Thread: 2 Million troops on the border

how do i know for certain the terrorists won't bother taking out something like a superficial, unimportant bridge that only kills a dozen americans?

1. they know that everytime they hit us, no matter how big or small...they are going to have an entire network, or terrorist regime taken out by us in retaliation.


2. enough said.

>>>"...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???

Rome or 'italy' was called the 'mother' country of the Roman Empire. the original base of an empire is called 'the mother country' for want of a better term. guess it is an offensive term for Indians, more apt for Australia etc where the original settlers came from Britain.

England was not England b4 Rome invaded and brought the tribes together. therefore Rome created England.

similarly, India was a collection of provinces ruled by mutually antagonistic princes etc, thats why Britain conquered all of India with a tiny army. in fact most of the fighting was done by indian troops ie you conquered yourselves.
Britain created India as a modern democratic state.

not that colonialism isn't inherently racist and morally unjustifiable, but i think most Indians accept the British as relatively benign rulers, but all rulers will be hated to a certain degree. in those days any weaker country would be taken over by a stronger country, and i'll always maintain better the British than anybody else, cause its better nobody at all, but that wasn't possible then.

still its understandable that you dislike the British, many people do.
the british empire still remains the only empire in history to be voluntarily disbanded without bloodshed, making an effort to leave former colonies as modern democratic viable states. ie in the best state that was possible. and a pretty good job was made of it. i still don't think it is fair to blame britain for partitioning india.

A writing by a journalist in my country is given below


Mr Straw, do you know who created the Kashmir mess?
Are we to allow Pakistan to continue to train new armies for invasion and to allow its territory to be used as a base for these attacks? The obvious course of action is to strike at these concentrations and lines of communications in Pakistan territory. From a military point of view this would be the most effective step. We have refrained from taking it because of political considerations. We shall have to reconsider this position because a continuation of the present situation is intolerable. If Pakistan is not prepared to help in putting an end to this war or even to try to withdraw these invaders then we should help ourselves, even by crossing some part of Pakistan territory and hitting at their concentrations. This involves a risk of war with Pakistan. We wish to avoid war, but it is merely deluding ourselves to imagine that we are avoiding war so long as the present operations are continuing on either side.



Thus spoke Nehru, India's first prime minister!

When? On December 20, 1947, eleven days before the Kashmir issue was referred to the United Nations. Eleven days which turned out to be momentous for India's future. Is it not strange that today, 55 years later, similar circumstances have come to haunt the present prime minister?

At this point in time, it is useful to remember the role of Great Britain, particularly of Lord Mountbatten, to understand how Albion has been single-handedly responsible for the Kashmir imbroglio. For this, it is necessary to go back to a year before the British left the jewel of their empire.

In 1946-47 they were perhaps ready to depart, but not to lose their influence in Asia and the world. For the past two centuries, the defence of their empire had been centred on the Indian subcontinent and the Indian Ocean [known as the British lake]. The British Empire, born from a trading company, was basically a sea-empire. This was brilliantly demonstrated by K M Panikkar, the historian [unfortunately turned diplomat] in his famous book, Asia and the Western Dominance. But at the beginning of the 20th century, two new factors appeared on the strategic scene: one was aviation [whose role was masterfully demonstrated by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour in 1941] and petrol [and therefore the importance of Middle East.

When the British chiefs of staff were ordered to submit a report on the strategic consequences of their departure from the subcontinent, all the generals agreed that Pakistan was the more important of the two future dominions, because of the possibility of installing air bases in the north of the country [to control Russia] and naval bases opening to the Arabian Sea in the south. A brotherly contact with the Muslim states in the Middle East was an added bonus.

Another argument, which made Pakistan more reliable, was that Mohammed Ali Jinnah was extremely keen to remain in the Commonwealth while the Indian National Congress could not make up its mind. Jinnah once forcefully told Mountbatten: "You can't kick us out.'

The dies were cast in May 1947 when the chiefs of staff reported: "From the strategic point of view there were overwhelming arguments in favour of West Pakistan remaining within the Commonwealth, namely that we should obtain important strategic facilities..."

Subsequently this policy was implemented, partly with the unknowing [not to say foolish] collaboration of the Congress. When the time of independence came and Jinnah insisted on becoming the first governor general of Pakistan [London had thought Mountbatten could be the governor general of both dominions], the Congress offered the job in India to the viscount.

This was the first of a long series of blunders. Then, when the issue of Junagadh and Hyderabad came up soon after Independence, a defence committee of the Cabinet was created. And who was its chairman? A Britisher.

This was a surrealistic situation: two dominions, one with a Pakistani governor general, the other with a British; two armies, both with British generals [though India tried from the first months to indigenise her cadre]. The 'Indian' British generals took orders from the British governor general and not from the Indian government; the defence committee was chaired by a Briton, which most of the time was overriding the Cabinet's decisions and a 'stand-down' order stated that British officers would not fight one another.

Such was the situation when the raiders trained, equipped and directed by Colonel Akbar Khan, military adviser of the Pakistani prime minister, entered Kashmir at the end of October 1947. The story is too well known to be recounted here, but the interesting point is that the British constantly played a double game. General Douglas Gracey, the Pakistani army commander, knew of the raiders' attack beforehand, but did not 'inform' his Indian counterpart. Later on, information kept circulating, but in one direction only. This shows that London, with the help of Mountbatten, was determined to implement the strategic plans of HMG.

Another strange situation: Mountbatten, formal head of the Indian State, took upon himself to be the mediator also. Can we imagine the captain of a World Cup soccer team being the referee at the same time, while also acting to make a third country win?

Once a friend of mine visiting Israel was asked by his hosts: "What do you see as a difference between India and Israel?" My friend answered: "In Israel, you use your guts, in India we wait for the Grace." The Grace struck when Mountbatten's cousin [Elizabeth II] got married in London, forcing him to leave India for two weeks in November. During this time, the Indian commanders did so well that they secured Srinagar and stabilised the Uri sector. They could have advanced and taken back Muzaffarabad if they had not received orders from Delhi to stop their advance.

The last two months of 1947 is a long tale of the British authorities trying to 'restrain' India from chasing out the raiders. This explains why Nehru, though a great admirer of the governor general, was really fed up at the end of 1947 and why he wrote the note quoted earlier.

When he got to know the content, the cunning Mountbatten decided to act fast. From the start, he had been of the opinion that the best way to derail an Indian offensive, which would have finished off Pakistan, was to refer the case to the United Nations where it would be quickly buried. We should not forget that not only was Mountbatten a fine soldier and an over-charming man, he was also a clever politician who knew perfectly well that, even within Clement Attlee's Cabinet, there were enough people like Noel Baker, the Commonwealth secretary, who would immediately take Pakistan's side against India.

He [Mountbatten] used all his influence on Nehru (and he had a lot) to convince him that it was 'The Solution' and the world would immediately condemn Pakistan for supporting and assisting the raiders. During the following defence council meeting on December 20, he forced Nehru and his colleagues to accept the idea to make a reference to the UN. Reluctantly the Indian prime minister agreed: India would appeal, but would at the same time prepare a contingency plan for attacking the raiders' sanctuaries in eastern Pakistan.

On December 22, Nehru sent an ultimatum to Pakistan prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan that the raids should be stopped immediately failing which India would consider a counter attack. It is to be noted that at that time the Indian leadership was a deeply divided lot and the next day Sardar Patel sent a resignation letter to Nehru for being sidetracked on the Kashmir issue. This was not to help India's case!

However, the man who had commanded the Allied forces in Asia had scored a first point: the principle of a reference to the UN was accepted. The next step for the governor general was to kill the Indian military plans. He did not hesitate to spend Christmas day writing a very long missive to Nehru highlighting the advantage of the UN solution and the danger of a military escalation.

We should not forget that if a war had broken out between the two dominions, the British officers posted in both dominions as well as the governor general would have lost their jobs and would have had to pack their bags for the native island.

Mountbatten told Nehru clearly that "his considerations were not inspired by military considerations, but by the fact that it would mean war between India and Pakistan". In other words, he was not really interested by the merits of the case or whether Pakistan was on the wrong side of the fence; he wanted to avoid a war and its consequences for the United Kingdom.

Nehru soon discovered that Mountbatten's interests in the reference to the UN were only "to get a team nominated to come out and deal with the business and help to stop the fighting". The next day, Nehru answered with another very long letter and made it clear that he agreed about stopping the fighting: "Yes, certainly, but how? We neither started it, nor can we stop it. Of course, we can, in a sense, surrender. That I am sure you would not advise us to do.... The very idea is hateful." But it was indeed what the governor general wanted India to do... and this in the interests of the Crown and Mountbatten's own career and reputation.

Seeing that his plans were not fully working, Mountbatten launched another attack, he secretly passed all the correspondence (and even the minutes of the defence council) to Attlee asking him to intervene and put pressure on Nehru. At the same time, he advised Nehru to inform the British prime minister of the 'latest developments' making him believe that it would help India's cause in the UN. It would have been strange if Attlee had written on his own about what he was not supposed to know! Not knowing that Attlee had already been fed with all the details of meetings and correspondence, Nehru naively tried again to explain India's position.

He was to receive a lecture the next day that attacks on the 'nervous centres' of the raiders in Pakistan were not 'justified in international law as India was not entitled to take this action in self-defence'. Attlee told him that not only was he totally wrong legally, but any actions along this line would tarnish Nehru's international reputation and stature.

At the same time, London passed all the correspondence and other documents to the US and France, asking them to put pressure on India to avoid destroying the raiders 'sanctuaries'; the US complied immediately. It was enough for the Indian prime minister to 'try' the UN solution.

The events that followed are too well known. India's case was buried in the bureaucratic corridors of the UN, thanks to Noel Baker and his American colleagues; the raiders were allowed to remain on Indian soil.

Fifty-five years later, these territories are still in the possession of Pakistan and the same type of attacks are allowed from across the border, as a result of which tens of thousands have been killed in Kashmir and the Kashmiri Pandits, Nehru's own race, have been cleansed in the world's indifference.

Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, is coming to India on Wednesday on a 'peace mission'. He has announced his arrival with fanfare: he declared that the question as to "who should run Kashmir was never fully resolved" and has called Kashmir an "unfinished business". In view of this, on his arrival in Delhi, he should immediately be asked by his Indian counterpart: "Sir, do you know who created the Kashmir mess?" If he says "No", he should politely be told to go back to London and visit the India Office Library and records and spend a weekend in the Broadlands Archives Trust in Romsey, Hampshire, to consult the Mountbatten Papers. He will get the answer.

If he says "yes", he should be told that India has its own interests and follows its own policy and if the UK wants to restrain somebody, it should restrain those who created the mess. India is now an independent nation, no more a colony under a British governor general. But India definitively agrees with him that Jammu & Kashmir is an 'unfinished business'.

if i was an Indian or pakistani what i would say to Jack Straw is " ........ off back to England, we don't tell you what to do with Northern Ireland, don't try to tell us what to do with Kashmir"

seems fair comment to me.

but to say the British are single-handedly responsible for the Kashmir problem is ridiculous. you would blame anybody but accept responsibility. its due to emnity between Pakistan/India, religuous intolerance, don't blame Britain.

in 1947 Britain gave in to intense pressure from the Muslem League to form there own Muslem state. they wanted this because they felt swamped by majhority hindu's and also because of religous intolerance. but they wanted it, it wasn't a British idea.

i thought the Kashmir people, even tho they were predominantly Moslem wanted to join India. it would seem i was wrong, they didn't. When Kashmir was 'given' to India by the hindu ruler its people were not best pleased. Pakistan (illegally) invaded cos they thought Kashmir should be theirs and India fought back, leading to a stalemate and division of Kashmir.
its Indian fears of seccession leading to break up and strain in India which has led India to want to keep Kashmir and wanting to resist the initial invasion and subsequent state sponsored terrorism, and the cause of Kashmir is ingrained in the Pakistani's who feel it is part of Pakistan occupied by India.

and all this is Britains fault ?? no way.

have we a right to interfere ?? no way.

and btw, many pakistani's think we interfered on India's side in 1947 !!! ie the picture i get is that we tried to stop a pakistan/india all-out war, as impartially as possible, and get blamed by both sides.

so we ought to keep our big noses out !!!!!
but whats so wrong with the idea of independance for Kashmir ??, seems to be what the Kashmiri's want.

yeah thats true, even if you think (and i don't accept it) that the entire Kashmir problem and the partition of India is entirely the fault of the British, then obviously the British of today are no more at fault for 1947 than the Germans and Japanese of today are for 1939-1945.
its history now. the British today are still hated by some in Ireland for things which happened in 1600/1700 's !!!

i personally hate terrorists, especially extreme religous fundamentalists, thats why i tend to side with India. but impartial observers note that it would seem that most Kashmiri's side with Pakistan or desire independance. ive also read that in spite of this comment the terrorists are not popular in Kashmir because they are trying to impose their extreme radical 'teleban-type' interpretation of the Koran.

it would seem to me that India/Pakistan hate each other and that this hatred is focused on Kashmir. the losers are the Kashmiri's.

IMO Pakistan could all too easily be taken over by radical islamic fundamentalists...the more India embarrasses Musharaff, the more likely it is. so India could attack and win, but win only a Phyrric victory.

independance for Kashmir would seem to be the best bet for lasting peace. whats the objections (on both sides) for this ???

ps Mountbatten was murdered by IRA terrorists, bastards, along with his 6 year old nephew and several Irish civilians. . and the British let his murderers out of jail as part of the peace process.
its the price of peace. there is no peace when there is endless hatred and retribution.

the british empire still remains the only empire in history to be voluntarily disbanded without bloodshed, making an effort to leave former colonies as modern democratic viable states. ie in the best state that was possible.

WITHOUT BLOODSHED ?!?!?!? What an untrue statement. without bloodshed! i don't think you know about the details during the british rule in india. do you know about the jallyanvalla bagh incident - when general dyer came with his troops to a park where lots and lots of indians were holding a peaceful meeting. he blocked the only entrance and told all his soldiers to open fire... without even a warning or order to the indians to disband! that was just one incident... there were lots of instances where the british did have bloodshed! that is not true what you said... without bloodshed...

please.....
i am sorry, but i had to say that

the Amritsar massacre of 1919. course ive heard of it. any British person interested in history has heard of it and would obviously condemn it. i saw a BBC program on it, and it was shown (in fact exaggerated-since an armored car with machine guns was not used)in the British-made film Ghandi. it marked the start of the end of british rule. Queen Elizabeth layed a wreath there in 1997, and it was covered extensively in the media in Britain and India at the time. Even in 1919 the British knew it was wrong. Dyer was punished. he was stripped of command and cashiered out of the army. but he should have been tried for murder.

Winston Churchill tried to have Dyer punished more severely than he was - excerpt from speach to House of Commons 1920

""However we may dwell upon the difficulties of General Dyer during the Amritsar riots, upon the anxious and critical situation in the Punjab, upon the danger to Europeans throughout that province, upon the long delays which have taken place in reaching a decision about this officer, upon the procedure that was at this point or at that point adopted, however we may dwell upon all this, one tremendous fact stands out-I mean the slaughter of nearly 400 persons and the wounding of probably three or four times as many, at the Jallian Wallah Bagh on 13th April. That is an episode which appears to me to be without precedent or parallel in the modern history of the British Empire. It is an event of an entirely different order from any of those tragical occurrences which take place when troops are brought into collision with the civil population. It is an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation. ""

other quotes -

anti-british biased version >
""On 13 April, 1919 a large unarmed crowd gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar to peacefully protest against the arrest of their popular leaders, Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlu and Dr. Satya Pal, both members of the Congress party. Jallianwala Bagh was a large open space enclosed on three sides by buildings with only one exit. General Dyer, the military commander of Amritsar was determined to make an example of this meeting and wanted to terrorise the people into submission. He surrounded the Bagh with his troops, closed off the exit and then ordered his soldiers to shoot into the crowd with their machine-guns and rifles.

The massacre was brutal and heartless the trapped crowd had nowhere to run or hide. Men, women and chiidren ran helter-skelter, some jumping into the well to escape the volley of bullets. When their ammunition was exhausted, Dyer ordered his men to leave the area, his ghastly deed done. Thousands died and many more were injured. Martial law was imposed on Punjab and its people were subjected to many humiliating atrocities. The wholesale slaughter at Jallianwala Bagh horrified the whole country. The brutality of the so called civilised foreign rulers and the need to fight for freedom were reiterated by this incident. Rabindranath Tagore renounced his knighthood in protest, preferring to stand by the side of his countrymen.

Ironically, General Dyer was born in India and though he was condemed by those in power in Britain, he was supported by many Britons in India after his gruesome act. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre also impacted on Jawaharlal Nehru's orientation-travelling down from Shimla after the incident, Nehru overheard some British soldiers agreeing that the killings would 'teach the bloody browns a lesson'. Nehru became an ardent nationalist and the killings came to be called 'the greatest recruiting poster for the Congress'. Today, the bullet scarred walis of Jallianwala Bagh enclose a memorial symbolising the eternal flame which is dedicated to those martyred here. Every year on April 13, Baisakhi day, homage is paid to those innocent patriots who died here. ""

impartial Indian version>
""Amritsar, India (April 13, 1919): British troops under the command of General Reginald Dyer fire on unarmed Indians in the thickly crowded plaza at Jallianwala Bagh, leaving (by some estimates) 379 dead and 1200 wounded. A peaceful crowd had assembled in the walled plaza to protest the enactment of the Rowlett Act, which the British administration had issued to secure "emergency" powers for itself. The site of the massacre is now a National Shrine.""

Encyclopedia Britannica version>
""Gandhi himself had taken a train to the Punjab early in April 1919 to address on of those rallies, but he was arrested at the border station and taken back to Bombay by orders of the tyrannical lieutenant governor of the Punjab, Sir Michael O'Dwyer.

On April 10, in Amritsar, Kichloo and Satyapal were arrested and deported from the district by deputy commisioner Miles Irving, and when their followers tried to march to Irving's bungalow in the camp to demand the release of their leaders they were fired upon by British troops. With several of their number killed and wounded, the enraged mob rioted through Amritsar's old city, burning British banks, murdering several Englishmen, and attacking two Englishwomen.

Gen. R.E.H. Dyer was sent with troops from Jullundur to restore order, and, though no further disturbances occurred in Amritsar until April 13, Dyer marched 50 armed soldiers into the Jallianwallah Bagh (Garden) that afternoon and ordered them to open fire on a protest meeting attended by some 10,000 unarmed men, women, and children without issuing a word of warning. It was a Sunday, and many neighboring peasants had come to Amritsar to celebrate a Hindu festival, gathering in the Bagh, which was a place for holding cattle fair and other festivities. Dyer kept his troops firing for about ten minutes, until they had shot 1650 rounds of ammunition into the terror-stricken crowd, which had no way of escaping the Bagh, since the soldiers spanned the only exit. About 400 civilians were killed and some 1200 wounded. They were left without medical attention by Dyer, who hastily removed his troops to the camp. Sir Michael O'Dwyer fully approved of and supported the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre, and on April 15, 1919, issued a martial law decree for the entire Punjab:

The least amount of firing which would produce the necessary moral and widespread effect it was my duty to produce . . . from a military point of view, not only on those who were present, but more specially throughout the Punjab.'

Dyer was relieved of his command, but he returned to England as a hero to many British admirers, who presented him with a collected purse of thousands of pounds and a jewelled sword inscribed "Saviour of the Punjab."

The Jallianwallah Bagh massacre turned million of patient and moderate Indians from loyal supporters of the British raj into national revolutionaries who would never again trust to British "fair play" or cooperate with a government capable of defending such action. The following year, Mahatma Gandhi launched his first Indian satyagraha ("clinging to the truth") campaign, India's response to the massacre in Jallianwallah Bagh.""

lots of bad things were done by poeple like him, in the whole history of British Rule. you are picking on an incident almost 30 years prior to independance !! but the hand over of power in 1947 was peaceful. at least on the British side, Pakistani's and Indians managed to kill around 2 million of each other in an orgy of bloodletting, terror and looting that had not been seen before.
india was a powder keg waiting to go off. but you blame the british, i suppose its natural, but its not true. you should think more about religous intolerance between muslims/hindu/ sikh etc.

in fact if you know your history you would admit that most of the massacres were commited BY Indians/pakistani's ON Indians/pakistani's.

and the statement that the British Empire was disbanded peacefully is true.

'Indian News' quote >
""India battling to contain explosion of sectarian violence

India was desperately battling to contain the worst eruption of sectarian violence in a decade as the death toll from bloody Hindu-Muslim clashes rose to nearly 180.

Army troops were being deployed in three cities in the western state of Gujarat, which has been rocked by a wave of blood-letting since Wednesday, when 58 Hindu activists were massacred in a train.

Police Commissioner P.C. Pande said Friday that at least 118 people had died in the mob attacks which have followed the train massacre.

Fresh clashes broke out Friday in a residential area of Ahmedabad, Gujarat's commercial capital. A policeman was beaten and burned to death.

Army troops were being deployed in Ahmedabad and were also being sent to Baroda and Godhra, the defence ministry said in New Delhi. Violence has been reported in a total of 26 cities and towns.

Defence Minister George Fernandes was in Ahmedabad to assess developments. "Soldiers from the army's southern command will be deployed in other areas after the defence minister takes stock of the situation," a ministry spokesman said.

Fears the communal violence could spread to other parts of India with a history of sectarian tensions were running high following a call for a nationwide strike by the militant Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP, World Hindu Council).

Police in Bombay reported trains being stopped in the main railway stations by Hindu activists enforcing the strike.

"There have been stray incidents of trains being stopped," said Bombay joint commissioner of police D.N. Jadhav.

"For the moment everything is under control, but we have made 245 precautionary arrests to head off any trouble."

In the worst incident on Thursday, at least 18 Muslims, many of them women and children, were burned to death in Ahmedabad when a Hindu mob surrounded their homes and set them ablaze.

Police commissioner P.C Pande said he hoped the army could quell the unrest.

"The situation is under control for the moment, but the city is still very tense," Pande said. "Obviously the presence of the army will be a major factor in maintaining law and order."

The 58 mostly Hindu activists were killed on Wednesday as they returned on a train from the powderkeg town of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh state.

Thousands of Hindus have been gathering in Ayodhya in defiance of court orders to build a temple on the ruins of a 16th-century mosque razed by Hindu zealots in December 1992.

Several thousand Muslims surrounded the train just outside the town of Godhra -- 160 kilometers (100 miles) east of Ahmedabad -- then attacked the passengers with stones and other weapons before pouring kerosene over the carriages and setting them on fire.

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has pulled out of this weekend's Commonwealth summit in Australia to deal with the unfolding crisis.

Vajpayee is under intense pressure to take direct action to put down the highly provocative temple construction campaign in Ayodhya, which is being spearheaded by the VHP.

Despite Vajpayee's appeals, the VHP has vowed to meet its March 15 deadline for beginning construction of the temple in Ayodhya even if it means a confrontation with security forces.

Security was boosted in Ayodhya, with local authorities attempting to implement a central government directive to prevent any further influx of Hindu activists to the disputed temple-mosque site.

The destruction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya just over nine years ago triggered some of India's worst Hindu-Muslim riots in which more than 2,000 people were killed.""





"" November 3, 2001

Sikhs Remember Delhi Massacre of 1984
Over 20,000 Sikhs Murdered by Indian Government

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 3, 2001 – Sikhs from the East Coast gathered in front of the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C. today to remember more than 20,000 Sikhs killed in the Delhi massacres of November 1984. Sikh police were disarmed and locked in their barracks to keep them from getting involved.


In March 2000 the Indian government massacred 35 Sikhs in Chithisinghpora. Two independent investigations have proven that the Indian government carried out this massacre. The government has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984. More than 52,000 Sikh political prisoners are rotting in Indian jails without charge or trial. Many have been in illegal custody since 1984. Over 200,000 Christians have been killed since 1947 and over 75,000 Kashmiri Muslims have been killed since 1988.

Three of India's most respected human rights group issued a joint letter in 1997 stating that between 1993 and 1994, 50,000 Sikhs were made to disappear by Indian forces. The Indian Supreme Court described the situation in Punjab as “worse than a genocide.” General Narinder Singh has said, “Punjab is a police state.” U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher has said that for Sikhs, Kashmiri Muslims, and other minorities “India might as well be Nazi Germany.” ""

whatever the truth of the above figures (the 2nd quote was from a very biased source), its pretty obvious that more people have died AFTER the end of British rule.

>>we should turn both countries into parking lots.

HAHA we serioulsy need some parking space over here.

Not possible though, India/Pakistan are not some Afghanistan and if you are thinking of using conventional military tactics it will not be possible and also remember both have nukes and if your govt tries to nuke any, you too get nuked... so you might be the next parking lot

hopefully just sabre rattling...

Indians ought to note that the prevailing winds are eastwards.....