Thread: 2 Million troops on the border

"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...

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 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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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!!!

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...