2 Million troops on the border

This is a discussion on 2 Million troops on the border within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; >>But how can they preach to us when they jumped to a war in afganistan We can't. I just hope ...

  1. #31
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,859
    >>But how can they preach to us when they jumped to a war in afganistan

    We can't.

    I just hope that you can show more restraint than the US (which I think was wrong). I don't have an answer for this. What the terrorists are doing to women and children is unforgivable and must be stopped.

    I just wish war was not humans' major problem solving method.
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  2. #32
    Registered User Jet_Master's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    291
    Here's a question. When did India become a country? I know it achieved independence in the 1940's, but was it really a country before that, or before the British imposed a structure? The impression I get is that it was a mix of local kingdoms, various maharajahs ruling their own little areas, at least until the British came.
    ---------- Brief Medieval History of India ----------

    India was a country since much before anyone now could recount! (ha ha ha). but, no, i am serious. India and the Hindu culture have actually existed much before most of the world religions emerged. india was not a political "country" in the technical terms as today. it was divided into many parts ruled by various maharajas as you pointed out. These maharajas were just kings of the land that they called their country - mind you, they did not see whole of india as their country. not until the 1600s did muslim rulers from afghanistan came to conquer india. these muslim rulers came from the arab settlements in afghanistan which was a close neighbor to india. these rulers were known as the "Mughal Rulers" and they ruled india (i mean almost all of india excpet some of the southern states) for until the 1800s or so. these were the most powerful rulers (Emperors) india had known and and they were responsible for conquering most of india and expanding their territories. these were some of india years of pride. later, by the time the british came, these rulers had fallen out of their prime. the weaker descendants slowly let the british take over. then they ruled over india until 1947 when india became an independent nation as we see it today.
    Last edited by Jet_Master; 05-24-2002 at 06:25 PM.
    I am the Alpha and the Omega!!!

  3. #33
    Unregistered
    Guest
    http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCINDIA/MAURYMAP.HTM
    http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MUGHAL/MUGHMAP.HTM
    http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCINDIA/GUPTAMAP.HTM

    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/india....html#Medieval India

    if u look at that 1st link it shows a map where india(encompassing modern pakistan and banGLADESH) WAS FORMED into a single state (empire at least) in 250 AD.
    the vast numbers of people, the sheer size and the fact that people were of widely disparate religions and cultures led to rise and fall of various ancient and mediaval empires..very complicated history as shown in the last link. but india was basically a single state ruled by the british since the 1800's, bearing in mind that germany and italy were also not single states until the 1800's either, altho they were at times in ancient and medieval history...
    since the Indians wanted their own independant state it was going to happen and it was agreed b4 the 2nd world war which delayed matters, some indians even fought with japan against britain but the vast majority fought bravely for the british empire knowing independance was coming....
    unfortunately (in my opinion) independance was rushed and the muslims and hindu's couldn't get along(with animonsities both recent and dating back 1000's of years), leading to partition of india into separate muslim and (mainly) hindu states (altho india contains many different religions inc more muslims than in pakistan and bangladesh). the basic aim was to give the muslim state land inhabited with majority muslims, india land with majority hindu). partitition led to immense slaughter and suffering, as animosity errupted and minority communities were left adrift in a sea of hostility.
    kashmir was majority muslim but ruled fairly and popularly by a maharajah who was a HINDU. (nehru was aslo a hindu kaSHMIRI)
    he thought his people were better off with india and opted for india. there was no referendum but he was broadly acting in the wishes of most of his people. pakistan said kashmir was mainly muslim and couldn't accept this so indian/paki troops fought over kashmir indecisely and it was partitioned, niether side accepting the decision...
    1n 1964 and 1971 wars the situation was stalemate.
    pakistan armed the afghan mujahdin against the soviets with US money and weapons (indeed it was the US's idea) and effectively created the taleban also. they then turned attention to kashmir creating and supporting terrorist groups to attack india. a lot of the money and weapons was that supplied by the US for the mujahadin but was 'redirected' against india.....this is what has led to the anti-american feeling in india.
    most pakistani's hate india esp. over kashmir and broadly support the terrorists. stopping support to the taleban (due to US pressure) was difficult for the paki leaders, stopping support for the terrorists is possibly political suicide. pakistan has created radical islamic monsters and now is in a tricky position...
    whether or not kashmir should have been pakistani in 1947 i don't know, but now the indians have to fight radical terrorists, to them it is similar to the US war on terrorism nomatter what most americans keep saying. you will not accept similarities with other peoples anti-terrorist fights and i don't know why.

    broadly speaking i think this is the situation, IMO.......any comments/corrections from indians/paskistani's welcomed !!!!

  4. #34
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    hey why do i 'pop out' if posting anything longer than a few lines ????
    Steve

  5. #35
    I'm Back
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    556
    I think its time to put an end to all the nonsense created by the pakistanis and finish them once and for all. they are frankly terrorist supporters and who knows maybe even Osama is there.

    Too bad this is a PG board otherwise there would have serious swearing in this post

    stevey:
    you are correct but i'll add that the Britishers created more tension between the hindu/muslims relations while leaving India.

  6. #36
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "he thought his people were better off with india and opted for india. there was no referendum but he was broadly acting in the wishes of most of his people"

    Thats not what i've been told, I was under the impression that the vast majority of Kashmir wanted to be part of Pakistan (because they were muslim), so Kashmiri rebels fought to become part of Pakistan and so Pakistan sent in its army to help them.

  7. #37
    I'm Back
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    556
    It was not actually Nehru's wish about where Kashmir will belong.
    It was the call of the king of Kashmir.

    I'm not a history buff and dont particularly know in detail much about what happened in the past but what i know and care of is that Kashmir is an integral part of India and that is where it will stay.

    It should be noted that Kashmir has [had] a considerable population comprising of non-muslims also there -> Kashmiri Pandits [Hindus], Sikhs, etc which along with a lot of muslims preffered to stay with India.

  8. #38
    Registered User Jet_Master's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    291
    i'll add that the Britishers created more tension between the hindu/muslims relations while leaving India.
    i agree totally. the hindus and muslims were in the fight for freedom against the british. the british used this technique (inspiring hate in both hindus and muslims against each other) to weaken the opposition and the rebellion. but this didnot work up to a very intense hate and anger until almost independence. The British kept brainwashing the indians (both hindus and muslims) to feight for their land and that india should be partitioned.

    i hate them (the british people who did this - not all british people) for that among many other things.

    Poor Gandhi suffered (not physically) so much because of the partition. it ripped his heart to hear that the country was being divided into 2 parts because of the religious discontent. He was in tears for a few days and for him, it completely killed the purpose of achieving independence.

    if i could go back in time, i would beat up those british people who were in charge there.


    **Note: No offense meant to anyone...**
    Last edited by Jet_Master; 05-24-2002 at 06:38 PM.
    I am the Alpha and the Omega!!!

  9. #39
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    i thought the kashmiri's were ok about joining india, but i could be wrong i'd have to look further into it.

    but this bollocks about blaming Britain for partition is totally wrong....
    the British were intending to leave india as a modern democratic independant unified state. there was absolutely no intentition to partition india at all. the partition was due to religuous intolerance on both sides, the hindu's and moslems couldn't get along and were ripping the country apart....it was felt the only way round it was to partition the moslems and hindu's, and this was done as best as possible. before the British left, order was maintained, because of the mad rush for independance, understandable tho' it was, the religuous intolerance errupted violently and millions died. to blame this on the British is ridiculous, you (both sides) did it to yourselves....

    religion, thats to blame....
    Steve

  10. #40
    Registered User Jet_Master's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    291
    but this bollocks about blaming Britain for partition is totally wrong....
    sorry, stevey, but i have to disagree. if you studied indian history, you would have learnt that the british DID provoke the partition idea. they wanted to weaken the indian rebellion.

    the British were intending to leave india as a modern democratic independant unified state.
    i also disagree with that. ever since the independence talks became serious, they were using an excuse that india would not be able to govern itself. they kept saying that there would be no co-existance between the Hindus and Muslims and that there would never be peace. this went to the people's heads and they began wanting partition.
    I am the Alpha and the Omega!!!

  11. #41
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    well ive been reading a lot about india/pakistan lately and i have not got the impression that you are implying......ie british stoked all this hated up.
    certainly it was touted that anarchy may previal if the British left, this was an excuse to stay sure, but also in some ways it was true....most british polititions knew independance was coming, from the 30's onwards, but a long slow independance was invisioned, not the mad rush it became....these things tend to snowball.

    religous intolerance on both sides was to blame, not the british.
    whether the british should have been there in the 1st place is a different argument, but to blame the british is ridiculous. partition was becos hindu's and moslems couldn't live in peace together.
    Ghandi didn't blame the british. you think the british orchastrated the looting and murder and intolerance and religuous hated ???

    ""they kept saying that there would be no co-existance between the Hindus and Muslims and that there would never be peace""

    yep, and we were right.
    Steve

  12. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    559
    Originally posted by Jet_Master


    sorry, stevey, but i have to disagree. if you studied indian history, you would have learnt that the british DID provoke the partition idea. they wanted to weaken the indian rebellion.



    i also disagree with that. ever since the independence talks became serious, they were using an excuse that india would not be able to govern itself. they kept saying that there would be no co-existance between the Hindus and Muslims and that there would never be peace. this went to the people's heads and they began wanting partition.
    Well, regardless of what the British did or did not want, the people on the ground are responsible for what they did, and do. Did the British encourage political turmoil between Hindus and Muslims? I don't see why they would, but even if they did, the British didn't fight and kill in the subsequent wars. The people who did that have to take responsibility for their actions.
    I'm as leery as most in the US, anyway, about Islamic extremism and fundamentalism (not to mention Christian fundamentalism here, although it's not usually armed), but I don't see the point of fighting wars over issues decades or centuries old. Is Kashmir of some vital significance to India? Maybe so, but I haven't heard that, only that "it's ours!". Maybe there were lots of Hindus there decades ago; otoh, decades ago India wasn't an independent nation, either. Deal with the facts as they are today. Kashmir is a mostly Muslim area that wants to join Pakistan. Why not let it? Or set up some autonomous or confederation type system in between outright secession from India.
    I could be wrong, but why does India want Kashmir so badly except for pride? If I was a Kashmiri and had a vote, I'd stay with India; for all it's problems, it is a democracy. But I'd be outvoted.
    Is Kashmir worth all the trouble and suffering? If India keeps Kashmir, what does the future hold? Look at Israel and Palestine. Indian troops will be an occupying force in their own country, their very presence and rule just breeding more terrorism.
    And yes, I think the US could learn this lesson in some areas as well. Repressing people does not make them amenable or receptive to you or your ideas, values, or presence.
    Truth is a malleable commodity - Dick Cheney

  13. #43
    Unregistered
    Guest
    heres something written by a historian ->

    ""the breakdown of british rule saw the emergence of two great political movements, the indian congress party led by nehru and inspired by ghandi's ideals of an independant india containing the whole of the old british possessions in the region, and the 2nd movement was the muslim aspiration for a specifically muslim state carved out of the areas with a muslim majority. increasingly unable to control inter-communal tensions the post-war labour government rushed through a plan to divide the subcontinent as the quickest way to end the crisis building between hindu and moslem.
    however partition became the biggest trauma in modern indian history, because no matter how carefully and impartially officials drew lines on the map to separate the hindu's and moslems, enclaves of the minority faith were stranded in a sea of hostility. this caused a refugee crisis and much slaughter and looting from both sides. the slaughter and bloodletting has left a legacy of hated, not easily quenched by time""

    now this partition was rushed (because we were being kicked out basically), and mistakes made, but this partition was basically the moslem idea not a british idea, they wanted a muslem state, didn't want to be part of india in which moslems were a minority. moslems always want a separate moslem state.
    the whole 'british out' movement was rushed, a long slow independance would have been better, but once the idea of independance started there was no stopping it, it accelerated.we did the best we could, mistakes were made, but the whole thing was due to religuous intolerance, to blame the british is just looking for someone to blame.......it was us who sluaghtered the minority moslems left stranded, and us who slaughtered minority hindu's left stranded ???
    we caused hindu/moslem to fight and be intolerant of each other ???

    unifying the country of india into one state was the british only mistake.....should have left it split up.

  14. #44
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    that was me again.
    Steve

  15. #45
    Its not rocket science vasanth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,683
    Well who says majority of kashmiris want to join pakistan.. It is only a pakistani propaganda.. If those fellows were fighting for freedom would they kil their own childrens and wives... These fighters are actually terrorists from Pakistan or afganistan... And there is a real fight by a small group called th Huriyath. But most prefer a seperate country and they dont prefer joining Pakistan.. Who ever gave you this funny idea????

    Well if you say it contains more muslims.. The entire India contains more musilm then Pakistan so you cannot expect the entire nation to be given to pakistan.. And you guys feel that Muslims in India hate muslim by the gujurath incident.. Well i agree that that incident was a shabby one by both communities.. But dont forget that important posts in india are occupied by muslims.. 30% of our army contains Muslims and The man behind india's Nuclear deterent is a Muslim.. And also dont forget that the kashmir chief minister.. Democraticaly elected is a Muslim.. And in another few months India in Kashmir is going for elections.. And the people can chhose any leader they want even the huriyat if they wish.. And now pakistan is trying to sabotage the election.... Well it is not because of pride we are fighting but becaue we respect every inch of our nation... Wel Pakistan always crossed the international border but India did not.. many parts of pakistan there is a political instability.. SO can India rush troops inside and claim that it belogs to us.. Well just because muslims are here id does not mean we have to give it to pakistan. india is a country formed by 100's of ethnic community.. India does not contain only Hindus and Muslims.. it contains more religion than any where else... SO India is a secular country.. And we will not bow down to a Isllamiic or fundamental country...


    And you guys always shout of Gujurath.. We agree that it was a black mark on our nation.. But what did you Americans do after the sep 11th incident.. You started to harm any one wearing a turban.. Even hindus who wear turban.. Even destroyed their Business establishments.. And not to mention some groups in Britain which are real racist..




    And about the britishers who invaded India.. I should thank them since they brought the entire country into one..

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. [C++] Drawing a window border with asterisks
    By INFERNO2K in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-17-2005, 06:40 PM
  2. Button and edit control border
    By maxorator in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-04-2005, 02:31 PM
  3. Listbox border size different to Tree View?
    By SMurf in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-19-2003, 10:17 AM
  4. Debugging link error
    By bubux in forum C Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-06-2002, 03:19 PM
  5. German Troops
    By nvoigt in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 01-08-2002, 04:00 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21