South Asia’s Clarence Darrow

``Who knows? One of those ``if else`` questions of history, we can`t prove and disprove iether way ........ But the point is that india did compromise while it had the upper hand and as things turned out - that was mistake - it basically back-fired. If india had taken the advantage of the situation as normally people do - things may have turned out better - that`s all. ``

maybe this was a compromise in your view, evidently it wasnt to the satisfaction of the kashmiri`s or pakistanis and a one sided decision is no settlement.

``Compromises donot always bring best results, is what I am saying``

true, sometimes total war has to be undertaken as in WWII and the side with the greaster strength crushes the other, but in those cases rarely is it as long drawn out as this conflict.

As it appears now it will be a contest of wills and the side with the greater will shall win

You should never compromise or find ``middle ground`` with forces of evil like nazis or jihadis or fanaticism or communalism. That`s lesson history has taught us again and again...

We didn`t compromise in 1946 [ or whenever muslim communalists drew up their 14 point bullsh!t] ... and we[indians] are all better for that. Thank god for cooler heads of Nehru and Patel... We didn`t do the confederation then - and we will certainly not do it now - it`s an unthinkable proposition to have a association with a pouplation jihadized and radicalized beyond redemption.

227
//...suppose Pakistan refused to sign over kashmir, what should india have done kept the 93000 indefinitely? violated the Geneva convention? would pakistan`s signing have stopped the Kashmiris from later demanding independence and from pakistan assisting them? ....//

Who knows? One of those ``if else`` questions of history, we can`t prove and disprove iether way ........ But the point is that india did compromise while it had the upper hand and as things turned out - that was mistake - it basically back-fired. If india had taken the advantage of the situation as normally people do - things may have turned out better - that`s all.

Compromises donot always bring best results, is what I am saying. We have learnt that from 71 exeprience.

+++

//... finding some middle ground and a confederal arrangement,...//

Like I said - Confederation with an islamic jihadi military state out of question. And no compromises either, because that compromises against jihad is basically suicide ....The cure will be worse than disease.....When pakis become secular and democratic sometime in far future - may be. But then, in that scenario - there will be no need of a ``solution`` because there won`t be a Kashmir ``problem``.

Kashmir problem started because of rigged elections - it will be solved with good elections. In the interim, jihad has to defeated, pakis have to be civilized - hopefully YLH will succeed in that.

shankar there is an equivalent to u in the US its the US jews they sit in minnesota running their business`s while urging the israelis to fight on, they send funds to the settlers and to the extreme right of the likud and the ultra orthodox sephardic party. while neither they northere children have to serve and put themselves in harm`s way.

dost mittar sure they herd them to vote after the parties and candidates have been vetted by the govt.

``3) Remember the great ISRAELI motto....never EVER give in to terrorists...unka ``freedom fight`` gaya tel galli-mein.. ``

pal israelis put their money where their mouth is each one of them serves in the military, and is always avaiable in reserve, they dont sit from plush homes in suburbia urging impoverished foot soldiers to soldier on, covering from their Femi nazi wives. even all their bravado hasnt got them final victory.

in any case its a poor example to compare for the israelis occupy without giving any rights of voting, movement, security of property, business or home (or even life if they are in a punitive mood)

hindvi:

``free and fair with 400,000 plus troops?``

Those troops tried to provide protection from people you sympathise with, who threatened to kill anyone who took part in the voting. The only complaint I read about those 400,000 troops was that they sometimes coerced people into voting - not coercing them to vote for any particular party or candidate. As you know, the ruling party was defeated in that election.

suppose Pakistan refused to sign over kashmir, what should india have done kept the 93000 indefinitely? violated the Geneva convention? would pakistan`s signing have stopped the Kashmiris from later demanding independence and from pakistan assisting them?

``why should India ``compromise`` when it`s not under any pressure?``

because unless there is a political solution accptable to all parties the wound wil fester, if one or more of the parties is unsatisfied there maybe a temporary and restive peace due to the power of the dominant party but unless it is able to exert that dominance indefinitely the problem will again flare up.

compromise means finding some middle ground and a confederal arrangement, or withdrawal of security forces from the two kashmir`s and handing over security to the local police are possibilities that can be explored.

India has sustained insurgency in the north east for the past 40-50 years but people forget so have the militants, the costs for India havent been insignificant. its easy to sit in a comfy office and ask people to fight on both sides, because of poor employment prospects peopel may take the risks right now but who can speak for the future? even now the quality and quantity of the officers in the Indian army has fallen of markedly since liberalisation.

maturity and vision lies in being able to foresee the future and achieve an acceptable compromise at present rather than being forced by circumstances later.

Re: # 213

dost-mittar,

{{This is perhaps the only reason which might justify India fighting to keep Kashmir, otherwise it is not worth it.}}

Good point...but may I ADD?

1) What about the lives that OUR Indian BRAVE jawans have sacrificed? that means NOTHING to Hindvi...Indian MILT_RY is a very very admired & respected & powerful institution in India...
- They have EARNED the respect from EVERY patriotic Indian for acting like TRUE soldiers...keep out of politics...kick Pakistan`s pompous milt-ry BUTT...
-& dont let any katlu dukkar jawan from land of pure pseudo-muslims compare INDIAN milt-ry atrocities in Kashmir & stand on a HIGH moral ground

---

not after what those sons-of-dukkars did in Bangladesh... Buggers dont have the GUTS to invade Kashmir; so started a SHAMELESS proxy war...the WHOLE WORLD has awoken to the truth!

2) Too much WATER has gone down the bridge...UN resolutions are a fukkin` farce...let the ``international`` lawyers argue them AD-NAUSEUM...

3) Remember the great ISRAELI motto....never EVER give in to terrorists...unka ``freedom fight`` gaya tel galli-mein..

Have I changed?

A great American philosopher one said ``No sh*t ; Sherlock!!!``
And the cowardly/sneaky/two-faced/tactic-changin` mohari-dukkar Mushy had a LOT to do with it! Even most Americans are seeing it..

Khuda Hafiz

Re: # 177 hindvi

I was talking about the negotiations after 71 war where pakis got away with their 93000 POWs literally for a song[Bhutto begged for time to implement any deal]. Indians showed ``magnanimity`` of the victor, where as they should have struck hard since the pakis were vanquished. They should have converted LOC to border etc. etc......... And yes - pakis would have signed on the dotted lines. Even pakis know that - they always credit bhutto how he fooled Indians to get out of that jam.

Ayway - that`s just another of the many follies that Indian ``leaders`` have committed over the years on pakis and kashmir.

++++

//....Pakistan`s hasnt budged an inch under far greater duress, ...//

Exactly. If pakis don`t budge under duress then why should India ``compromise`` when it`s not under any pressure? ..... Anycase, as far as Kashmir is concerned, the Indian position is simple - partition was done and over in 1947 - those who want azzad kashmir, face west and start walking.

Confederation is a nice sentiment but ain`t going to work in real world. Moreover, Indians at large don`t have no fascination for that .... neither do most pakis.....

And no - we are NOT the same people. We used to be same at some point in history but not any more. 60 year down the drain has made a lot of difference.

Re: # 95
Dr Shridhar,

RAH! RAH!!!

Re: # 190

hindvi-saheb,

{{i am actually a Nehru admirer, Gandhi was too religous for my tastes.}}

Aha! a leftie bledding heart Fabian socialist bs believer, like my friend, dost-mittarji!:)
No wonder you 2 grandpas agree on almost each & every thing...

Re: # 23
My dear bhatija,

{{These collaborators are attacking the ideological foundations of the people that urges them to be sovereign, idependent, and free. That, in other words, mean that ruling elite would lose all its exploitative powers to oppress people. There is always a common cause - an ideology if you wil - that binds the people together. Logically, if you discredit that ideology, that people would disintegrate naturally. Divide and rule is the most efficient way to rule people. So here it is.

I know there must be a milder way to say all this, but why bother.}}

Oh Suuuure there is a milder way...a frikkin non-violent way...in REAL life...ooops I foggot...you katlu-dukkars from the wrong side of the border have always thought Gandhi & MLK Jr were ineffective morons...nothing better than to make your frustration publicised in fiery Islamic explosions...keep spittin upon the face of the Holy Prophet (phuh) by dividing his disciples into REAL disciples & AADHA disciples...

B8stard then talks about DIVIDE & RULE!!!

Hey! maybe if you got a GOOD lap-dance at Guntanamo Bay Beach resort...you will give a milder reply...when you are...er...``coming`` in the name of Allah-taala...

Khuda Hafiz

Re: # 87
My dear Romair..

Geee...wassamatter my dear Rajput cousin?
Giving me a blissful ``ignore`` I see....I`m soooo rude, aint it?...
was it somethin` I said?...cat got youre tongue?....or you are too frikkin` IDIOTIC to reply?

Whatever the reason maybe...I hope you REALLY introspect on the message (& THEN put your famous spins on it)...I dont give a hoot in hell what THY incredible opinion is of MOIS...

Do you EVER wonder why intelligent people call you Capt Clueless?
Wassa matter? waving a white flag to the onslaught of a slimy brahmin bania?; gasp!...are ya?!

Khuda Hafiz

free and fair with 400,000 plus troops? this must be your definition of a free and fair election. dost mittar again i am requesting you to view the facts the present 16 year long insurgency started after the last rigged elections in the late 80s. baring one elction every election in Kashmir was rigged. insurgencies have triggers, but their are underlying troubles brewing for long witness East Pakistan in 1971.

all separatism is not religion inspired ``pakistan ka matlab kya?`` though religion does form an important component of human culture. I have given u enough examples from the Kurds to the LTTE it is now upto u if u want to obstinately stick to your point of view.

hindvi:

``it is to be able to elect their own govt. which india hasnt allowed them bcause they are muslim``

So, it was all about being allowed to elect their own government? The last election was generally accepted to be free and fair. So, have the separatists folded their tents?