Goraaz are being polite towards India and see this as one big chunky commercial market with carrot and hay dangling in the fore-ground ! Thier credibility in what they say or research is as good as reading-listening to 'hindu samachar' Yukhhh !
Nah lets face it, Goras have always been fascinated by India. What helps India's case is:
Hinduism: Both in terms of culture and religion, it is damn 'flexible' from worshiping Muslim pirs to proclaiming Jesus as an avatar, the fluidity is remarkable. I don't mean this as an insult to hindu readers, since I am simply repeating Nehru's views on Hinduism.
Looking up to the Goras as saviors. When I was in Bangalore on business, I had the chance to see this in action. Some of the new 'emerging' IT middle class tried to replicate the gora lifestyle despite looking completely ridiculous. When I was in Delhi, things were a lot better with older money and true Indian class.
Commercially minded and education oriented: Indians tend to be focused on both matters which allows them to be fully integrated into the global econo my. While Pakis are still trying to grapple with the retarded 'War on Terror.'
These are some of the factors I see in India's rise. I don't fault them for it, my regret is that we're not doing too well in the international stage.
Re: Kashmir - a new, interesting, and dangerous viewpoint
That is correct. We have absolutely no right/obligation to Indian Muslims. They had the chance to move to Pakistan in 1947, up till the 1950s but they chose to stay. They cast there lot with India. To this day, Indian Muslims hate Pakistan with passion, so why would we even CONSIDER them moving to Pakistan? If things get ugly for them in India, it will be an INTERNAL matter of India, just we Pakistanis don't want anyone to interfere in our domestic matters.
Kashmir, by its history and admission, is a bilateral issue. Pakistan was robbed of one of its core provinces during partition. From the dubious instrument of accession to India's illegal grab of Kashmir, to the consistent rebellion in the region, Kashmir is something near and dear to us. Even if Kashmir goes its own way (independence), we would be ok with that because we could work with the Kashmiri state.
I think that the article makes some valid points, but the Kashmir issue will continue to be an intractable problem between India and Pakistan. Unlike India, we don't have any expansionist dreams of grabbing Indian territory. Kashmir does not belong to India and if the issue is resolved we can go our separate ways.
If you read the entire article, it also talks about India's "secular constitution" falling apart if Kashmir is handed over to Pak or granted independence (under Pak control for all practical purposes). That legitimizes India as a Hindu state. What happens to the 150 million Indian muslims then ?
Bottomline - let each country hang on to the land area that it currently controls and call it quits from hereon. Dragging this issue forward is in no one's interest.
Nah lets face it, Goras have always been fascinated by India. What helps India's case is:
Hinduism: Both in terms of culture and religion, it is damn 'flexible' from worshiping Muslim pirs to proclaiming Jesus as an avatar, the fluidity is remarkable. I don't mean this as an insult to hindu readers, since I am simply repeating Nehru's views on Hinduism.
Looking up to the Goras as saviors. When I was in Bangalore on business, I had the chance to see this in action. Some of the new 'emerging' IT middle class tried to replicate the gora lifestyle despite looking completely ridiculous. When I was in Delhi, things were a lot better with older money and true Indian class.
Commercially minded and education oriented: Indians tend to be focused on both matters which allows them to be fully integrated into the global econo my. While Pakis are still trying to grapple with the retarded 'War on Terror.'
These are some of the factors I see in India's rise. I don't fault them for it, my regret is that we're not doing too well in the international stage.
------------------cvabn---------------
For its size and scale Pakistan is quite alright in terms of 'educated wise heads' locally or on the international forums.
Its just that India is so 'big' that their natives can't see things beyond their visors.
It seems only just-the-other-day when Indira Ghandi was the state head and Indians were deprived of the true outside world and never dreamed about "Imported" stuff in their wildest dream.
Rajiv Ghandi was the shackle breaker of indian econmy and it doesn't seems very long a ago.
Whats makes you think that Pakistan with its ever so presnt and past acquiantances with the International think tanks need to learn any thing from India.? Or match-frenzy its progress ?
It will happen for Pakistan and inshallah it will be sustainable.
^ If you read the entire article, it also talks about India's "secular constitution" falling apart if Kashmir is handed over to Pak or granted independence (under Pak control for all practical purposes). That legitimizes India as a Hindu state. What happens to the 150 million Indian muslims then ?
Bottomline - let each country hang on to the land area that it currently controls and call it quits from hereon. Dragging this issue forward is in no one's interest.
Mr. Punjabee, I did read the full article. In terms of the question of Kashmir, India's constitution does NOT consideration because:
1.Kashmir issue predates the formulation of the Indian constitution.
2. The secular constitution was an Indian CHOICE. The partition of 1947 was on communal basis with a Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Please review the articles of independence from that period.
3. Why is Kashmir the guarantor of India secularism. When you helped split our country apart in 1971, why did you let Bangladesh become independent? If India wanted to further cements its secular nature - it could have convinced the Bengalis to join the Union of India? Even if the Bengalis had rejected the idea, why was no attempt made by the Indian side? Perhaps it was being Bengal has no strategic value to India and it did not want its Muslim population to rise? Yes, I believe that was it.
As for the 150 million Muslim question, why is it relevant to this discussion? If they are expelled or forced to convert, it will be an internal matter of India. We, as Pakistanis, would be disingenuous and conniving if we were to meddle in the Indian Muslim question. Since the Muslims of India (NOT including Kashmir) are patriotic Indians first, how does this become a bilateral issue? Resolve Kashmir and Pakistan is no longer a thorn in India's ambitions for being a power player on the international arena.
Under no circumstance is the status quo acceptable.
For its size and scale Pakistan is quite alright in terms of 'educated wise heads' locally or on the international forums.
Its just that India is so 'big' that their natives can't see things beyond their visors.
It seems only just-the-other-day when Indira Ghandi was the state head and Indians were deprived of the true outside world and never dreamed about "Imported" stuff in their wildest dream.
Rajiv Ghandi was the shackle breaker of indian econmy and it doesn't seems very long a ago.
Whats makes you think that Pakistan with its ever so presnt and past acquiantances with the International think tanks need to learn any thing from India.? Or match-frenzy its progress ?
It will happen for Pakistan and inshallah it will be sustainable.
Bro, I am sorry to say that Pakistan is not realizing it's potential. We could have been the Israel of South Asia, but a combination of factors have prevented us from achieving true success. Even if we account for India's size, we should be achieving certain niches in global economy, which we have not been able to do so.
Inshallah, we will move forward but we need to accept our shortcomings.
Bro, I am sorry to say that Pakistan is not realizing it's potential. We could have been the Israel of South Asia, but a combination of factors have prevented us from achieving true success. Even if we account for India's size, we should be achieving certain niches in global economy, which we have not been able to do so.
Inshallah, we will move forward but we need to accept our shortcomings.
-------------------cvabn---------------------
Realisticaly if India can do it so can Pakistan !
Its just ower circumstances are different, our own domestic issue are different.
What are the chances that Pakistan will sucumb to these pressures ?
Currently India is our 2nd most dangerouse distraction away from any true progress and advancments.
-------------------cvabn---------------------
Realisticaly if India can do it so can Pakistan !
Its just ower circumstances are different, our own domestic issue are different.
What are the chances that Pakistan will sucumb to these pressures ?
Currently India is our 2nd most dangerouse distraction away from any true progress and advancments.
No I agree with you, Pakistan can do it. I am certain that if we get the right people in terms of our leadership and sort our problems, we can do an amazing job.
Yes, India is a very dangerous distraction. They never fully accepted the state of Pakistan, so they will continue to pose as a threat. As the Mumbai attacks have demonstrated, Indian hate runs deep.
Something is fishy here, from 10% to 60%.....Am I missing something?
Yeah. Because it isn't 60. Considering the huge demonstrations for 2 months this year, I doubt it jumped to 60. Mostlikely went down.
Firzene, ready to buy the bridge yet? Also I got a handwritten letter from BBC. So I absolutely believe it.
The solutions aren't feasible to the current establishment. Implement UNSC resolutions and give the Kashmiri people the right to decide their own destiny.
Re: Kashmir - a new, interesting, and dangerous viewpoint
Easiest thing to do is make Kashmir its own state and let them do what they want. Anyone in Kashmir that really wants to be a Pakistani that bad can cross the border and settle in Pakistan. Truthfully, how many Pakistanis leave the country in hoards abandoning their identity as Pakistanis. To grab ahold of a piece of land, where people don't even REALLY want to be Pakistani, and the cost is instability and poor safety internally in Pakistan? Why is the Pakistani government willing to pay that cost?
These so-called jihaadis who do not even know the true meaning of a jihad, who have no education or understanding of the ploy they're being manipulated in by ISI and the Raegan administration are now destroying villages and killing the freedom of people in NWFP to live and breathe peacefully and stopping them from any advancements. And for what? We still do not have Kashmir.
Kashmir has been way too expensive for Pakistan, and I fear Pakistani citizens will be paying by experiencing Taliban horrors.
Its just a piece of land. And for an "Islamic" republic to be so greedy to run after land, and ignore the pleas and needs of its own people, makes it no better than the trashy Taliban now taking over its northwestern lands.
If Pakistan ends up being drawn in as a 3rd target in the US "War on Terror", so be it. I'd rather have the cancer killed before it spreads. Taliban takes over perfectly beautiful secular SWAT today. What happens tomorrow? Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad will fall to them too. And then rohtay rehna. I'm sure most people here may not have family in SWAT, but you probably have family in more urban areas of Pakistan which could be next.
Re: Kashmir - a new, interesting, and dangerous viewpoint
I assume you're still crying about muslims in Kashmir being "raped" at the hands of the Indian military? Hence why having a separate independent Kashmir state is probably the best option - it rids Kashmiris of both us Pakistanis who destroy everything we touch, it seems like, and it also rids the Kashmiris of Indians.
Fact of the matter is that Pakistanis shouldn't be chanting today about the rights of the Kashmiris when they cannot provide rights for their own people. Currently, girls in SWAT have been told not to appear on school grounds (public AND private) or they will be bombed, and meanwhile the government turns its face the other way. Injustices from current and past Pakistani governments are too enumerous to list.
If you had any pity for the Kashmiris, you'd want them to have their own state. Far from the grips of a Pakistani government that only knows how to rape its own people of basic rights.
If you are supporting the position that Kashmir should be part of Pakistan, then you, by definition, cannot be concerned of the well-being of Kashmiris. You only want their land.
Re: Kashmir - a new, interesting, and dangerous viewpoint
No I am merely stating the opinions of a person on the internet who has never set foot in the region, shouldn't really be talking about issues she does not understand. Ask a Palestinian who has suffered a lot if their cause is worth it. Ask a Kurd or an Basque seperatists. It something a person sitting in the comforts of the US will never understand.
Secondly as stated by the Government of Pakistan for the past 60 odd years, whatever the Kashmiri people decide is fine by us. Give them the chance. That is the stand I take. Please don't assume facts or positions based on your own personal judgement.
If you actual read the posts in this thread and I have a few in it, you would know I already stated this before you posted.
Re: Kashmir - a new, interesting, and dangerous viewpoint
Pakistan would like to keep the Kashmir issue alive by supporting insurgency in the region. However, facts on the ground are that people want development and a better life for themselves more than anything else. Hopefully the new Kashmiri govt of Omar Abdullah will provide them that and the issue of separate state would go on the backburner.
And those who are desperate to join Pakistan can cross over even now....
Re: Kashmir - a new, interesting, and dangerous viewpoint
Those that are saying drop the Kashmir issue should realize that all of our rivers come from there. Yes, we have paid a heavy price but that does not mean that we say forget it and move on.
I'm not advocating the self-defeating jihadi option or doing more Kargils but to just drop the issue that is at the core of our national survival is just insane. We need to sit down and talk but where are the Indians to talk? Musharraf the Genius completely destroyed our stand by first doing Kargil and then say "forget UN resolutions" and all the while playing footsie with jihadi groups.
At the end of the day, my view is that sane elements within India cannot avoid reaching a conclusion that their dreams of great power status will never be achieved if they keep Kashmir under the jack boots. I don't see an independent Kashmir as a serious possibility. However, I do believe that some sort of joint control could be worked out. Remember that the Kashmir valley's natural commercial and geographical links are on our side. When Hindu extremists blockaded the valley last summer, the normally docile apple farmers were shouting - "Kashmir ki mandi, Rawalpindi!"
A 50 year old issue is not going to be resolved overnight but we need to keep working at it without letting it consume ourselves. Shifting from end to end like a pendulum is not good policy.
Re: Kashmir - a new, interesting, and dangerous viewpoint
^ You make a lot of good points, however the problem is that hard liners on both side want an "all or none" kind of solution and have not allowed moderate elements to work out a "win-win" solution.
And the support of terrorism in the name of Kashmiri "independence" has not gone down too well with the Indian masses.
Re: Kashmir - a new, interesting, and dangerous viewpoint
^ Hardliners perhaps, but there has not been a single Indian response to Pakistani concessions in the last few years. I agree reg the jihadi policy but you should note that the Indian Kashmir elections this time would not have been violence free if not for the pressure used by Pakistan on the militant groups. So you cannot blame Pakistan every time bombs go off in IHK and then say nothing when Pakistan uses restraint.
I think the Indian strategy has been to believe that Pakistan will forget Kashmir under a mountain of "Confidence" building measures and "bhai-bhai" types moves. Indian intransigence is only breeding support for hardliners within Pakistan.
^ Hardliners perhaps, but there has not been a single Indian response to Pakistani concessions in the last few years.
Can you elaborate on Pakistani concessions ?
...the Indian Kashmir elections this time would not have been violence free if not for the pressure used by Pakistan on the militant groups.
Thats Pakistan's version. Indian version is that elections were successful because the heavy army presence made sure militants could not strike, and people wanted development and hence came out to vote.
I think the Indian strategy has been to believe that Pakistan will forget Kashmir under a mountain of "Confidence" building measures and "bhai-bhai" types moves. Indian intransigence is only breeding support for hardliners within Pakistan.
That may or may not be true depending on your perspective. Things were pretty quiet & peaceful in Kashmir after 1948. Then came 1965, 1971 and creation of Bangladesh. Then Pakistan started supporting militancy in the valley. All of this has led to a perception that the Kashmir issue is Pakistan's creation to retaliate against India for supporting Bangladesh.
Musharraf offered to set aside UNSC resolutions. He offered to consider phased approach and joint sovereignty plus intermediate steps that do not make either side lose face. Pakistan agreed to soft-LOC for easing suffering of Kashmiris and help with trade even though we do not believe in the LoC.
[QUOTE]
Thats Pakistan's version. Indian version is that elections were successful because the heavy army presence made sure militants could not strike, and people wanted development and hence came out to vote.
[/QUOTE]
Why do Indian experts then say that Pakistan's influence was the primary reason for guns being silent during this year's elections. Even Hurriyat leaders like Syed Geelani blamed Pakistan for lack of support. The United Jihad Council has blasted Pakistan for stopping of support. Tell me - if 700,000 Indian fauj could not stop militants last few times what made them successful this time? This is not a Bollywood story!
[quote]
Then Pakistan started supporting militancy in the valley. All of this has led to a perception that the Kashmir issue is Pakistan's creation to retaliate against India for supporting Bangladesh.
[/quote]
BS! Kashmiris were suffering with no recourse until the rigged elections in 1980s and firing on peaceful demostrators caused a few to take up arms. Even Indian right wing authors like Nayan Chada Behera admitted this openly. I was at an event in DC many years ago where even an retired Indian Brigadier who was ranting about "cross-border terrorism" admitted that the rigged elections were the trigger. Yes Pakistan supported the fighters but only after they rose up on their own! This is not Bharat Rakshak or some Hindu forum where you can BS and get away. If you want an honest discussion, then start with honesty!
Musharraf offered to set aside UNSC resolutions. He offered to consider phased approach and joint sovereignty plus intermediate steps that do not make either side lose face. Pakistan agreed to soft-LOC for easing suffering of Kashmiris and help with trade *even though we do not believe in the LoC. *
Concessions ? How do any of these help India ?
As for not believing in LoC, both sides had agreed to respect the LoC in 1972.
Why do Indian experts then say that Pakistan's influence was the primary reason for guns being silent during this year's elections. Even Hurriyat leaders like Syed Geelani blamed Pakistan for lack of support. The United Jihad Council has blasted Pakistan for stopping of support. Tell me - if 700,000 Indian fauj could not stop militants last few times what made them successful this time? This is not a Bollywood story!
I agree - Pakistan's lack of active support during the elections probably helped the Indian army. However, before you start taking credit for any of it keep in mind that Pakistan is under heavy international scrutiny for 26/11 and any other Pak sponsored terrorist incidents at this time would only have strengthened India's cause.
BS! Kashmiris were suffering with no recourse until the rigged elections in 1980s and firing on peaceful demostrators caused a few to take up arms. Even Indian right wing authors like Nayan Chada Behera admitted this openly. I was at an event in DC many years ago where even an retired Indian Brigadier who was ranting about "cross-border terrorism" admitted that the rigged elections were the trigger. Yes Pakistan supported the fighters but only after they rose up on their own! This is not Bharat Rakshak or some Hindu forum where you can BS and get away. If you want an honest discussion, then start with honesty!
Whats BS is that Pak supported the Kashmiris only after they rose up on their own. Pak first tried this stunt in 1948 to pressurize the Maharaja, but that heavily backfired with the Maharaja deciding to go along with India. Then it tried Operation Gibraltar in 1965, which also went awry.
The "rigged elections" of 1987 is just what Pakistan used as a trigger to actively start supporting terrorism in Kashmir. I have been to Kashmir in the 70s and 80s. Tourism was booming, many Bollywood movies were being shot there, economy was good and people were generally happy. Once Pakistan supported militancy started, Kashmir and average Kashmiri's livelihood went down the drain.