2 Million troops on the border

**salvelinus** · 05-30-2002

Maybe India has the Chinese view - with over a billion people, they can afford to lose several hundred million. I don't know that's true, just a thought. That is/was the Chinese view.
I don't think either side realizes the devastation nukes would cause. It would be worse than Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and not just because the bombs are more powerful now. Those were one time events. Nukes now would be a prolonged tit for tat exchange.
Why anyone would blame the UK at this stage is beyond me. And no one has answered why India wants to hang on to Kashmir so badly, even if various injustices half a century ago did occur.
This is 2002, not 1947.
Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't blame people long dead for what you do now.

**ihsir** · 05-30-2002

>>One of the most chilling aspects of the current India/Pakistan situation is just how casually both sides speak of nuclear war. <<

>>I don't think either side realizes the devastation nukes would cause.<<

India has signed a 'no first use of nukes' agreement
Pakistan has not.

Gen Musharraf had released a statement staing that he may use the nukes as a last option against India. And considering the might of the Indian Army in comparision it might come earlier than he expects.

India has been retaliating to the militancy problems in Kashmir and not initiating any. These militants have their bases in either Pakistan or in PoK (pakistan occupied kashmir)

>>Why anyone would blame the UK at this stage is beyond me.

Nobody is blaming UK or US or Germany or Fiji or any other country, it was just a visit into the history of India-Pakistan tensions.

>>And no one has answered why India wants to hang on to Kashmir so badly,<<

Because it is a part of India.

**Clyde** · 05-31-2002

"India has been retaliating to the militancy problems in Kashmir and not initiating any. These militants have their bases in either Pakistan or in PoK (pakistan occupied kashmir) "

India holds Pakistan accountable for the action of militants, which is somewhat a-kin to England holding Ireland responseable for the IRA.

**salvelinus** · 05-31-2002

Originally posted by ihsir
>>And no one has answered why India wants to hang on to Kashmir so badly,<<

Because it is a part of India.

Ok, and India was once part of the British Empire, as was the US. However, the people living there felt themselves sufficiently different/repressed/etc that they fought for independence. And got it. Nearer India, East Timor just became a nation this year after fighting for independence. Why is Kashmir different?
What does India think would be the result if Pakistan could/did stop militants on their side of the border? Peace and love? No, they would have to remain essentially an occupying army with a hostile Kashmiri population. Ask the UK how well that's worked in Ireland, or Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, etc.

**stevey** · 05-31-2002

Please don't compare Northern Ireland with Kashmir or the West Bank.
The majority of Northern Ireland are protestants who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. thats the whole problem. If the majority wanted to be part of Ireland that would make the whole situation different, then it would be no problem for them to do so. This is something most Americans do not seem to grasp. The large majority of Northern Irelands population wish to remain British. Stop talking about 'occupying armies'.

**salvelinus** · 05-31-2002

Well I would if the army would get out.

**Sunny** · 05-31-2002

Just saw an interesting program about global warming on National Geographic. ...Sure, I said, nothing to worry about. Before half the program was finished I was dazzling and shocked. This is what consumerism and lack of moderation has brought to us.
And that humanity, in the 21th century, should still be raging senseless idiotic wars at the costs of millions of innocent lives for the sake of small pieces of land...And mind you, tragically these wars have been going on for dozens of years...Makes you wonder. When will mankind grow up?
When will we start realising that we are all part of a global community and that whatever happens in any other region affects me too because now all our economies are inter-related. You'd think we learned a couple of things after WW1 & 2...

I sigh in grief...

**ihsir** · 05-31-2002

Well, I'll have to agree with stevey here... Kashmir is not Palestine or N.Ireland and stop saying that it is army occupied. If anything is army occupied it is the PoK. It belongs to India and they should hand it over and leave us in peace.

A recent poll conducted by some British NGO says that majority Kashmiris want to stay on with India and not with Pakistan.

Colin Powell also stated the Pakistanis have not yet stood up to the task of stopping crossborder infiltration and he hopes that Gen Musharraf does something soon about it.

**Clyde** · 06-01-2002

"A recent poll conducted by some British NGO says that majority Kashmiris want to stay on with India and not with Pakistan. "

Then why are India so against a referendum?

" It belongs to India and they should hand it over and leave us in peace."

They claim it as part of Pakistan. Why does India want keep it so bad? It's not like India's short of land!

If the people want to be part of india then a referendum will solve the problem because Pakistan have said they want one.

**vasanth** · 06-01-2002

Well more problems then arise....We are saying that the land belongs to India and it is an Integral part of India.. So why should we hold a refurndum in our own land.. We are holding elections there next month.. Even if it agreed the problem is not going to solve it is not that simple.... The Muhajeddend or the terrorists will still attack...

**Clyde** · 06-01-2002

"We are saying that the land belongs to India and it is an Integral part of India"

I realise that, but Pakistan also claims Kashmir as part of Pakistan. And its hardly "integral", if Kashmir became part of Pakistan or became an independant state it wouldn't have much of an effect on India's economy or their political power.

"So why should we hold a refurndum in our own land"

Because 1) That's what the kashmiri PEOPLE want.
and 2) the alternative could result in nuclear war.

"Even if it agreed the problem is not going to solve it is not that simple"

I'm not so sure, it is widely thought that Kashmir would vote for independance in a referendum that WOULD solve the problem.

**vasanth** · 06-01-2002

There are many part of India where groups ask for a seperate state.. But that cannot be allowed to happen.. It would be bad for both the state and the country.. And out constitution does not allow any states to be a seperate country.. That si the reason kashmir has its own rules and regulation without much intereference from the Cental Government of our country... It is as good as a seperate state....

**Clyde** · 06-01-2002

"It would be bad for both the state and the country.. "

What nonsense, it would be bad for neither, the conflict itself is far more damaging.

"And out constitution does not allow any states to be a seperate country.. "

So change it.

"That si the reason kashmir has its own rules and regulation without much intereference from the Cental Government of our country... It is as good as a seperate state...."

India and Pakistan have been fighting about Kashmir since partition. Kashmir is currently split into a pakistani Kashmir and Indian kashmir, the militants want Pakistani rule. The people used to want Pakistani rule and now want independance.

India CANNOT win this conflict with traditional force, say there is another war, say India beats Pakistan into the ground, with or without nuclear weapons, what then? You think the militants will suddenly stop?

The people of kashmir want to be an independat state they are tired of being fought over.

Allowing the people of Kashmir control over their future is the only solution, not only that but it is a just one.

**Zeeshan** · 06-01-2002

When the British were about to leave the Indian Subcontinent and it was decided that there will be a division of territories among two new countries (namely India and Pakistan).
Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy to the Indian Subcontinent which was uptill then ruled by the British, gave his "3rd June Plan" on 3rd June, 1946, which defined the formula (that's not a mathematical formula) by which the territories were to be divided into Pakistan and India.

This plan was approved by the British Parliament on 20th February 1947 which said that the British would leave the Indian subcontinent by July 1948. Later, by an ammendment this date was changed to 15th August 1947.

A/c to the plan, it was decided that the decision to annex with either Pakistan or India will be made by the people living in that particular province or princely state (at that time there were more than fifty such states, KASHMIR, being only one of them) by voting.

The people of KASHMIR were never given that right. LORD MOUNTBATTEN became the first Governer General of India while
MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH, (a local leader) the Governor General of Pakistan. Now, there was this REDCLIFF COMMISION (lead by Sir Serale Redcliff, a british lawyer) appointed by the British parliament to decide the borders for the countries. He along with MOUNTBATTEN, cheated and included KASHMIR in India. A part of that Kashmir was won by Pakistan in the war b/w PAK and IND in 1948.

The first prime minister of INDIA, Mr. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, promised that the people of KASHMIR will be given the right of self-determination. He even signed a UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION. Unfortunately, after his death, his followers did not follow onto his footsteps. The RESOLUTION is still lying in some UN table, it has been more than 50 years since then.

The people of KASHMIR are fighting for the right of self-determination. This fight CANNOT be called terrorism....Even if PAKISTAN supports them ... i don't think there's anything wrong with that...fighting for ur own piece of land. PAKISTAN just wants INDIA to follow that UN Resolution which it's own prime minister signed...

As far as terrorism is concerned, how can Pakistan(= 1/3 in size of India) even try any such thing with India, when it knows that if tries anything bad...it'll have to face a WAR, in which it's army is most likely to lose in a conventional battle.

**Clyde** · 06-01-2002

"This fight CANNOT be called terrorism...."

It can be called terrorism, because the militants are terrorists who attack innocents.

Undoubtedly Kashmir should have been part of Pakistan, and undoubtedly it should now be given a referendum to decide it's future.

BUT the militants who are blowing up women and children, are terrorists, and they are the primary cause of the current crisis.