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; "Well who says majority of kashmiris want to join pakistan.. It is only a pakistani propaganda.. " Heh and of ...

  1. #46
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "Well who says majority of kashmiris want to join pakistan.. It is only a pakistani propaganda.. "

    Heh and of course you are entirely un-biased on this issue.....

    "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"

    Two entirely separate points, 1: Kasmir contains more muslims than hindus cannot be compared to 2: India contrains more muslims than Pakistan.

    What you can compare is; 1: Kasmir contains more muslims than hindus, and 2: Pakistan contains more mulsims than hindus, and 3: India contains more Hindus than Muslims.

    Why don't they just hold a referendum in Kashmir to decide whether Kashmir becomes part of India or Pakistan?

    "India does not contain only Hindus and Muslims.. it contains more religion than any where else... SO India is a secular country"

    Errr... secular != religion.

  2. #47
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    "Well who says majority of kashmiris want to join pakistan.. It is only a pakistani propaganda.. "

    theres been some long articles in the newspapers recently.
    they are saying that (whatever the feelings in 1947) initially the 'guest fighters' that were attacking the indians in kashmir were broadly welcomed by most kashmiris. however they certainly are not now since these terrorists tried to impose their extremely strict Teleban-type interpretation of the Koran. they are very brutal, allowing no dissent and have been killing moderate kashmiri moslems as well as indians.

    so its a confusing situation. i have also read that if there was a referendum, most kashmiri's would vote for independance. wouldn't that be a reasonable way out of the kashmir problem ???
    or is kashmir not able to be totally independant ?? would it be economically viable ???

    if it could stand alone as an independant state, i'm sure it would get attacked and abused by both sides seeking influence, esp. radical islamic terrorists, but it would seem a reasonable idea....better than constant pakistan/india wars and threats of nuclear wars...
    Steve

  3. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    367
    The whole Kashmir should belong to Pakistan because of that the Indian part is the only Islam dominated part in the whole of India.

    India was divided into three nations: Pakistan, India and eastern-Pakistan, which later became Bangladesh. There was an eastern-Pakistan just because of that that particular area (Bengali), is Islam-dominated.

    Therefore, the whole Kashmir should also have been sectioned into Pakistan from the very beginning, because these three nations borders were drawn mainly after religion.

    Btw, I wonder how Lamaism (Tibetan version of Buddhism), spread to Mongolia.

  4. #49
    Registered User Jet_Master's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    291
    i wont post many more msgs in this thread. i dont why, but a lot of people seem to have a wrong impression of what actually happened in india during the british rule. people who are from india/pakistan have had parents/ancestors who lived during the period and know for fact what happened. many people here seem to think that they know everything, and that they are right and others are wrong about it.
    I am the Alpha and the Omega!!!

  5. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    559
    I know fairly little about India/Pakistan history, and don't pretend to know more. What I do see is at least some of the current situation, which reminds me of squabbling children.
    Otoh, if you stop posting your views, don't be surprised if others don't see your side.
    Truth is a malleable commodity - Dick Cheney

  6. #51
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    well if you are refering to me, then you aren't alone if you think i'm an opinionated know it all, on the other hand i am a history buff and ive read a whole lot about history esp modern history.

    i do honestly think you are barking up the wrong tree if you blame britain for partitioning india. its more a case of britain aceeding to muslim demands for a separate state and thinking this may be the best solution to avoid bloodshed. whether this was right or not is debatable but its what was felt at the time and i think moslems were and are generally happy with the idea of a separate moslem state. ive read a book about ghandi and he certainly didn't blame britain for the partition and subsequent bloodshed. he blamed religous intolerance on both sides, which is i believe closer to the truth.
    my granddad hated germans and japanese since his experiences in the second world war, fair enough, but it doesn't cloud my thoughts, its his personal experience.
    nothing is ever black and white. if it wasn't britain who 'invaded' india then it would have been the french, dutch, portugese, or somebody else...those were different times, you can't apply modern ethics.....
    if you know anything about algeria and indo-china then you'll realise that the french would have fought far harder to prevent independance and would have left india in a far worst state.
    it doesn't make imperialism right, but you must accept that these were different times. the british weren't perfect but were relatively benign...
    Last edited by stevey; 05-25-2002 at 06:48 PM.
    Steve

  7. #52
    S­énior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    982
    >it doesn't make imperialism right, but you must accept that these were different times

    Yes, but Rome still exists only in a different guise.

  8. #53
    Registered User Jet_Master's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    291
    if it wasn't britain who 'invaded' india then it would have been the french, dutch, portugese, or somebody else...those were different times, you can't apply modern ethics.....
    i know that. french and portugese and dutch etc did try to invade, but only britain survived. then they commited attrocities...

    i know i should not apply modern ethics to it, but still it is worth talking about. and i think that they were wrong to do many of the things they did - most of the things they did.
    I am the Alpha and the Omega!!!

  9. #54
    Registered User Jet_Master's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    291
    Otoh, if you stop posting your views, don't be surprised if others don't see your side.
    i am not completely stopping to post my views. just, i will not post so many... because so many people post so many different opinions all the time. i cannot respond to all of the ones that i disagree with, so i will lessen it...
    just dont take notice of it...
    I am the Alpha and the Omega!!!

  10. #55
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    Originally posted by Jet_Master

    i know that. french and portugese and dutch etc did try to invade, but only britain survived. then they commited attrocities...

    i know i should not apply modern ethics to it, but still it is worth talking about. and i think that they were wrong to do many of the things they did - most of the things they did.
    atrocities commited by 'raj' subjects onto other 'raj' subjects were far worse. even to the point of a nuclear war.
    holding together such a massive country with 350 odd million people of diverse culture and religion, with many extremists was difficult and some right clangers were made...

    if the british were as 'evil' and bad rulers as you make out, why then was the british empire the only empire in history to be disbanded voluntarily and peacefully, and where former colonies do not hate the 'mother' country (except you obviously). the british commonwealth still exists, the former empire countries are still friendly, both with each other(except india/pakistan) and with britain. obviously every country should have their independance, but i think the empire brought more benefit than harm to all the countries involved.
    Steve

  11. #56
    Its not rocket science vasanth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,683
    Well Indians dint like the Raj because high office were only for the raj.. That was a rule.. And an Indian employee working in The raj always got less salary then the english at the same position. And Indian judjes at that time did not have the right to try any English... And the taxes were at some times as high as 90%.. Like if a farmer produced 10 bags of rice he had po pay the raj with 9 bags..

    Well i think the monarchy was not directly involved it.. The great queen at time sent envoys to check out wheather these alegations were true. SHe wanted to be just.. byt the envoy was a french Mr.Simon... He lied that everyhting was fine for some reason.. So the queen did not come to know the truth.. I think i was the local british govet atrocities......

  12. #57
    My diaper's full....... stevey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    759
    no right thinking person would ever say imperialism is justified in any way and that basically the aim was to make money for britain, but i'll always maintain that the british were relatively benign compared to other countries that would have taken over india, and that we shouldn't judge events from modern perspectives. anyway whatever benefits, rights and wrongs of british rule, i think its highly unfair to blame the british for partition of india and hence imply the current emnity between pakistan/india is the fault of the british. the british aceeded to muslim demands for a separate muslim state.

    quote from 1946 ->

    3. We have accordingly decided that immediate arrangements should be made whereby Indians may decide the future constitution of India, and an interim Government may be set up at once to carry on the administration of British India until such time as a new constitution can be brought into being. We have endeavoured to be just to the smaller as well as to the larger sections of the people; and to recommend a solution which will lead to a practicable way of governing the India of the future, and will give a sound basis for defence and a good opportunity for progress in the social, political and economic field.

    4. It is not intended in this statement to review the voluminous evidence which has been submitted to the Mission; but it is right that we should state that it has shown an almost universal desire, outside the supporters of the Muslim League, for the unity of India.

    5. This consideration did not, however, deter us from examining closely and impartially the possibility of a partition of India; since we were greatly impressed by the very, genuine and acute anxiety of the Muslims lest they should find themselves subjected to a perpetual Hindu-majority rule. This feeling has become so strong and widespread amongst the Muslims that It cannot be allayed by mere paper safeguards. If there is to be internal peace in India it must be secured by measures which will assure to the Muslims a control in all matters vital to their culture, religion, and economic or other interests.

    6. We therefore examined in the first instance the question of a separate and fully independent sovereign state of Pakistan as claimed by the Muslim League. Such a Pakistan would comprise two areas: one in the North-West consisting of the provinces of the Punjab, Sind, North-West Frontier, and British Baluchistan; the other in the North-East consisting of the provinces of Bengal and Assam. The League were prepared to consider adjustment of boundaries at a later stage, but insisted that the principle of Pakistan should first be acknowledged. The argument for a separate state of Pakistan was based, first, upon the right of the Muslim majority to decide their method of government according to their wishes, and, secondly, upon the necessity to include substantial areas in which Muslims are in a minority in order to make Pakistan administratively and economically workable.
    Steve

  13. #58
    Just because ygfperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,493
    i listened to musharraf's speech. he sounds willing to make peace. he also seems to be the oppressed rather than the oppressor. (of course, what kind of message can you expect from a country's leader?)

  14. #59
    Registered User Jet_Master's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    291
    Originally posted by ygfperson
    i listened to musharraf's speech. he sounds willing to make peace. he also seems to be the oppressed rather than the oppressor. (of course, what kind of message can you expect from a country's leader?)
    willing to make peace... yeah right!
    we are not falling for that again. it was just 2-3 years ago when vajpayee went to pakistan in a bus... remember that? what happened? the kargil war still went on. His false promises are not worth taking note of. Before Vajpayee came back, pakistan prepared to attack.

    not to talk of Peace!!!
    I am the Alpha and the Omega!!!

  15. #60
    Registered User Jet_Master's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    291
    Originally posted by stevey

    ... and some right clangers were made...
    ...if the british were as 'evil' and bad rulers as you make out, why then was the british empire the only empire in history to be disbanded voluntarily and peacefully, and where former colonies do not hate the 'mother' country (except you obviously)...
    ... but i think the empire brought more benefit than harm to all the countries involved.
    you think the changes that you made were right. but to the people of india that was not really so. many of the changes you made were against the people's culture's and traditions. how could anyone like it if some other county's people came and told them how to live their lives and to stop believing their culture and stop following traditions?

    "...former countries do not hate the 'mother' country (except you obviously)..."
    what do you mean 'mother country'? the british came and invaded india, and claim that britain is the 'mother country'? what the hell is that???

    it did bring a lot of benefits to the people and the technology and stuff, but to the people, it brought emotional hardships and cultural crisises... i dont think that it was such a good thing as you tend to put it...

    it's just that i have ancestors who have faced the hardships and have passed it down. plus in my country, we learn the history of india during the british rule every grade from 5 to 12. so i do think i know a thing or two about it... looking at it from outside, it does seem that it brought a load of good to india... but that's not the true case...
    I am the Alpha and the Omega!!!

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