Defend the Country, not its Government
Subcontinental October 10, 2000
#183 Posted by mohajir on October 26, 2000 11:01:42 am
The Pull of Kashmir: Kashmir is one of the few issues that unite all of Pakistan, and Musharraf’s history suggests that he considers it a question of Pakistan’s honor. There is no evidence that he has changed Pakistan’s policy of supporting militancy in Kashmir. He and his foreign minister describe the support as “diplomatic and moral”; others are less cautious. The country’s economic stagnation and political uncertainty and his reluctance to pick a fight with the militants make major changes in this policy extremely difficult.
And yet Musharraf’s public speeches suggest a growing concentration on Pakistan’s domestic problems. His speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York is a case in point. His agenda of foreign visits has slowed down. The brief cease-fire between India and a Kashmiri militant group raised Pakistani concerns about being left out of a Kashmir-India dialogue. Right now, India’s insistence that violence in Kashmir cease before it will talk to Pakistan effectively locks Musharraf into his own Kashmir hard line. The chances for a major change are not bright, but with such high stakes, even small chances should be exploited.
And yet Musharraf’s public speeches suggest a growing concentration on Pakistan’s domestic problems. His speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York is a case in point. His agenda of foreign visits has slowed down. The brief cease-fire between India and a Kashmiri militant group raised Pakistani concerns about being left out of a Kashmir-India dialogue. Right now, India’s insistence that violence in Kashmir cease before it will talk to Pakistan effectively locks Musharraf into his own Kashmir hard line. The chances for a major change are not bright, but with such high stakes, even small chances should be exploited.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#182 Posted by Pankaj on October 26, 2000 2:59:22 am
Assad, RSaxena, Shankar and others
Satyawadi is right. For anybody who has been to India recently(incidentally I was in India till last year) it should be pretty clear that under no circumstances can Kashmir be allowed to secede and the public opinion is vehementally against any secession. IMO there is no logic in secession from an economic angle save religion. All the talk about the ``self determination`` does not hold much water. At a deeper level the question arises, at what scale/size of the group can its demand for secession be considered valid. For example if a few Hindu villages or few lacs Mohajirs under Altaf Hussain or Sindhis demand secession, can it be accepted. The rule of self determination was never applied consistently across various groups in history. ``Self determination`` is like a recursive loop giving rise to perpetual disintegration.
There are several clauses in Indian Constitution(and they are strictly followed) that guarantee the people of Kashmir greater autonomy than the people of other states. If need arises, I also favor giving autonomy to Kashmir in all respects but defence, foreign relations and communucation.
I can cite a number of reasons for my above statements but I think I have already voiced my opinion on this issue earlier and I will not repeat it. I am all for declaring LoC a permanent border and settle down for some more constructive work. Pakistan has 33% Kashmir and India has 45%. Give peace a chance and stop sending terrorists or corrupting the impressionable minds with religious crap for another 15 years. And let us see which part of Kashmir is better off.Let us realise if anybody wants to seize Kashmir by force merely on the basis of religion, it can not be allowed. Violence begets violence. If ISI incites violence in Kashmir, someday RAW is going to retaliate with equal force in supporting forces of secession in Pakistan. And this cycle of hatred and counter-operations is not only vicious but endlessly reinforcing in itself, culminating in a disaster. There is no use of perpetuating enmity, it is more pragmatic to look towards future.
Sincerely
Satyawadi is right. For anybody who has been to India recently(incidentally I was in India till last year) it should be pretty clear that under no circumstances can Kashmir be allowed to secede and the public opinion is vehementally against any secession. IMO there is no logic in secession from an economic angle save religion. All the talk about the ``self determination`` does not hold much water. At a deeper level the question arises, at what scale/size of the group can its demand for secession be considered valid. For example if a few Hindu villages or few lacs Mohajirs under Altaf Hussain or Sindhis demand secession, can it be accepted. The rule of self determination was never applied consistently across various groups in history. ``Self determination`` is like a recursive loop giving rise to perpetual disintegration.
There are several clauses in Indian Constitution(and they are strictly followed) that guarantee the people of Kashmir greater autonomy than the people of other states. If need arises, I also favor giving autonomy to Kashmir in all respects but defence, foreign relations and communucation.
I can cite a number of reasons for my above statements but I think I have already voiced my opinion on this issue earlier and I will not repeat it. I am all for declaring LoC a permanent border and settle down for some more constructive work. Pakistan has 33% Kashmir and India has 45%. Give peace a chance and stop sending terrorists or corrupting the impressionable minds with religious crap for another 15 years. And let us see which part of Kashmir is better off.Let us realise if anybody wants to seize Kashmir by force merely on the basis of religion, it can not be allowed. Violence begets violence. If ISI incites violence in Kashmir, someday RAW is going to retaliate with equal force in supporting forces of secession in Pakistan. And this cycle of hatred and counter-operations is not only vicious but endlessly reinforcing in itself, culminating in a disaster. There is no use of perpetuating enmity, it is more pragmatic to look towards future.
Sincerely
#181 Posted by sadna on October 26, 2000 2:10:20 am
Assad_K #189
What can we lesser mortal Indians comprehend the noble aims and choices offered by people close to heaven and God such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. Thats something you highminded types will have to explain to us about `principled stands`.
btw, re choice, when is the last time YOU made a choice, or are you `200%` or `more than 100%` happy? Quite likely, so don`t bother to answer, I can see electoral percentages are calculated by enlightened mind-reading, thats also something outside the understanding of lesser beings like myself.
Sadhana
What can we lesser mortal Indians comprehend the noble aims and choices offered by people close to heaven and God such as Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. Thats something you highminded types will have to explain to us about `principled stands`.
btw, re choice, when is the last time YOU made a choice, or are you `200%` or `more than 100%` happy? Quite likely, so don`t bother to answer, I can see electoral percentages are calculated by enlightened mind-reading, thats also something outside the understanding of lesser beings like myself.
Sadhana
#180 Posted by Assad_K on October 25, 2000 11:52:44 pm
Oddly, the issue of cross-religious marriages was thrashed out not too long ago on the boards here. I see that a person feeling that there are likely to be problems in such a marriage is immediately to be considered a jehadist! Gotta love these extensions.
Sadna,
You mean as opposed to the principled stance of offering no choice at all?
RSaxena,
So let`s see.. Indians are peaceful, tolerant, loving, beholden to Gandhi etc etc. HOWEVER, if the Kashmiris should CHOOSE to secede, you`ll promptly wipe out 10% of your population? Wearing your civility kinda thin, aint`cha?
Sadna,
You mean as opposed to the principled stance of offering no choice at all?
RSaxena,
So let`s see.. Indians are peaceful, tolerant, loving, beholden to Gandhi etc etc. HOWEVER, if the Kashmiris should CHOOSE to secede, you`ll promptly wipe out 10% of your population? Wearing your civility kinda thin, aint`cha?
#179 Posted by taqil17 on October 25, 2000 7:15:14 pm
Pakistan is in the firm grip of an unholy triangleand this triangle is ARMY,Beaurocracy,and the Business classes.This dirty triangle cosists of only about two percent of the total population and it is sucking the lifeblood of the nation.Neither the people nor the various puppet regimes have anything to do about the dirty game being played in Pakistan.This dirty triangle has brought the country to the edge of the precipice and very soon Pakistan is going to end up on the dust heap of history like many failed states such as the USSR,yugoslavia and a few more.Pakistan can survive only and only of the grip of the dirty and unholy triangle is broken and the common people of the country are allowed to have a say in the running of the country.
#178 Posted by sadna on October 25, 2000 1:58:28 pm
#181
Those who advocate `universal` principles of justice to be applied in dealing with Pakistani claims on Indian Jammu and Kashmir and who call their stand a `principled stand` may please remember this excerpt from Gen. Musharraf`s interview.
``...Q. A plebiscite was offered in Kashmir by the United Nations in 1948. Do you still want it?
A. Yes. Certainly. That is our position.
Q. Now, going back to what you said before, If the results would be pro-India, would you still accept them?
A. Well, I am more than hundred percent sure that the (plebiscite-R.L.)results will not be pro-India.
Q. What if the people of Kashmir will vote for independence?
A. There`s no room for that. They have to vote either for India or for Pakistan. ...``
Now that is definately egg on the face of a large section of the `principled stand`.
Sadhana
Those who advocate `universal` principles of justice to be applied in dealing with Pakistani claims on Indian Jammu and Kashmir and who call their stand a `principled stand` may please remember this excerpt from Gen. Musharraf`s interview.
``...Q. A plebiscite was offered in Kashmir by the United Nations in 1948. Do you still want it?
A. Yes. Certainly. That is our position.
Q. Now, going back to what you said before, If the results would be pro-India, would you still accept them?
A. Well, I am more than hundred percent sure that the (plebiscite-R.L.)results will not be pro-India.
Q. What if the people of Kashmir will vote for independence?
A. There`s no room for that. They have to vote either for India or for Pakistan. ...``
Now that is definately egg on the face of a large section of the `principled stand`.
Sadhana
#177 Posted by rsaxena on October 25, 2000 12:30:59 pm
Re: shankar
Lookie here, those people appointed satyavadi to say the same thing. But again, his feat is nothing compared to your`s since the guy seems to have the advantage of having lived in India recently.
``It should be clear to anyone who HAS LIVED in India in the recent past, that there is absolutely not an iota of support for Kashmiri secession in the rest of India and that Indians will never accept it.``
Lookie here, those people appointed satyavadi to say the same thing. But again, his feat is nothing compared to your`s since the guy seems to have the advantage of having lived in India recently.
``It should be clear to anyone who HAS LIVED in India in the recent past, that there is absolutely not an iota of support for Kashmiri secession in the rest of India and that Indians will never accept it.``
#176 Posted by Subcontinental on October 25, 2000 12:30:59 pm
Mohajir # 181
Most of the recent posts have been interesting but off-topic from my perspective. Therefore, I would like to thank you for the reference to the interview which re-orients the discussion somewhat.
I am not sure if this interview is a spoof or for real. I don’t doubt that a typical Pakistani general can hold and believe in such views. What would surprise me if the media managers would allow such material to be aired in international papers. Of course, if the media managers are also generals, anything is possible.
Assuming this is for real, it illustrates the point I tried to make about distinguishing between the interests of the country and those of its government. I am always surprised by how readily people are willing to fight and die for leaders like this. I wonder if anyone will argue that the views elaborated in the interview are in the national interest of Pakistan. National interests should over ride a leader`s personal beliefs and aversions, not the other way around.
Most of the recent posts have been interesting but off-topic from my perspective. Therefore, I would like to thank you for the reference to the interview which re-orients the discussion somewhat.
I am not sure if this interview is a spoof or for real. I don’t doubt that a typical Pakistani general can hold and believe in such views. What would surprise me if the media managers would allow such material to be aired in international papers. Of course, if the media managers are also generals, anything is possible.
Assuming this is for real, it illustrates the point I tried to make about distinguishing between the interests of the country and those of its government. I am always surprised by how readily people are willing to fight and die for leaders like this. I wonder if anyone will argue that the views elaborated in the interview are in the national interest of Pakistan. National interests should over ride a leader`s personal beliefs and aversions, not the other way around.
#175 Posted by rsaxena on October 25, 2000 12:30:59 pm
Re: shankar
``Wow, & they all appointed you to speak on their behalf! I`m impressed.`
You really shouldn`t be too impressed. After all you were appointed to be the person to declare:
``Hindus should not demand a separate state for hindus. .... a majority of hindus agree with me``
Actually, your feat is even more amazing considering that you neither live in the country nor spend much time in it but still command a huge following which asks you to make statements on its behalf. Now that`s impressive!
``Wow, & they all appointed you to speak on their behalf! I`m impressed.`
You really shouldn`t be too impressed. After all you were appointed to be the person to declare:
``Hindus should not demand a separate state for hindus. .... a majority of hindus agree with me``
Actually, your feat is even more amazing considering that you neither live in the country nor spend much time in it but still command a huge following which asks you to make statements on its behalf. Now that`s impressive!
#174 Posted by Viking on October 25, 2000 12:30:59 pm
Ref Shankar:
listen sir, kashmir is a blazing inferno. muslim militancy are its flames, pakistan provides the uninterrupted fuel supply and india is fighting
to put it off with an rusty old foam dispenser, lest it engulf the rest of the house. now, you know precisely what needs to be done to put out
this rot once and for all, but our spineless leaders know only the longest and the safest route: we spend on the foam while they spend on the fuel. the game will be over ONLY when one of us runs out. it is as simple as that. Get it ?
meanwhile, if altruists like you have problems with that, just fine. you are not the only one to spit on india`s face........
listen sir, kashmir is a blazing inferno. muslim militancy are its flames, pakistan provides the uninterrupted fuel supply and india is fighting
to put it off with an rusty old foam dispenser, lest it engulf the rest of the house. now, you know precisely what needs to be done to put out
this rot once and for all, but our spineless leaders know only the longest and the safest route: we spend on the foam while they spend on the fuel. the game will be over ONLY when one of us runs out. it is as simple as that. Get it ?
meanwhile, if altruists like you have problems with that, just fine. you are not the only one to spit on india`s face........
#173 Posted by shankar on October 24, 2000 9:33:39 pm
RSaxena,
{{``Us`` is the millions of Hindu people who live or spend a lot of their time in India. NOT THE RSS}}
Wow, & they all appointed you to speak on their behalf! I`m impressed.
{{``Us`` is the millions of Hindu people who live or spend a lot of their time in India. NOT THE RSS}}
Wow, & they all appointed you to speak on their behalf! I`m impressed.
#172 Posted by mohajir on October 24, 2000 9:33:39 pm
Interview with Pakistani CEO Parvez Musharraf with Foreign Affairs correspondent.
http://www.nation.com.pk/inset.htm
Interview with Pakistani CEO Parvez Musharraf
Q. How many children do you have? A. Two. A son and daughter.
Q. If your daughter would come and tell you that she would like to marry an Indian .... a terrific Indian. ``A doctor``, Would you object? A. If it`s a Muslim Indian I wouldn`t. If it`s a Hindu Indian I would certainly object.
Q. You would object? If she would be willing to marry, let`s say, a Catholic American, Irish American? A. I would again object.
Q. Do you think that Pakistan, in general, Pakistani society, treats its minorities or different ethnic groups better or worse than India treats it own?
A. 200 times better! Q. 200 times better? A. If not more. I`m very sure of that and this is, again, an unfortunate wrong perception that Indians create against Pakistan, of our being not accommodating enough against the minorities and our having extremist attitudes towards the minorities. There is nothing farther than the truth.
Q. With the risk of irritating you, you said a short time ago that you would not be happy to see your daughter marrying a Catholic or a non-Muslim. Doesn`t this reflect some kind of intolerance towards,...
A. No, I would beg to differ. This is not intolerance. I would love to interact with anybody of any religion and I have been interacting. I have been abroad and I`ve been interacting, in fact, let me tell you that when I was at the Royal College of Defense Studies, I respected the Israeli officer very much and my interaction with him and also with his wife was very pleasant. So I have no intolerance against any kind of interaction. But when it comes to marriages that you are talking of, now this is a totally different issue. There are cultural differences involved and there are societal differences involved and therefore that is the reason when I said that I would not like my daughter to be married to a Hindu Indian, that doesn`t mean that I am intolerant. I interacted very well with the Indian Hindu officer who was there on the same course. He was my neighbour and we interacted very well with him.
Q. You point a finger at the media, saying that the media tilts strongly toward the Indian side?
A. Yes. Certainly. I strongly believe that this is the case. There are a lot of Indians in the media, controlling the media and that is the unfortunate part, they distort facts. Actually perceptions that are not the reality.
Q. You are speaking about Indians who work as English journalists in England, and American journalists in America? Are you claiming that their heart is really with India? A. First of all there are a lot of Indians in all places in the international media .... television, newspaper .
Q. Sure. There are talented Indians.
A. These Indians do have actually an interest themselves, and they also influence others, those who are around them, those of other nationalities.
Q. A plebiscite was offered in Kashmir by the United Nations in 1948. Do you still want it? A. Yes. Certainly. That is our position.
Q. Now, going back to what you said before, If the results would be pro-India, would you still accept them? A. Well, I am more than hundred percent sure that the (plebiscite-R.L.)results will not be pro-India.
Q. What if the people of Kashmir will vote for independence? A. There`s no room for that. They have to vote either for India or for Pakistan.
Q. Kindly mention to me the four countries that are good friends of Pakistan.
A. Okay. Number one, China. Turkey. Saudi Arabia. Abu Dhabi.
Q. Abu Dhabi is not a very big country.
A. (Here the Pakistani Ambassador suddenly joins in, and corrects his chief executive: ``UAE, United Arab Emirates, and the chief executive accepts.)
Q. You don`t count the United States as one.
A. Well.
Q. I said ``good`` friends.
A. We have been good friends but not all that. ..
Q. Do you think that the nuclear weapons now present in both India and Pakistan make the sub-continent more, or less secure?
A. More secure, I think.
Q. The people of India and Pakistan have shared a history of several thousand years, shared language, shared cuisine, music and common culture. Yet, there are more Muslims remaining in India than there are in Pakistan. Is that true?
A. Population wise, is this true. I don`t think it is true that India has more Muslim than we have. But I would like to comment on the first part when you talked about our history and our commonality. I do beg to differ. Our history is totally different. Our heroes are their villains and vice-versa. Our culture is absolute the opposite. They consider cows as their gods. We slaughter cows and eat them .
Q. Didn`t India`s culture stem partly from the area of what is Pakistan now?
A. No. The Buddhist culture originated from Pakistan. But the Hindu culture did not originate from Pakistan.
Ranan R. Lurie is a Senior Adjunct Fellow with the CSIS, The Washington based think tank, the political cartoonist for FOREIGN AFFAIRS magazine, and an internationally syndicated political analyst/cartoonist
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/issues/0011/stern.html
http://www.nation.com.pk/inset.htm
Interview with Pakistani CEO Parvez Musharraf
Q. How many children do you have? A. Two. A son and daughter.
Q. If your daughter would come and tell you that she would like to marry an Indian .... a terrific Indian. ``A doctor``, Would you object? A. If it`s a Muslim Indian I wouldn`t. If it`s a Hindu Indian I would certainly object.
Q. You would object? If she would be willing to marry, let`s say, a Catholic American, Irish American? A. I would again object.
Q. Do you think that Pakistan, in general, Pakistani society, treats its minorities or different ethnic groups better or worse than India treats it own?
A. 200 times better! Q. 200 times better? A. If not more. I`m very sure of that and this is, again, an unfortunate wrong perception that Indians create against Pakistan, of our being not accommodating enough against the minorities and our having extremist attitudes towards the minorities. There is nothing farther than the truth.
Q. With the risk of irritating you, you said a short time ago that you would not be happy to see your daughter marrying a Catholic or a non-Muslim. Doesn`t this reflect some kind of intolerance towards,...
A. No, I would beg to differ. This is not intolerance. I would love to interact with anybody of any religion and I have been interacting. I have been abroad and I`ve been interacting, in fact, let me tell you that when I was at the Royal College of Defense Studies, I respected the Israeli officer very much and my interaction with him and also with his wife was very pleasant. So I have no intolerance against any kind of interaction. But when it comes to marriages that you are talking of, now this is a totally different issue. There are cultural differences involved and there are societal differences involved and therefore that is the reason when I said that I would not like my daughter to be married to a Hindu Indian, that doesn`t mean that I am intolerant. I interacted very well with the Indian Hindu officer who was there on the same course. He was my neighbour and we interacted very well with him.
Q. You point a finger at the media, saying that the media tilts strongly toward the Indian side?
A. Yes. Certainly. I strongly believe that this is the case. There are a lot of Indians in the media, controlling the media and that is the unfortunate part, they distort facts. Actually perceptions that are not the reality.
Q. You are speaking about Indians who work as English journalists in England, and American journalists in America? Are you claiming that their heart is really with India? A. First of all there are a lot of Indians in all places in the international media .... television, newspaper .
Q. Sure. There are talented Indians.
A. These Indians do have actually an interest themselves, and they also influence others, those who are around them, those of other nationalities.
Q. A plebiscite was offered in Kashmir by the United Nations in 1948. Do you still want it? A. Yes. Certainly. That is our position.
Q. Now, going back to what you said before, If the results would be pro-India, would you still accept them? A. Well, I am more than hundred percent sure that the (plebiscite-R.L.)results will not be pro-India.
Q. What if the people of Kashmir will vote for independence? A. There`s no room for that. They have to vote either for India or for Pakistan.
Q. Kindly mention to me the four countries that are good friends of Pakistan.
A. Okay. Number one, China. Turkey. Saudi Arabia. Abu Dhabi.
Q. Abu Dhabi is not a very big country.
A. (Here the Pakistani Ambassador suddenly joins in, and corrects his chief executive: ``UAE, United Arab Emirates, and the chief executive accepts.)
Q. You don`t count the United States as one.
A. Well.
Q. I said ``good`` friends.
A. We have been good friends but not all that. ..
Q. Do you think that the nuclear weapons now present in both India and Pakistan make the sub-continent more, or less secure?
A. More secure, I think.
Q. The people of India and Pakistan have shared a history of several thousand years, shared language, shared cuisine, music and common culture. Yet, there are more Muslims remaining in India than there are in Pakistan. Is that true?
A. Population wise, is this true. I don`t think it is true that India has more Muslim than we have. But I would like to comment on the first part when you talked about our history and our commonality. I do beg to differ. Our history is totally different. Our heroes are their villains and vice-versa. Our culture is absolute the opposite. They consider cows as their gods. We slaughter cows and eat them .
Q. Didn`t India`s culture stem partly from the area of what is Pakistan now?
A. No. The Buddhist culture originated from Pakistan. But the Hindu culture did not originate from Pakistan.
Ranan R. Lurie is a Senior Adjunct Fellow with the CSIS, The Washington based think tank, the political cartoonist for FOREIGN AFFAIRS magazine, and an internationally syndicated political analyst/cartoonist
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/issues/0011/stern.html
#171 Posted by rsaxena on October 24, 2000 9:33:39 pm
Re: Anjum
``This is not peculiar to India. Similar problems exist in many countries/regions, including Pakistan, Spain, Northern Ireland and Australia. The long-term answer lies in trying to find a way to co-exist and to give people a reason to be part of a union. Blaming and wishing each other away, expecting a paradise on earth to follow, is not going to help.``
I know these problems exists in a lot of places, including India. What I am against is secession as a solution to the problem. Especially by a group of people who have had the opportunity to do it once already! I am also against the idea of breaking up countries on the basis of religion!!!
``This is not peculiar to India. Similar problems exist in many countries/regions, including Pakistan, Spain, Northern Ireland and Australia. The long-term answer lies in trying to find a way to co-exist and to give people a reason to be part of a union. Blaming and wishing each other away, expecting a paradise on earth to follow, is not going to help.``
I know these problems exists in a lot of places, including India. What I am against is secession as a solution to the problem. Especially by a group of people who have had the opportunity to do it once already! I am also against the idea of breaking up countries on the basis of religion!!!
#170 Posted by rsaxena on October 24, 2000 9:33:39 pm
Re: Anjum
``You have expressed this belief a number of times but each time you have not mentioned the Sikhs.``
It wasn`t intentional...but in any case they didn`t wage a 50-year war with foreign terrorism support to secede! Whatever the problem was, it was addressed and things moved on. They, along with all the other groups I mention, treat India as their country (which it is). If there is a problem, you fix it and make the country better, not start terrorist movements to seccede. I know there was violence associated with the Khalistan movement...but nothing compared to what you see in Kashmir (which I don`t believe is ever going to end).
``You are over-simplifying the issue of the coexistence of a majority and minorities within national borders.``
No, I am simply stating the facts. Muslims have continually had problems and in both cases (Pakistan and Kashmir) their one solution has been seccession! What do you discuss with groups who believe the solution to their problems will come from foreign terrorist countries? How do you think the US would respond if tomorrow the black population demanded a separate country (because their concerns have yet to be adequately addressed) and sought terrorism support from African nations to push their demands?
If the violence were to end today, Kashmir is a big enough headache for India that the government would spend the resources from fighting the militancy on development in the state.
``You have expressed this belief a number of times but each time you have not mentioned the Sikhs.``
It wasn`t intentional...but in any case they didn`t wage a 50-year war with foreign terrorism support to secede! Whatever the problem was, it was addressed and things moved on. They, along with all the other groups I mention, treat India as their country (which it is). If there is a problem, you fix it and make the country better, not start terrorist movements to seccede. I know there was violence associated with the Khalistan movement...but nothing compared to what you see in Kashmir (which I don`t believe is ever going to end).
``You are over-simplifying the issue of the coexistence of a majority and minorities within national borders.``
No, I am simply stating the facts. Muslims have continually had problems and in both cases (Pakistan and Kashmir) their one solution has been seccession! What do you discuss with groups who believe the solution to their problems will come from foreign terrorist countries? How do you think the US would respond if tomorrow the black population demanded a separate country (because their concerns have yet to be adequately addressed) and sought terrorism support from African nations to push their demands?
If the violence were to end today, Kashmir is a big enough headache for India that the government would spend the resources from fighting the militancy on development in the state.
#169 Posted by rsaxena on October 24, 2000 2:50:59 pm
Re: shankar
``When you refer to ``us`` as in ``leads US to fear``, who are you refering to? The RSS?! Please enlighten me``
``Us`` is the millions of Hindu people who live or spend a lot of their time in India. NOT THE RSS
``When you refer to ``us`` as in ``leads US to fear``, who are you refering to? The RSS?! Please enlighten me``
``Us`` is the millions of Hindu people who live or spend a lot of their time in India. NOT THE RSS
#168 Posted by shankar on October 23, 2000 11:46:14 pm
RSaxena,
{{Call it prejudice or bigotry or whatever you will but the fact of the matter is that the actions of the few million muslims turns the country sour against the whole lot. It leads us to fear how many more Muslim countries will be carved out of India in the future.}}
When you refer to ``us`` as in ``leads US to fear``, who are you refering to? The RSS?! Please enlighten me.
Well, whoever this ``us`` maybe, they have a huge psychological problem--not the muslims who want to remain Indians.
{{Call it prejudice or bigotry or whatever you will but the fact of the matter is that the actions of the few million muslims turns the country sour against the whole lot. It leads us to fear how many more Muslim countries will be carved out of India in the future.}}
When you refer to ``us`` as in ``leads US to fear``, who are you refering to? The RSS?! Please enlighten me.
Well, whoever this ``us`` maybe, they have a huge psychological problem--not the muslims who want to remain Indians.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: Eklavya: please dont split... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: GF #83: while india's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Eklavya: tahmedji and harish A correction:... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: om prakash #75 agreed.... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Goldfinger: harish_hyd, also this: www.rediff.com/news/2008/nov/nov28mumterror-rescue-efforts-badly-planne d-says-israel.htm?zcc=rl India's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- rf786: Re: # 61 Like I... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- shoaib_daniyal: “We in Pakistan understand... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: harish #77 we could... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
