- that led to such a situation. ``
Pl dont brush the main reason for AIML politics under the carpet. It`s religion and the charter was made with 14-points. That sums up the `maximum` possible list of demands of AIML. It`s `Muslim League` not a `Urdu League`. Pl remember some Hindus identified themselves with Urdu in pre-partition India, if u dont know it.
``In our particular case, though the Two Nation Theory was forwarded for a possible consociationalist solution to the intractable question of identity politics, the salient nitty gritty of the solution i.e. Pakistan based on re-arranging provinces in separate federations within or without one confederation.``
The intractability was made-up by AIML. They raised the goalpost to unattainable levels. It`s just like Advani asking for a temple `exactly` at the place where Babri Masjid stood. How ther can be any other solution?
Jinnah raised goal-posts from time to time.
``Now... by rejecting the confederation, the Congress closed the door on cooperation and by arguing for the partition of provinces, the Congress in fact used the very two nation theory it had abused so much with a malafide intent to cause maximum damage to the new state. Then by insisting on making East Bengal a part of the Pakistan State instead of allowing undivided Bengal go its own way, the Congress infact accepted that it had been lying to the people all along and that all of its programme was based on hypocrisy. ``
Even a moron-in-hurry wud not accept to the concept of Confederation envisaged by Cripps or Cabinet. There was an in-built clause of separation and AIML was hellbent on getting Pakistan since they made it in their March 23rd Lahore Resolution in 1940.
``1. By the logic that was applied by the Congress to divide Punjab and Bengal (instead of accepting Provinces as natural administrative constituent units) should then have been carried forward to all districts of British India. In other words all Muslim majority districts in modern day India- especially since most of them had voted for Muslim League- should have gone to Pakistan as well. ``
Unless u read the Terms of Reference given to the solicitor Sir Ceril Radcliffe``.
``2. However since the Pakistan Demand was Muslim League`s demand which had proved itself the legitimate representative body of an over whelming majority of the Muslims of South Asia.....``
Brain dead? All India Muslim League is the legitimate representative body of Muslims of South Asia????? Had any historian of that generation wrote like this? WTF do u include South Asia instead of India or British India in the argument? It surely shows how opaque ur blinkers are.
``...and their demand was completely based on the premise that provinces were constituent units, the vivisection of Punjab and Bengal went against the grain of common sense. ``
Read the same sentence with India replacing Punjab and Bengal
``3. Dividing Punjab and Bengal was seen as highly dangerous by all commentators of the time and Muslim League had pleaded against it on merit. Mind you was not the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan that caused the wide scale bloodshed. It was this decision to arbitrarily strip West Pakistan of Eastern Punjab and the former East Pakistan Modern Day Bangladesh of Western Bengal in 1947 that had caused the violence. ``
How many people did Punjab/Pakistani army kill in East Pakistan? Can u compare the partition killings with the count of East Pakistan??? It`s 1:3.
The funny guy Zafrullah Khan makes a statement from New York that only 10,000 were killed in west Punjab but more than 1,00,000 were killed in East Punjab as if he`s watching the crystal ball in New York!
U also mean to say that Govt of India arranged all the deaths? Take ur head out of ur reareend and see the daylight, buddy!
Partition of Bengal and Punjab ... a response:
``If a group and in our case a minority (which formed natural majorities at certain extremities in our case) with a particular set of characteristics - language or religious beliefs or race or any combination thereof, having bent over backwards to appease another stronger group - in our case the majority- chooses to go its own way, those particular set of characteristics that defined them as a group in the first way need not be called a ``trump`` card. (At other places the weaker and the stronger group may not be minority or majority and it would still be legitimate) Instead one ought to look at those circumstances - all of which I have mentioned on several occasions- that led to such a situation. ``
Pl dont brush the main reason for AIML politics under the carpet. It`s religion and the charter was made with 14-points. That sums up the `maximum` possible list of demands of AIML. It`s `Muslim League` not a `Urdu League`. Pl remember some Hindus identified themselves with Urdu in pre-partition India, if u dont know it.
``In our particular case, though the Two Nation Theory was forwarded for a possible consociationalist solution to the intractable question of identity politics, the salient nitty gritty of the solution i.e. Pakistan based on re-arranging provinces in separate federations within or without one confederation.``
The intractability was made-up by AIML. They raised the goalpost to unattainable levels. It`s just like Advani asking for a temple `exactly` at the place where Babri Masjid stood. How ther can be any other solution?
Jinnah raised goal-posts from time to time.
``Now... by rejecting the confederation, the Congress closed the door on cooperation and by arguing for the partition of provinces, the Congress in fact used the very two nation theory it had abused so much with a malafide intent to cause maximum damage to the new state. Then by insisting on making East Bengal a part of the Pakistan State instead of allowing undivided Bengal go its own way, the Congress infact accepted that it had been lying to the people all along and that all of its programme was based on hypocrisy. ``
Even a moron-in-hurry wud not accept to the concept of Confederation envisaged by Cripps or Cabinet. There was an in-built clause of separation and AIML was hellbent on getting Pakistan since they made it in their March 23rd Lahore Resolution in 1940.
``1. By the logic that was applied by the Congress to divide Punjab and Bengal (instead of accepting Provinces as natural administrative constituent units) should then have been carried forward to all districts of British India. In other words all Muslim majority districts in modern day India- especially since most of them had voted for Muslim League- should have gone to Pakistan as well. ``
Unless u read the Terms of Reference given to the solicitor Sir Ceril Radcliffe``.
``2. However since the Pakistan Demand was Muslim League`s demand which had proved itself the legitimate representative body of an over whelming majority of the Muslims of South Asia.....``
Brain dead? All India Muslim League is the legitimate representative body of Muslims of South Asia????? Had any historian of that generation wrote like this? WTF do u include South Asia instead of India or British India in the argument? It surely shows how opaque ur blinkers are.
``...and their demand was completely based on the premise that provinces were constituent units, the vivisection of Punjab and Bengal went against the grain of common sense. ``
Read the same sentence with India replacing Punjab and Bengal
``3. Dividing Punjab and Bengal was seen as highly dangerous by all commentators of the time and Muslim League had pleaded against it on merit. Mind you was not the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan that caused the wide scale bloodshed. It was this decision to arbitrarily strip West Pakistan of Eastern Punjab and the former East Pakistan Modern Day Bangladesh of Western Bengal in 1947 that had caused the violence. ``
How many people did Punjab/Pakistani army kill in East Pakistan? Can u compare the partition killings with the count of East Pakistan??? It`s 1:3.
The funny guy Zafrullah Khan makes a statement from New York that only 10,000 were killed in west Punjab but more than 1,00,000 were killed in East Punjab as if he`s watching the crystal ball in New York!
U also mean to say that Govt of India arranged all the deaths? Take ur head out of ur reareend and see the daylight, buddy!
#414 Posted by tahmed32 on December 28, 2006 4:01:02 am
#409 ntsyed ``Can you accept the mother of all truths, as per The Quran you claim to believe in, that you were created for nothing but to worship Allah? ``
ntsyed - if this is what you have understood from the Quran, then perhaps you need to go back and read it more carefully.
ntsyed - if this is what you have understood from the Quran, then perhaps you need to go back and read it more carefully.
#425 Posted by ntsyed on December 29, 2006 7:00:00 am
#412 Posted by arjun2 on December 27, 2006 11:39:17 pm
#408 by ntsyed on December 27, 2006 11:16pm PT
mmmkay...kashmir banega pakiland...
any idea when?
mmmkay...kashmir banega pakiland...
any idea when?
#423 Posted by ntsyed on December 29, 2006 5:30:44 am
Re: # 412 arjun2
wouldn`t the curious cat like know?
Soon son, soon.
LOL :-)~~
wouldn`t the curious cat like know?
Soon son, soon.
LOL :-)~~
#406 Posted by dost_mittar on December 27, 2006 4:39:07 pm
Dear Mantolives:
It shouldn`t surprise you that I am in basic agreement with what you say. There most certainly was a complexity of factors involved. My own personal opinion is that, more than anything else, it was a game of chess played by three or four key players in which people`s religious feelings and identities were mercelessly manipulated by all sides, starting with our very own Mahatma.
That said, I think that my generalisation is still valid. No two situations are identical and there were many differences between the Israeli and Pakistani movements; and yet these are the only two countries in modern history which have been created in the name of religious identities. I hope you wont dispute the fact that Pakistan was created in the name of all Muslims from Khyber Pass to Cape Camorin, and not just for those living in the area which eventually became Pakistan.
It shouldn`t surprise you that I am in basic agreement with what you say. There most certainly was a complexity of factors involved. My own personal opinion is that, more than anything else, it was a game of chess played by three or four key players in which people`s religious feelings and identities were mercelessly manipulated by all sides, starting with our very own Mahatma.
That said, I think that my generalisation is still valid. No two situations are identical and there were many differences between the Israeli and Pakistani movements; and yet these are the only two countries in modern history which have been created in the name of religious identities. I hope you wont dispute the fact that Pakistan was created in the name of all Muslims from Khyber Pass to Cape Camorin, and not just for those living in the area which eventually became Pakistan.
#405 Posted by VRV on December 27, 2006 3:36:38 pm
INHERITED FACTS:
British India became self-ruled as Queen forsook her role as Empress of India, of course with a price to Indians themsleves as it was evident in the politics of Muslim League leading to partition at knife-point regradless of colossal cost of human lives staring in the face. The face of India was splashed with blood of innocents. It was a different kinda Holi for Indians who otherwise use gulal to celebrate.
It didnt happento Jinnah - the ripe fruit falling in his lap - Kashmir ruler had his own independent plans. Pakistan wanted to GRAB the fruit by force. The gardener Hari Singh sought our help and we PUT a CONDITION of aceession, which the Raja acceded to.
EVENTS MOULDED BY US:
Pakistan screamed, cried fowl and put blinkers to her subjects that Kashmir was occupied by India. Travesty of truth! It`s Pakistan which tried to occupy it & was stopped in tracks, hence this stalemate as there`s no middleman like the British masters.
India kept the piece of Kashmir inherited to her intactthough Pakistan managed ethnic cleansing, whereas Pakistan bartered it with China with her own piece of Kashmir. Not a soul outside Kashmir can buy a property or settle there in Indian Kashmir - a solemn promise to keep the pristine landscape and culture of Kashmir which also means keeping the demographic profile intact.
Pakistan? Kashmir under control became Punjabised and Kashmir became K`shmeer. I really dont know why Bhutto was hanged but he was the guy who agreed to sidetrack UN resolutions on Kashmir and resolve the issue bilaterally with India.
Theree generations of Pakistanis were reared with blinkers on and many believe that India occupied Kashmir!! In Pakistan History is always used as atta i.e moulded as per whims and fancies of rulers.
Having seen the acts of Pakistan in Afghanistan and elsewhere (jihad in India and Indian Kashmir), it`d be unwise to go to Pak`s level of understanding of the truths i.e India doesnt exist, TNT, Muslims ruled India, Hindus are good as slaves etc., and barter Kashmir with them.
As I saw it till now India had no long-term strategy. Just watch! Cruel Indira Gandhi played with fire - as she did in Punjab, Sri Lanka - by appointing RSS acolytes as Governors and dismissed elected governments. Now with saner people in power, we have some calm...
Kashmir is an endless agony....I dont know why religion shud be THE point here. There are no curbs on religion in Kashmir nor elsewhere in India. Why cant these people be allowed to live in peace?
British India became self-ruled as Queen forsook her role as Empress of India, of course with a price to Indians themsleves as it was evident in the politics of Muslim League leading to partition at knife-point regradless of colossal cost of human lives staring in the face. The face of India was splashed with blood of innocents. It was a different kinda Holi for Indians who otherwise use gulal to celebrate.
It didnt happento Jinnah - the ripe fruit falling in his lap - Kashmir ruler had his own independent plans. Pakistan wanted to GRAB the fruit by force. The gardener Hari Singh sought our help and we PUT a CONDITION of aceession, which the Raja acceded to.
EVENTS MOULDED BY US:
Pakistan screamed, cried fowl and put blinkers to her subjects that Kashmir was occupied by India. Travesty of truth! It`s Pakistan which tried to occupy it & was stopped in tracks, hence this stalemate as there`s no middleman like the British masters.
India kept the piece of Kashmir inherited to her intactthough Pakistan managed ethnic cleansing, whereas Pakistan bartered it with China with her own piece of Kashmir. Not a soul outside Kashmir can buy a property or settle there in Indian Kashmir - a solemn promise to keep the pristine landscape and culture of Kashmir which also means keeping the demographic profile intact.
Pakistan? Kashmir under control became Punjabised and Kashmir became K`shmeer. I really dont know why Bhutto was hanged but he was the guy who agreed to sidetrack UN resolutions on Kashmir and resolve the issue bilaterally with India.
Theree generations of Pakistanis were reared with blinkers on and many believe that India occupied Kashmir!! In Pakistan History is always used as atta i.e moulded as per whims and fancies of rulers.
Having seen the acts of Pakistan in Afghanistan and elsewhere (jihad in India and Indian Kashmir), it`d be unwise to go to Pak`s level of understanding of the truths i.e India doesnt exist, TNT, Muslims ruled India, Hindus are good as slaves etc., and barter Kashmir with them.
As I saw it till now India had no long-term strategy. Just watch! Cruel Indira Gandhi played with fire - as she did in Punjab, Sri Lanka - by appointing RSS acolytes as Governors and dismissed elected governments. Now with saner people in power, we have some calm...
Kashmir is an endless agony....I dont know why religion shud be THE point here. There are no curbs on religion in Kashmir nor elsewhere in India. Why cant these people be allowed to live in peace?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- parthaab: Divorces in India are... Saqi Farooqi ... A
- tahir: Explanation of Dhul Qarnain’s... Persecution of Religious Minorities
- tahir: In his English writings... Persecution of Religious Minorities
- tahir: http://www.reviewpe.com/islam/important_issues_of-islaam/messiah.html MIRZA GHULAM AHMED (1830's... Persecution of Religious Minorities
- tahir: Re: # 268 Khawajah da... Persecution of Religious Minorities
- tahir: Re: # 266 Quite a... Persecution of Religious Minorities
- tahir: Re: # 265 "To cut... Persecution of Religious Minorities
- tahir: Re: # 260 964 interacts... Persecution of Religious Minorities
