2 Million troops on the border

**stevey** · 06-02-2002

""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 ruler of kashmir (a hindu) AND his muslim rival, both wished kashmir to be part of India and so in effect 'gave' kashmir to India. there was no referendum however. the british accepted this and it may have been a mistake. however, partition of kashmir would have been unfair, 'giving' kashmir to pakistan may also not have been in the kashmir peoples interest either. its obviously a problem and emotive for both sides. we get the blame either way.
why is there all this anti-british, blaming britain stuff ??? cheating ?? all the british tried to do was leave the place in peace and as democratic states (or state, the partition wasn't a british idea).
why say we cared either way ? it didn't matter to the british if kashmir was pakistani or india, or whether pakistan existed as an independant state at all. all that was done was a compromise to try to please all the various factions. i think it was all rushed and mistakes were made, but the british were told to leave basically, they didn't have much choice. independance, if allowed to be a longer slower process would have been better for all concerned.

**Sorensen** · 06-02-2002

>>when are you going to understand, 2/3 of N I population WANT the army there !! to protect them against terrorism. thats the difficulty of the situation.

Rubbish, it's for the level of outstanding beauty in the area and the rich mineral deposits that can be found (rape and pillage).

**Clyde** · 06-02-2002

"Rubbish, it's for the level of outstanding beauty in the area and the rich mineral deposits that can be found (rape and pillage)."

You think the British army rapes and pillages the Irish in Northern Ireland?

**stevey** · 06-02-2002

i was presuming he was either joking or being deliberately atagonistic, or deliberately stupid.....

but for the record, Nothern Ireland is of no financial asset to Great Britain. in fact it costs money. even without the terrorism which costs a fortune, Northern Ireland is no asset.
Maintaining NI as part of the UK is not financially motivated.

**Sorensen** · 06-02-2002

>You think the British army rapes and pillages the Irish in Northern Ireland?<

No, I was making fun of somebodies presumption as to why the British (English) still remain in NI. Being British (English) myself I was under the impression that I'm allowed to laugh at myself (that's what those niggaz keep telling me).

**Clyde** · 06-02-2002

"No, I was making fun of somebodies presumption as to why the British (English) still remain in NI"

Sorry, in that case i was being dense.

*Feels foolish*.

**salvelinus** · 06-02-2002

Originally posted by stevey

""get your troops out of Hawii !!"" is about as ridiculous a statement as you've just made.

Well, there are hawaiians that feel that way. The US basically just took over Hawaii about a hundred or so years ago. The Hawaiian queen at the time even addressed the US Congress begging them not to do so.
I'll admit that the British are doing much better in N Ireland than they used to, but then they used to be pretty bad. The Catholics there were a pretty oppressed minority, albeit a very large minority.
Go back farther, and the British were even worse. The only reason there's more than a handful of Protestants/British in any part of Ireland is because England conquered, pillaged, and set up a preferential regime there.
I'm not getting into Cromwell, et al, but the system set up starting then was brutal towards 95% of the existing population, and continued that way till fairly recently. That system and the conditions it created is what led to IRA terrorism - not excusing it, but creating it.
That is the same situation as Israel/Palestine; India/Kashmir I don't know if follows the same paradigm.

**Sorensen** · 06-02-2002

I'm not getting into Cromwell, et al, but the system set up starting then was brutal towards 95% of the existing population, and continued that way till fairly recently

Yes you are, and you can keep your potatoes. I'm not sure where you get your 95% figure from, but I suppose it makes great news.

That is the same situation as Israel/Palestine; India/Kashmir I don't know if follows the same paradigm.

The British nation building has alot to answer for. The fact that these groups were killing each other before has nothing to do with it.

**Clyde** · 06-02-2002

"It is better for it to finish this affair once for all..."

Like I said before, it's not possible to "finish the affair once and for all" by force. Doesn't matter if you totally destroy Pakistan, and gain full control of Kashmir. The militants will keep attacking in fact you will only get more of them.

**tim545666** · 06-03-2002

I'm lazy so I skipped 6 pages of this thread, so excuse me if I restate something that has already been brought up.

In my history class, we have been duscussing this issue. According to my teacher, both Indian and Pakistanee authorities stated that they are willing to use nuclear weapons in this war.

On another note, the kashmir is really not an important territory. China, Pakistan, and India all want it more because of pride and nationalism than for the land's worth. Nothing is worth nuclear war, and this isn't even worth war at all. But people are stupid and there is no way this conflict will be solved peacefully. The dispute between the Muslim and Hindu culture has been going on for well over a millenium.

The problem with nuclear war is it's all or nothing. You either give the other country everything you have or don't use neclear weapons, because you don't want a nuclear response. It will also probably trigger more reactions and start WWIII. Remember WWII was started because of the assassination of some austrian duke (archduke ferdinand???). One of these days, someone is gonna get a hold of a hydrogen bomb and blow us all up.

There's my 2 cents.

**Zeeshan** · 06-03-2002

>> the ruler of kashmir (a hindu) AND his muslim rival, both wished kashmir to be part of India and so in effect 'gave' kashmir to India

The ruler of the state of Kashmir Maharaja Hari Singh had promised accession to Pakistan through temporary agreement, due to the muslim majority, but later betrayed the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir by declaring accession of the state with India. As a result of this action the muslims of Kashmir revolted against the Maharaja and started the struggle for the right of self-determination. (the population of kashmir as determined by the 1991 consensus is 11 million, of which 77.6% are muslims)

At the time of partition all the provinces and states which had muslim majority voted for annexation with Pakistan. The Muslim League (the party which demanded a separate muslim state) won all 30 seats allocated for the muslims in the Central Assembly in the 1945-46 elections and 430 out of 492 seats (about 90%) in Provincial assemblies allocated for the muslims (at that time, elections were held on the basis of separate electorate, i.e. there were seats fixed for the Muslims and the Hindus). The charter of muslim league was the demand for a separate homeland, namely Pakistan, from 1940, which shows that the muslim majority states did want annexation with Pakistan which was yet to be born.

Secondly, there were three other states which had hindu majority but muslim rulers. The hindu majority demanded annexation with india, but the muslim rulers were willing annexation with Pakistan. To whom should these states have went ? India - right answer....and so it was. population rules!!!

>> No, it just means calling it a FREEDOM FIGHT doesn't necessarily imply it's for the freedom of all of those involved or that they deserve it (ie the freedom for one religious denomination/nationality to ........ over another).

Yea that's right. That's why we don't just believe any group when it says that it is doing a FREEDOM FIGHT. Instead, you have to look at all the aspects. Hence, i've given some historical facts, for you to ponder, and you can decide whether it's a freedom fight or a terrorist missionary.

>> Doesn't matter if you totally destroy Pakistan, and gain full control of Kashmir.

India can't actually totally destroy Pakistan, like America did Afghanistan. There was no proportion in power b/w america and afghanistan - America being the supreme power whereas Afghanistan, one of the weakest states of the world, which didn't even have a proper governing body. On the other hand, although India has approximately thrice as big an army as Pakistan. But, still the difference is not enough to actually "totally destroy" Pakistan. If such an intense war even actually breaks out, and Pakistan totally gets destroyed India won't be very well either. The states possess nuclear capabilities. Nuclear power just blurs conventional military supremacy. If there is a nuclear war, no side would actually WIN. If Pakistan gets totally destroyed, she will take atleast take 50% of India with it...

**vasanth** · 06-03-2002

Wll India has an establsihed Nuclear Doctrine of no first use... So no way India will use it first. But if it is used by pakistan.. india will use it.. Thr command distribution is such that once pakistan nukes india(likly the indian leadership in delhi will be wped off). But the different command in Andaman island and other places imediatrly launch the strike... So if pakistan launches it's misiles India can do liitle to stop bombing it back... And i am sure this will never occur and pakistan will never use the nukes...

And who ever said it was freedo fighting oin Kashmir..Zeeshan.. A survey by an british NGO reveals that majority of Kashmiris want to join India.. And as you mentioned it is not a war between india/Kashmir but between India/Pakistan... If pakistan loves Kashmir so much why did it give away a part to China... Is it because that it runs in their blood and the chineed got a blood transfusion from pakistan..

**Clyde** · 06-03-2002

"A survey by an british NGO reveals that majority of Kashmiris want to join India.."

In which case a referendum would solve the problem.

"And as you mentioned it is not a war between india/Kashmir but between India/Pakistan... "

See thats the crazy thing! Why is there going to be a war between India and Pakistan? Because of Kasmiri Terrorists!

" If pakistan loves Kashmir so much why did it give away a part to China"

The reason Pakistan wants Kashmir is because the entire water supply for the country runs through it, and the last time India was in control they shut it off, which meant the whole country had no water.

**vasanth** · 06-03-2002

ok there is a treaty with the UN as a party.. So india cannot scrape it... And some rivers are shared with china by India.. So does that mean India wants to take over that part of China.... And you cannot always say kashmiri terrorists.. the taliban fighters are on the frontline now.. And most of the terrorists shot down in kashmir were pakastanis..

**furrukhsana** · 06-03-2002

So you talked about Kargil. So tell me if India somehow won it then why did it made usa interfere in it to ask Pakistan to withdraw. the truth is india lost the whole war and had to beg usa & other powers to help it put pressure on Pakistan b/c it could not do it for itself.

and you talked about a survey by a british ngo & UN as a paarty in water treaty. so in a way you trust surveys & mediations in disputes. so why not go for the security council's ressolution on kashmir on which both india & pakistan at the time of its passage agreed including the people who your nation cconssiders as heroes, & it calls for a refrendum and refrendum under UN supervision and refrendum on both sides of LoC.Because this seemss to be the best survey by the most authenthetic organiztion of the world. but the indians haave now moved away from their promise of refredum to the kashmiris, b/c the have realised that the kashmiriss want to join pakistan and india is afraid that through refrendum this truth will be clearly visible.

there is no other reason that india has moved away from its promise and is not leting the international community to ask the kashmiris, who are the main party in this dispute, to decide for themselves what is it that they want.