pakistan fight india because of religen or land or material things?
Re: Secularism: Theory and Practice
Because India fights Pakistan. Remember… it’s India that clearly has no interest in peace because it refuses to accep the kind of third party arbitration pakistan wants, the kind of arbitration that has brought Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and many other disputes closer to resolution.
Re: Secularism: Theory and Practice
i think even if they were one country they would be fighting over water
this is reality even among sindh and punjab.
Re: Indo-Pak Conflict Discussion: Split from secularism thread
The difference is, no one has died in the Sindh/Punjab water dispute. I can't believe you Indians today take the Indo-Pak conflict so lightly as to compare it to the Punjab-Sindh dispute.
People dying is a very serious and tragic matter.... but I guess on that side of the border you're noe too concerned with nationalism and jingoism
Re: Indo-Pak Conflict Discussion: Split from secularism thread
both are same we fell victim to relgious and ethnic nationalism
Re: Indo-Pak Conflict Discussion: Split from secularism thread
And yet Pakistan's calls to adopt third party intervention, which has a proven track record of success, of making small advances even in disputes as stubborn as the Middle East, are ignored by India.
Why is India so afraid of peace? Why does India love conflict so much?
Re: Secularism: Theory and Practice
Intentional or not, it is intereting to see how the issue is framed here: Because India fights Pakistan
Of course one must completely disregard history, even recent events, to come to this conclusion. The initiator of this thread put it more accurately: pakistan fight india because of religen or land or material things
Put into the correct frame of refrence, the topic is much more easily debated.
Does anyone remember grand schemes like Operation Gibraltar, or Operation Grand Slam? Maybe the Kargil conflict will bring back some memories.
The problem with conflict resolution is that there need to be two parties that want to resolve issues. To date, Pakistan and it’s military do not want resolution. Though history is littered with the skeletons of failed Pakistani military interventions and policy formulations, the leadership, again military, are unwilling to accept the staus of their policies. This is a major failure of the military mind.
Most people were of the opinion that in 1999 the Kashmir issue would have been resolved. India would have given Pakistan large portions of the Valley, the issue of Chinese occupied Kashmir (which was given by Pakistan) would not have been brought up, Gilgit and Baltistan would retain status quo (as part of Pakistan), and Pakistan would have been allowed a face saving victory as well as rights to say that the two nation theory had won out. The Indian public was ready to shed Kashmir. Sharif and Vajpayee would have gotten the Nobel prize and we would have been on our merry way. Obviously Musharraf had different plans.
There is of course one more thing to consider when one issues statements like:it’s India that clearly has no interest in peace
One wonders what all the jihadis will do when they don’t have Kashmir to fight over. Perhaps they will turn Pakistan into the utopia that was Afghanistan.
Re: Indo-Pak Conflict Discussion: Split from secularism thread
pakistan fights india because india has kashmir (at least the desirable portions).
india, like any country or person, would like to retain its possessions. this is common sense, not fear of peace or love of conflict.
if some punk attacks me 4 times because he wants my car, giving him my car to stop the attacks would make me a braindead idiot, not a peace-lover.
Re: Indo-Pak Conflict Discussion: Split from secularism thread
Indian political system is the not organised at the best of times. But even in trying times the military always been loyal to their political masters. The political system has been mostly drawn out of non-military personalities. Hence I dont find any reason why Indian political system would ever not want peace with Pakistan.
I think it is Pakistans military which stands in the way of peace. They would like to have the conflict continue. If not then how do u explain kargil.
Re: Indo-Pak Conflict Discussion: Split from secularism thread
at statements like “Pakistan fights India because it has Kashmir… desirable part etc”. Nobody gives a damn what Kashmiris want.
Re: Secularism: Theory and Practice
Land, and principle…
Re: Indo-Pak Conflict Discussion: Split from secularism thread
we both know the situation is more complex than simply an issue of what kashmiris want.
Re: Indo-Pak Conflict Discussion: Split from secularism thread
Hitler was civilian and military was loyal to the “non-military” personalities aka Nazis. So what’s your point.
Pakistan may have started Kargil or Gibraltor, however Bharati “non-military” personalities have to come clean about Siachin (in Kashmir) and Shah Beg Bahini (in the then East Pakistan).
Military or non-military, our collective home called subcontinent had few peaceful moments when puny Rajas and Nawabs didn’t fight on $tupid things. The funny thing is that peaceful moments mostly came through when an outsider like Mogals or Brits were ruling Delhi.
Kashmir was grabbed by Bharatis during civilian rule in both Bharat and Pakistan. Therefore your military vs. civilian argument may not be that applicable.
Looking back at history (and hind sight is 20/20 when we don’t wear prejudicial lenses), there was really no need for Bharat to occupy Kashmir.
In the larger picture, Kashmir has robbed Bharat of its vital place in the world. It has drained precious resources and forced the region into poverty. Bharati leaders had a golden chance to take over reigns from British and turn the subcontinent into the most properous region in the world. Unfotunately they chose the path of puny rajas (and not the royals like Brits or Mogals).
Look at the stats, and you will realize that Pakistan is like one province or state compared to geography, economy, and population of Bharat. Yet Bharati leaders chose to come down to the level of Pakistan.
For a Billionaire it is OK to donate few lakhs for the sake of charity (good) or one-upmanship (not so good). The same way for Corporate Bharat, spinning off some baggage, some non-productive entities made sense back in 1947 and it makes sense even now.
By giving up Kashmir, Bharat can win Pakistan (geo-strategically) and eventually the resulting peace will make Bharat as the true global leader that it should always have been.
I can see Bharat will be a leader and soon it will outsource work to cheaper Europeans like Germany instead of the other way around. You guys may laugh at this prediction but I have faith in the region called “subcontinent” and brilliance of its people.
Best regards
Re: Indo-Pak Conflict Discussion: Split from secularism thread
^ i disagree.. Hitler participated in the first world war. He was a commissioned officer. He had his friends in the army. Most of them then later joined with him in the socialist party that he created.
Re: Indo-Pak Conflict Discussion: Split from secularism thread
anti..
Lets not get into the origin of the conflict. Lets see what can be done. Majority of Indians are afraid that Pakistan will keep asking more. There are many places in India where Muslims are in majority. If some stupid guy in there decided to ferment trouble in the area, then the whole peace of the country is lost. So India cannot at any point decide to yield to kashmir away.
India is a diverse country. The southies does not have much in common with Northies. What if the southies decide to part. What if Pakistanies support such a movement. These are hypothetical questions. But these are possible cenarious which could happen. Hence India have to show that it cannot yield under pressure or by terrorism.
Re: Indo-Pak Conflict Discussion: Split from secularism thread
and its not as simple as “Pakistan fights India cuz…” too 
Re: Indo-Pak Conflict Discussion: Split from secularism thread
Maharaaj Ji! Kashmir issue is a disease afflicting our region for the last 60 years. We ought to see how it started. Only then we can figure out what can we do now and how to recover from this problem.
I see that my Bharati friends do not want to understand the issue. They simply want to convince the Kashmiris, Pakistanis and the rest of the world to accept the status quo.
Maharaaj Ji! Pakistan do not want Ahmadabad or Bombay, Bagnlore or Chenai, Kolkata or Hyderabad. Those are not “disputed”. The only disputed territory is Kashmir. So please do not give us these arguments about the rest of Bharat.
As I said, earlier, Bharat can be the #1 superpower the day it starts getting rid of the old baggage.
There were two things done wrong at the creation or independence of Bharat: 1. Nehruvian Socialism, and 2. Kashmir Occupation.
Bharatis finally got rid of socialism and embraced free and open market. Look how much prosperity is now heading to Bharat.
This prosperity will quadruple the day Kashmir is “spun off”. I guarantee that Pakistan will not demand any part of Bharat, because the two countries will be joined strategically and economically anyway. If you can come to my house without visa, and I can visit yours, then there is no dispute and no territorial claims.
In essence, Bharat occupied Kashmir and lost Pakistan. This is what we call penny wise Maharaj Ji!
Best regards