Indian Troop Reduction in Kashmir: Merely Symbolic?

I`ve asked this before and will do so again - is ahmedmadani for real, or is it someone who`s trying to poke fun at certain ways of thought? Will Mr Ahmad Madani (or Sahib) speak up please?

Hey Nikki7777,
it seems u have a strong attitude problem. i wish i could see u in Lahore sometime. I would love to teach u... How things work.......

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#165 dost-mittar:
Sorry to be blunt, but you are being quite foolish and cowardly.
Why should India make any concession to Pakistan on Kashmir, be it joint defence or joint representation in other countries or anything else.
You should add one more item to your list of ground-realities:
India can live with the status-quo. Pakistan does not want to, but it will have to learn to.

Yes, India has not been able to stop the terrorist activities in J&K fully. We are incurring huge expenditure (not-quantified) etc etc. But all of this is ACCEPTABLE to a majority of Indians. If terrorism stops, it will be a big plus for India. But we cannot negotiate on our sovereignity as the price of stopping terrorism. This may have been easier to do so in the late 40s and early 50s, when we were a young country, but things have crystallised now and Indians are in no mood to accede on soveriegnty or territory to Pakistan.

I think in parts, we need a Punjab style solution. Come down hard on anyone who demands secession. Why should the GOI provide police protection to the Hurriyat people?

#166 Manto,
Don`t answer that. It is me who posted under Harish_HYD nick...

DM,

...For example, Pakistan and India could accept joint responsibility of defending Kashmir against third countries. ...

Do you mean that the militaries that faught vehemently against each other for 60 years would exchange cigars on the street and walk side by side?

Now when POK is cleansed of non-muslims and lets assume that IOK is shared as you suggest, how do you cope up with ever increasing muslim population in non-muslim areas of kashmir?

Wouldn`t an agreement based on religion would necessiate another review down the road and would result into more intrusion of pakis into Indian land?

You are not suggesting any cure for the decease that kashmir is suffering from i.e. religious fanaticism and extenson of TNT.

In my opinion, Kasmir is not the problem in itself, but the manifestation of wider problem; a conflict between two ideologies: A religiously preferntial military state on side and a secular democracy on the other side.

The (undeclared) war in kashmir has more to do with justifying the ideology that is succeding and by making concessions based on religion you already have succumbed to justifying TNT. India never has approved TNT as it`s based on religious bigotry and whatever happended in 1947 was due to weakness of the leadership of the time.

Compare 1940s in India with 1860s in US, when the US leadership stood firm and today US is an envy of the world.

Any agreement between India and Paksitan that makes any more concessions to Pakis that is based on religion, is a monstrous defeat to the idea of secularism and hindu tolerance.

#134 by Mantolives

[The rest of your post was again mere rhetoric and nothing else... so I choose not to respond.]

How`s this one for rhetoric?

#110 by Mantolives - ``Rave, rant, lie and scream... the mask is off your faces.``

#96 by Mantolives - ``Yell, scream, rant and rave... and show us the extent of your lack of humanity. It is quite an eye opener.... and Thankyou Urstruly for opening my eyes.... I was under the impression that they were human. You`ve exposed them well...``

[BTW... do you post under several nicks or just that other one?]

Nice try mate, but you`ll have to do better than that. How about trying to answer my question?

Koyee maane na maane magar jaan-e-man
Kuchh tumhen chaahiye kucch hamein chaahiye!

Let us start with two ground realities:
1. Pakistan has been unable to change the status quo in Kashmir through war or diplomacy.

2. India has been unable to demolish the terrorism infrastructure in Pakistan on its own or through diplomacy.

I think that India has in Musharraf a realist who wants peace with India and is also in a position to deliver it. Let us see Musharraf`s proposal in this light. To me, Mushy`s proposal is important only because Pakistan has publicly acknowledged what it had already privately accepted, that the Pakistani traditional position is untenable. But it is also a clever attempt to resurrect the two nation theory. In the name of ethnic, cultural, linguistic factors, he has tried to change the three administrative divisions of the Indian J&K into five regions based on muslim/non-muslim majorities. So, as a bargaining position, he wants the muslim majority tehsils of Jammu and Ladakh in addition to the valley. Therefore, India clearly cannot accept his 7-region formula as a basis for discussion.

But this does not mean that India can not move from the status quo postition. It should be clear to any Indian that Musharraf cannot sell status-quo even to his corps commanders, let alone to the Pakistani public. So, the Indians should consider making some concession to enable him to declare a partial victory. For example, Pakistan and India could accept joint responsibility of defending Kashmir against third countries. The two countries could even divide representation of Kashmir in various countries, where Pakistan may accept responsibility for respresenting them in gulf countries. Pakistanis may be given the right to visit Kashmir without visas and Kashmiris to visit Pakistan, this could become a precursor to the elimination of visas for travel between the two countries.

The above specific examples may or may not be workable but the idea is that Musharraf has to be able to show something for his efforts while India can get away without redrawing the boundaries.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

jang #158
fyi, you display a typical Paki habit- the topic was Indian Navy submarines, I wasn`t discussing anything with you, we don`t know each other from Adam and yet you get personal.

YLH
//...PS: My father`s religion does not necessarily determine my own.... what my faith is , is a personal matter of mine..//

Are you saying that your father was a Qadiani .... but you converted a different sect like Shia or Sunni ?

Manto #134,

Gandiv...

A few posts ago you signed off with the letter `t`... whats that about? Are you trying to impersonate our beloved temporal... or worse... I shudder.


Read up #95 before you shudder, shiver or shrink.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Regarding the terminology of Sindu/Indus, the British followed an ancient practice, going back at least to the time of the Greeks. That land of India was commonly known in Greece, although Greeks knew much less about India than they did about places nearer to them, such as Egypt and Persia.

At various times different Greek historians and people entertained some very fanciful notions about India, among them -

- India was full of gold. Indians travelled to a secret place to fill their bags with gold! ( There was interest and speculation among some Greeks regarding the location of this secret spot. :))

- India had too many cities to count, and was equal in size to the rest of Asia

- India was a third of the entire world

- Ganges was bigger than the Indus and some other rivers combined

There were some interesting descriptions of India in the later period of the Greeks (after Alexander). For instance, Indians did not put up memorials to the dead, believing that the virtues of people were their sufficient memorial. Indians warred among themselves, and were repeatedly attacked by outsiers (note: this was the situation even then!). However, Indians did not consider it righteous to attack lands outside of India.

There is a description of seven classes of people, divided according to their professions (my comment: clearly, this was before the caste system as understood today was born). It seems hereditary principle had already been put in place partly (the class of Brahmins remained open to everybody!). Despite the emerging hereditary principle, no class was particularly disadvantaged (note: as became the norm in later centuries). There is a claim that India was the only country that did not have slaves. No Indian was at all a slave. All Indians were free. In this India was seen as better than Lacedaemonia, which had at least Helots, whose position was similar to that of slaves.

#154 ahmedmadani

the interactor nick sadna means ``Not Sad``.

ArjunM,

Forgive me for not continuing my debate with an obviously illogical and obsessed person like you...

Needless to say you are as usual not up on facts about the issue... and your obsessive ranting and raving will do wonders with likeminded people e.g. sadna, alephnull and other Pakistan obsessed Indian knee jerkers... but will not do much for your reputation amongst reasonable people.

So I bid you farewell..... untill you get the courage to be objective.... which is probably never.


-YLH

PS: Consider my earlier post a response to your latest one.